Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

WP:RA

An IP user is committed to evading a recent block (see 1, 2, 3). Filing here as opposed to WP:AIV because I don't think the user's edits are solely spam or vandalism. ipcheck does not see all their IPs as proxies, so filing new IPs here that don't belong at WP:OPP. Also new users that appear to be obvious block evasion of the IP user.

Some common behavior patterns are a particular focus on WP:RA/BAE, misspelling (recent diff example, but widespread), and nonsensical requests (recent diff, see BAE's history for more).

Given this activity has been long-term, I will continue adding IPs/users to this incident for now. Tule-hog (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

168.195.25.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tule-hog (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked, obvious block evasion. Not a proxy but they have found a different telecommunications company. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

2804:389:b171:c588:b869:a3b7:72cf:fcb1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - from Brazil, where IP user is located. Typical request with unrelated link. Tule-hog (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree this is block evasion and have reverted the edit on that basis. It’s an IP with no other editing history in the /64 so let’s just keep an eye on it for now. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Exxxtrasmall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tule-hog (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? by User: Mynxfg

This user, @Mynxfg, has been removing content from the Sebastian Stan page for days. Looking at their edit history, these are literally the only edits they have been making (here) I have reverted their edits in the past without giving them a warning. However, yesterday, I issued the first warning, and today, the second one. (Their Talk page) They have not responded or stopped their actions. The removed content was related to Stan's personal life, which is relevant and properly sourced. Since they continue to remove it without discussion, I thought to address them here. Lililolol (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

They're removing a piece from People supposing a relationship between the subject (Sebastian Stan, by the way) and another woman (Annabelle Wallis; please state what articles are at issue next time) merely holding hands and gathering based on that, and a removed photo from an Instagram post by a photographer at the event, that the two are a couple, along with reading into other PRIMARY Instagram posts that they have a relationship. I see clearly their reason for removal of the source as pure gossip with no confirmation of a relationship. They could definitely had done with describing why in an edit summary (not marked minor) it was removed, but a subject's relationship needs much better sourcing than this piece that might as well be signed 'xoxo Gossip Girl'. Your templated talk page notices (which didn't even mention the page at issue) didn't clarify at all what they did wrong and could've been personalized to ask why the removal was done (I've also notified them of this discussion, which you must do). Nathannah • 📮 19:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I also removed an equivalent poor listicle source on Wallis's own page regarding this; just because they come from magazines you've heard of in People and Elle never means you're free to add any source from them, because it must be confirmed by the subjects themselves; WP:BLP is there to be a guardrail against unsubstantiated gossip. Nathannah • 📮 19:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Still, the user should be bringing it to a talk page if it is repeatedly challenged instead of brute-forcing it. The edit war combined with no communication should warrant measures. 2600:1012:A023:426A:A6E8:ED70:3459:CD (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lililolol, this edit was not vandalism; although I'd still like comment from @Mynxfg, they were completely in the right to remove those sources (which continue to suppose a relationship, not confirm), and as long as Stan and Wallis remain silent on the subject of their relationship, we do the same. Read WP:BLP, please. Otherwise there are two talk pages that are perfectly fine to debate this, which neither party has gone to, as our IPv6 friend pointed out. Nathannah • 📮 17:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, sorry, but it is confirmed. Lililolol (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nathannah Hi, regarding your revert of my edits—according to WP:RSP, People magazine is generally considered a reliable source for BLP. Also, his relationship was confirmed, not just based on "holding hands" on IG. Additionally, I included Us Weekly, which is based on recent events and is also a reliable source. So.. Lililolol (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose that @Lililolol start a talk page discussion in the given article and also notify the other editor of that discussion. If @Mynxfg remains unresponsive while continuing wholesale removals, block that user. 172.56.234.154 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with the encouragement for Mynxfg to comment, and again as I previously said, Elle is certainly a reliable source, along with People, but the latter has equally as much junk gossip as any other unreliable source such as TMZ or Deuxmoi (and as seen in any situation where a celebrity child's first pictures are involved, do participate in checkbook journalism) and the sources must be read through with extreme care to make sure we're not stating a falsehood, and WP:USWEEKLY is a tenuous source by itself. Even if it appears for all intents and purposes that these two are a couple, as long as they have not vocally confirmed it as such in some way such as in an interview or a social media post, we cannot make that judgement through an approximation of sources or someone else making that judgement call through their writing. The two subjects seem to be very private and as long as there isn't confirmation from them, said privacy should be respected per BLP. Nathannah • 📮 23:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

We need more than gossip magazines for details on BLPs. This is an encyclopedia, we don't include every person a subject dates or has a relatiionship with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/fashion/fashion-news/a60990515/annabelle-wallis-style-interview/

https://talkeasypod.com/sebastian-stan/

https://youtu/cannot add proper link/be/zoAGOVvl2yc?si=CVSP4CVY_tECkpNZ

Both mentioning each other in interviews, him saying ILY on TV, her Instagram post https://www.instagram.com/p/DGyRMoUvkV6/?igsh=MXU3b3hpcDVhdGp2NQ==

Plz clarify what more info is needed? And why, as of now, all the other ex partners are referred to based on the gossip magazine timeline for THIS rs. There's never been any more confirmation from either parties, the only gf Stan ever mentioned in an interview by name was Leighton in 2009. 46.53.214.195 (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you linked Harper's Bazarr, as it doesn't mention Sebastian Stan.

What in the TalkEasyPod podcast are you claiming is a source? Your YouTube link is broken. The Instagram post doesn't mention him either. It really looks like you're just posting anything involving her, whether or not it actually supports the claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Podcasts are not reliable sources. Youtube is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

How are these sources any less reliable and full than all other exes, still no answer. Instagram post includes a picture of him. YouTube links cannot be posted here by unregistered users, I specifically made /.../ in it, it's easy to delete this part and check the link - it's his Golden Globes acceptance speech, calling her by name and directly pointing at her in front of the audience and cameras. Her interview mentions her bf, his podcast appearance mentions his gf, both at the time they were "linked" to each other. I'm perplexed what kind of other sources justify the presence of other exes on his page all of a sudden, when for ages all this info was omitted. Where's ANY official enough rs claim? How is People Magazine quoted as the source for them but not for her? 46.53.212.165 (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Paradygmaty

Paradygmaty (talk · contribs) was nearly indefinitely blocked in January for incivility and disruptive page moves. They avoided it by requesting a two-week block and the report was later archived without action. They came back a few days ago and immediately started with the same disruptive behaviour that nearly led to the block: controversially mass-moving pages without discussion. See Kazimierz Górski Stadium, for example, where they essentially reverted last year's RM discussion. Their moves of Stadion Miejski (Nisko), Stadion Miejski (Kielce), Stadion Miejski (Łomża), Stadion Miejski (Starachowice), and Stadion Miejski (Gdynia) were all clearly controversial, either because there was a previous RM that decided on a title or their moves had previously been reverted. Then, today, they requested that User:FromCzech's move of Kramolin, Bulgaria be reverted for seemingly no reason — Paradygmaty had never edited the page before. Presumably, this is a continuation of the retaliatory behaviour mentioned in the January report. I struggle to understand how Paradygmaty even came across the page without digging through FromCzech's contributions.

For these reasons, and because they have apparently not learned their lesson, I'm proposing a one-way ban from interacting with FromCzech and a ban on moving pages without starting a formal discussion. C F A 17:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have also noticed that @Paradygmaty seems to have trouble acting in a civil manner towards other editors. When @CFA templated them earlier this week, the response was to tell @CFA to "stop pestering them." That kind of response does not give me high hopes for continued positive interactions with other wikipedia editors. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Insanityclown1, I haven't looked at the edits that concern CFA but that edit that you point out is really not a terrible talk page response. They just sound irritated, I don't think you needed to give them a warning for that. They also have a lot more editing experience than you have. Now, I'll see if an IBan is warranted here but I'd like to hear from Paradygmaty, too, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

And? Editing tenure means diddly squat when it comes to determining basic civility. Really not sure why you bother bringing that up @Liz other than to try to score some cheap points. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Liz on that talk page response. They just sounded irritated and didn't say the most uncivil thing in the world. If anything, they just dismissed the message, akin to removing warnings. Conyo14 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

On a reread, I'm inclined to agree, and will concede that point. However, my other point still stands that it is frankly pointless to bring up a person's editing tenure other than to try to score cheap points. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Insanityclown1, I have no idea you mean by "scoring cheap points" as I have no need at this point in my career here to score points. I just thought that your message on a very public noticeboard was a little holier than thou ("That kind of response does not give me high hopes") when you actually have very limited editing experience editing here. Typically editors with a lot more experience on this project help with disputes and disagreements on the main noticeboards and I think you should work on building up your own level of experience before judging others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday Paradygmaty mass nominated (in my eyes disruptively) a bunch of RMs. GiantSnowman 18:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Paradygmaty, consistency is not one of our goals. You can start a few requested moves (not nearly so many), but should not use that as an argument and you should accept the result. I haven't checked whether you have done this since the previous discussion but, if so, you should not call people who have different ideas from you vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jastrzębie-Zdrój Stadium, Talk:Kazimierz Górski Stadium, not how you should act at RM. I checked a few others and that exact same attitude and arguments even are across all of the ones currently open. The mass nomination of pages like GiantSnowman noted is disruptive and how they're acting at these RMs makes me think that they need to spend time elsewhere. I checked the page histories of all these articles too and noticed super messy histories; self-reverting page moves from a year ago, completely ignoring past move rationales and discussions, and outright reverting long-stable titles. I think we have some form of infrequent but long-running series of disruptive page moves here that happens in bursts of edits. A topic ban on page moves and RM might be necessary, especially considering the last AN. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Our paths haven't crossed since the last AN, and yet he's clearly stalking me again, and wants to revert my work again for no reason. Based on his history and current RMs, I'm all for him not being allowed to participate in any way in RMs, whether it's proposing them or discussing them. FromCzech (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I must admit that I am genuinely shocked to find myself at the center of yet another public discussion of this nature. I am even more shocked that, rather than engaging in direct dialogue with me, some editors have opted for what feels like a public lynching—one in which my good faith efforts are mischaracterized, and my direct messages are seemingly ignored.

I am deeply surprised that when I privately reached out to GiantSnowman in an attempt to discuss these matters constructively, that conversation was instead escalated to this forum. I am equally shocked that CFA has immediately resorted to accusations of vandalism—an extremely serious charge that I find unwarranted and unfair.

Let me be absolutely clear: I do not claim to be perfect, but my intention behind initiating the Requested Moves (RM) discussions was precisely to clarify a persistent inconsistency in the naming conventions of Polish stadiums. I sincerely believed that this was the most transparent and structured way to address the issue. If there is a more effective approach to resolving these long-standing inconsistencies, I am more than willing to hear it.

I fully acknowledge that it is always easier to criticize than to propose a workable solution. If the community is invested in achieving a consistent and well-defined naming convention for Polish stadiums, I would genuinely appreciate guidance on how best to formalize and standardize this process. My goal has never been to disrupt but rather to seek clarity in a way that benefits Wikipedia as a whole.

As for the claims regarding FromCzech, I find them puzzling. I hold no particular opinion about this user, nor do I feel that there is any lingering tension between us. In fact, I previously extended an apology, which went unanswered. I find it difficult to understand why this is now being framed as an issue of me "stalking" them.

To summarize:

• My actions have been motivated by a genuine desire to standardize an inconsistent naming policy.

• I am more than open to discussing a better way to conduct these discussions.

• I categorically reject accusations of personal animosity or bad faith—my interactions have always been focused on content, not individuals.

• I would appreciate a more collaborative approach rather than public condemnation.

I remain open to feedback and constructive suggestions on how best to move forward in a way that benefits the project. Paradygmaty (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

GPTZero score: 100%. C F A 14:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"I had hoped for a constructive discussion, but dismissing my response this way feels more like an attempt to discredit me rather than address the issue. If there are substantive arguments, I’m open to hearing them Paradygmaty (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You didn't address anything — you just pasted the discussion into ChatGPT, and it gave you a rather vague response. No one has accused anyone of vandalism. How did you come across Kramolin, Bulgaria if it wasn't by digging through FromCzech's contributions? C F A 16:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@CFA, I reached out to you directly in good faith, yet you chose to ignore it. Instead of engaging constructively, you seem more focused on proving a point at any cost. This will be my final statement on the matter—I leave it to the community to judge. What matters most to me is that this discussion has brought attention to inconsistencies in stadium naming conventions, and I hope that leads to a productive dialogue moving forward. Paradygmaty (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, CFA is doing their due diligence with accordance to the disruptive nature you've presented over the past two - three days (possibly more). Conyo14 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

final  Comment: I reached out to both CFA and GiantSnowman on their talk pages in good faith to clarify the stadium naming conventions, but instead of a constructive discussion, I was met with hostility and accusations. CFA dismissed my messages, accused me of using AI-generated responses, and shifted the narrative to personal attacks, while GiantSnowman deflected responsibility. I feel like I was treated as an adversary rather than a contributor, which was disheartening. Paradygmaty (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing was hostile in CFA's interactions with you. They provided you with a way forward, but frankly it seems more like you don't want to listen to what other people are telling you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing was hostile on my talk page post. I suggested they start a central discussion at a relevant WikiProject, and they flounced off. GiantSnowman 21:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Noting that in your discussion, the user seems to be listening to your advice so the "final" comment above is quite the 180. Conyo14 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Quite - when I wouldn't tell them exactly what to do (because I have no skin in the game on the issue), they said "I'll proceed with the broader discussion as suggested". When I then repeated a suggestion of a centralised topic, they said "I'll step back and leave the chaos to you all". Bizarre! GiantSnowman 21:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Propose a 30 day block I think that @Paradygmaty has a lot to consider, and a temporary block might be helpful to facilitate that. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

In response to the above comments: I have consistently tried to engage in constructive dialogue on CFA's and GiantSnowman's talk pages. However, in his most recent comment, GiantSnowman manipulated the situation. If you visit his talk page, you'll see that I thanked him for his information, expressed my frustration over the lack of good faith, and wished him good luck. I explicitly stated I was stepping back due to the lack of productive engagement, not out of defiance or avoidance. Despite this, he portrayed my attempt to leave the situation as an attempt to "flounce off," which is an aggressive attempt to undermine me. Over the past few days, I've been reaching out in good faith, writing to others (like @GiantSnowman, like @CFA) in an effort to engage in a productive discussion, and perhaps even asking for guidance on how to proceed. Does this not follow the principle of assuming good faith? In contrast, instead of attempting to understand my intentions, Insanityclown has been poking at me and now is suggesting a 30-day block. This is not how collaboration works on Wikipedia, and it reflects a clear misunderstanding of my actions. Paradygmaty (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want good faith, don't give other's reasons to assume otherwise about you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m open to any suggestions you have on how I can improve my approach. Let's try to work together to resolve this in a positive way. Paradygmaty (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

well for one, apologizing to fromczech for hauling him to the starchamber/ANI for no great reason would be a good start. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I’ll do whatever you suggest, just let me know what exactly you think I should do to resolve this. I’m open to your guidance, as long as we can keep things constructive Paradygmaty (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologise to the editors involved (and mean it), give your proposal re:renaming serious thought, and then go to WT:FOOTBALL as suggested. GiantSnowman 08:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I’m open to apologizing - just let me know which editors specifically and what you believe would be an appropriate way to phrase it. As for WT:FOOTBALL, I’ll take it into consideration and address it in due time. Paradygmaty (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh my word, are you serious?! If you do not know how to apologise or who to apologise to then you should not be part of this community. GiantSnowman 09:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're responding to ChatGPT generated responses, but I could be wrong. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

In which case, block them until they speak as a human. GiantSnowman 10:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Can you answer me? I will 100% follow your instructions. Paradygmaty (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Then start writing your own replies. C F A 13:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I write it by myself. <3 Paradygmaty (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Then you're either being willfully obtuse, or incapable of comprehending what the problem is. Either one is blockable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I am an experienced user (A user with 2,364 edits. Account created on 7 April 2023.) who has collaborated on numerous occasions. The fact that I am seeking to clarify certain issues and now fully place myself at the community’s disposal - ready to follow any good-faith guidance on how to proceed - demonstrates that if there is genuine willingness to resolve this = we will find a solution. Paradygmaty (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not how normal people speak. GiantSnowman 20:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to deny the fact that there is an issue here, but I strongly suspect that Paradygmaty is not a native english speaker, and that might contribute to some of the problem. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You have been given good-faith guidance on how to proceed. Multiple times. Each time you say "just let me know" "I'm open to any suggestions" etc. in response to the suggestions. And below you say Okay, you are right to Liz - before continuing here exactly as you have been - with responses that are very blatantly either LLM-generated or indistinguishable from such.

Given the WP:IDHT going on here consistently, I've blocked Paradygmaty indef. If they actually start understanding and properly communicating and agree to avoid the behavior that led to this in the future, any admin can unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we can close this one, but I did take the time to provide a final bit of advice to Paradygmaty and suggested that they read the entirety of the thread very thoroughly as well as WP:IDHT before making an appeal to be unblocked. I think they do have the capacity to edit constructively, but they keep getting in front of themself. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Paradygmaty, you went to CFA's and GiantSnowman's talk pages with an idea about a renaming project you wanted to undertake. They responded to you but it seems like you wanted them to take the lead here and do the follow-up work for you or with you while they were not interersted in pursuing this renaming project at all. Ever since then, you have over and over again expressed your disappointment that these editors didn't volunteer to help you with this. They didn't personally attack you like you claim, they were just uninterested in what you wanted to work on. They gave you advice which you haven't taken (going to discuss this at FOOTBALL) and now you've ended up here at ANI.

I think if you want to continue to edit on this project, you have to drop the stick, get over the fact that neither editor responded as you wanted them to and pursue getting a consensus for these renaming changes you think would be an improvement. But get over CFA and GiantSnowman's lukewarm responses because trying to argue that they did something wrong will only get you deeper and deeper in trouble. Focus on the work, not other editors. Other editors may very well not be excited by what excites you and you just have to accept that and move on. And GiantSnowman did give you advice, you should take it instead of beating this dead horse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, you are right. Thanks. Paradygmaty (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Texas IPs representing ban evasion by Rishabisajakepauler

Rishabisajakepauler is banned per three strikes. He has evaded his ban with many IPs from Texas. Recently, he has been very active with a handful of IPs, doing all the things he is known for including requesting redirects to be made so that he can create articles from redirects,[1] and creating articles from redirects.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He is making a mockery of our restriction that only registered users can create articles.

Three weeks ago he shared his thoughts at User talk:64.189.243.210. He understands he is banned, but he wants to edit anyway. He refuses the six-month standard offer as impossibly long.

I am asking for the following IPs to be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC))

• 108.90.220.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 12)
• 67.78.68.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 11)
• 76.227.109.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 11)
• 129.120.67.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 6, blocked once in 2024)
• 24.28.40.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active March 2)
• 65.36.59.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active Feb 16)
• 98.6.144.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (last active Jan 3, blocked in 2024 and 2023)

• Binksternet, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler awaits your SPI report. Cabayi (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Fahrenheit666 on Fort Moore

Fahrenheit666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some necessary background for users not acquainted with the Fort Moore/Fort Benning dispute: The fort was originally named Fort Benning, after a Confederate general. After the George Floyd protests resulted in a change of names in places named after Confederates, Biden changed the fort's name to Fort Moore, after Hal Moore. On March 3, 2025, Trump, as a part of his controversial name changes to "honor American [and Confederate] greatness", restored the old name of Fort Benning. Four days later, Fahrenheit666, who had never edited the article previously, initiated a move war with Swatjester. On the 8th, an RM was opened by Voorts, which Fahrenheit666 began to excessively bludgeon. While the RM was ongoing, Fahrenheit666 edit-warred numerous amounts of times over changing instances of the fort, being reverted twice by Voorts before being blocked from the article for 72 hours. However, Fahrenheit666 continued to disruptively change instances of Fort Moore in other articles to Fort Benning, en masse even after being pblocked. Considering the editor's continued edit-warring and bludgeoning, I think an AP2 ban may be in order. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The RS on all the other articles I edited say those schools are located at Fort Benning. What's disruptive about editing the articles to reflect what the sources say? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not disruptive for someone continue to mass edit other pages doing the same changes that that got them p-blocked from another page, instead of waiting for a discussion to run it's course?LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's irrelevant to the nonsense over the Fort Moore/Fort Benning article move and I don't see why it's disruptive. If all the RS say that, for example, US Army OCS is at Fort Benning, why is it disruptive to edit the wikipedia article to say US Army OCS is at Fort Benning? It's undeniably correct and I'm just not seeing any disruption. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's disruptive because it's been made clear that your change to the title was contested. You are going to other articles and making the exact same contested chnage, only to the text of articles. It's also essentially WP:WIKILAWYERINGLakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

So reliable sources don't actually matter? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What matters is that you are gaming the system. Partial blocks for disrupting an article generally indicate that you probably shouldn't be editing similar articles in the exact same way. Your response is also a complete straw man, as LakesideMiners never even mentioned reliable sources. As an aside, you are bludgeoning beyond belief right now, in this very discussion that is partially about your bludgeoning! I have to say that that does your viewpoint no favors. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

So I'm not allowed to make any argument in favour of my edits? OK... Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You've made more than your fair share of arguments in favor of your edits. We call that bludgeoning a conversation and you were expressly asked by voorts not to do it. If you're unwilling to see that, in the face of the sheer number of people trying to caution you about your behavior, then a TBAN is absolutely in order here.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why can't you just wait until the move discussion has finished? Short-termism is disruptive here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't even understand what the move discussion's for. The name has changed. Why is Wikipedia arguing about whether its article about Fort Benning should say Fort Benning at the top? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Defense.gov says: "The secretary specified no date for the name change, but it took the Army just 25 days to comply with Hegseth's Feb. 10, 2025, memorandum directing the renaming of Fort Liberty." as of less than a week ago, which you're well aware as we've gone over this time and time again. Your statement that the name has changed is a disputed assertion that the DOD does not agree with, not a statement of fact; and you know that. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That isn't an argument based on Wikipedia policy. As a reminder, WP:NAMECHANGES says "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." The name used in RS has changed. There are articles this week about equipment upgrades at Fort Benning, shooting competitions at Fort Benning, drone events at Fort Benning. Every article mentioning Fort Moore since March 3 has been about how it's called Fort Benning now. The name's changed. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, your naked assertion that the name has changed, when there is a direct quote from a reliable source (and not just any reliable source, but the actually relevant authority here) stating that the name hasn't yet changed, is not compelling. If you're suddenly going to claim that is somehow not a policy based argument, we definitely should revisit the numerous times you made direct assertions to said quotes on Talk:Fort Moore. But by all means, do continue to make my point about whether you're arguing in good faith here for me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

But there is not a direct quote from a reliable source stating that the name hasn't yet changed, is there? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not engaging with that. You can scroll up, I literally quoted it. You can disagree with the position, but you cannot argue in good faith that you don't understand why there's a discussion happening. I've said my piece here, and not going to continue to bang my head against a wall in the face of WP:IDHT and WP:TE. Support TBAN from AP92 at a minimum. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You quoted a source that does not say what you are claiming it says. Just like Fort Benning's announcement that the name change is "effective immediately" does not go on, as you claim it does, to say "actually it isn't". Perhaps it's you that needs to have another read at WP:IDHT - and perhaps WP:SYNTH, too. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, consensus certainly isn't built by aggressively refusing to move the article to match the actual name of the post.[8] along with everything above, an AP2 TBAN seems apt. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a very specific recommendation. You've clearly picked up a lot in your six weeks on Wikipedia. Well done. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I, who have been here for six years, with over 20,000 edits, and who administrators have deemed competent enough to become a pending changes reviewer, agree completely with REAL MOUSE IRL, and remind you to not WP:BITE the newcomers. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I would never dream of biting a newcomer. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Fahrenheit666, You've clearly picked up a lot in your six weeks on Wikipedia. Well done is biting a newcomer. Please don't do it again, and especially at a noticeboard. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's the same "specific" recommendation as the original post. Also the appeal to tenure would go over a lot better had you picked up how consensus works in your 9 years on Wikipedia. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm really confused by how consensus works. I always thought it meant discussing things until we find a position everyone can agree on. But if I try to have a discussion I get accused of WP:BLUDGEONING. If I produce sources showing that the name has changed I get told Wikipedia policy doesn't rely on sources. If I point out that WP:NAMECHANGES explicitly DOES rely on sources, i get told a (misrepresented) source trumps Wikipedia policy. So no, you're right; I don't have a clue how consensus works here. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"a position everyone can agree on" an aside but that's wrong, consensus doesn't require that everyone agree. From WP:CONSENSUS "The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group", so sometimes you just have to accept that others don't agree and move on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chicdat,@Fahrenheit666,@LakesideMiners,@REAL MOUSE IRL,@Swatjester and anyone else: immediately stop arguing content here. We don't care. What we care about is behavior. It looks like this is an issue of edit-warring and bludgeoning by Fahrenheit666, which are behavioral issues? F666, I'll give you an opportunity to explain why you don't think what you were doing was edit-warring and bludgeoning. I don't want to hear anything about why you feel you're right on content. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Certainly. I accept that I was in the wrong over the edits to the Fort Moore article that got me the 72-hour ban. I don't accept the arguments being deployed against the move for a moment, but a discussion is underway and I should have waited for that to be resolved before changing the post name in the article.

However, the reason this discussion is happening here is that a user objects to me updating other articles to reflect what the RS are saying. I do not feel that editing, for example, United States Army Airborne School to say it's at the location stated on its own website violates a ban on moving the Fort Moore article.

As for bludgeoning, it seems to me that's rather subjective. If you feel my level of engagement with the discussion is bludgeoning, I will accept that and modify my behaviour. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

To expand on that, the discussion came here because I edited several other articles, not the Fort Moore one. One user then started following me around Wikipedia, undoing my edits. I do not believe the reason they gave for undoing those edits was supported by any Wikipedia policy or by any RS, so I reverted (some of) their reverts. Once. It's my understanding that this isn't edit-warring.Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

In general, and in particular at contentious topics: if you're reverted, go to the talk page and discuss. This goes for everyone, not just you, not just newer users: best practices is when reverted, immediately open a talk page section and start discussion. There is no urgency to "be correct" except in very limited cases, and the name of a military base does not fall within those exceptions. Valereee (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, certainly you've made over a dozen comments in this discussion, so yes, in general that looks like bludgeoning. As a newish user trying to work in contentious topics, you need to understand these are fraught. Experienced editors have very little patience with newbie mistakes and zero patience with what feels like intentional disruption. It's best to make your point once, without snark, and to only comment again if you need to clarify. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. As I said, I'll accept your judgment on that. I note that some of the comments I've made here were in response to direct questions from other users. If I ignore those, can I assume nobody's going to come after me under some obscure rule about ignoring questions? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, in general: you do need to respond to expressed concerns on your user talk. You need to show up at noticeboards if someone drags you there. You don't need to respond to everyone in a discussion at a noticeboard, and I'd recommend you don't unless you think their statement might be important to administrators assessing behavior and is incorrect. That "and" is important, but it's nuanced. That's a difficult judgment call for a newish editor, which is one of the reasons we advise new editors not to edit at CTOPs until they've had a chance to kind of figure out various important wp:policies and guidelines. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted. So it would have been a better idea, on this noticeboard, to make a single, longer comment setting out why I didn't see my edits on those other articles as edit warring, then sit back and watch? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Weeeeell...not necessarily. Short is better. Ideally a comment is just long enough to express your opinion concisely and precisely, and no longer. Writing short is a skill that is very helpful here and is worth developing. I very commonly vomit onto the page, then spend significant time making it shorter and clearer. Before posting, preferably. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

k Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that's just about short enough, but in many situations it can be better to say nothing at all. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

lol...hey 'k' is IMO a reasonable way to say "I understand" when people are telling you you're talking too much. :D Valereee (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd originally written a longer reply, but I took your advice and eventually managed to trim it by 50%. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't care what happens in this discussion but this is legit hilarious, well done. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chicdat, unless I'm somehow overlooking, you didn't provide any diffs? Can you provide bright-line diffs for edit-warring? Valereee (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok. First move, Revert, Re-revert by Fahrenheit666, including second move, second revert by Swatjester, third revert by Fahrenheit666, revert by Technopat, fourth revert by Fahrenheit666 with an uncivil edit summary, same deal. Technopat's next revert stated that this is inappropriate during an active RM, and you're well aware of this. Your behavior is beyond the pale at this point. Stop it. After a series of the same edits, Fahrenheit666 made their fifth revert in two days, which was reverted by Voorts, resulting in their sixth revert, which led directly to the pblock. After Voorts explicitly told them to wait for the RM discussion to close before changing instances of "Fort Moore" to "Fort Benning", they completely ignored the notice. Are these ok diffs? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Minor nitpick -- the revert w/ quote that you're attributing to Technopat is from me actually, just want to be transparent about that for any reviewers.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so @Fahrenheit666, that does appear to be edit-warring at Fort Moore, along with multiple clear warnings and finally a p-block from the article, at which point you started making that change at other articles, and when the p-block expired, you started dropping pointy tags at Fort Moore.

There is a lot of policy/guideline/previous consensus to understand here. This is a contentious topic. There is no exception to the rules against edit-warring for being correct. There's an RM being conducted, which generally requires 7 days. There's no deadline for getting this changed. At your level of experience, we don't expect you to be familiar with all that, but we do expect you to at least be aware there may be policy you aren't familiar with and be willing to slow your roll when other editors are objecting. I am wondering if you may need to stop editing at US politics until you grasp that. Please feel free to respond at necessary length. Valereee (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I do accept I was edit-warring at Fort Moore, and understand why I was banned for it. Clearly, that article will be moved when the process ends and consensus is reached, not before. By "pointy tags" I assume you mean the ones asking for citations about "Fort Moore" which nobody can provide? After adding two (I think - maybe three?) I decided that was a bit childish and stopped; obviously there's the potential to add hundreds of them, which I can see would be disruptive and very annoying.

My understanding is that the RM on the Moore/Benning article only covers that article, and doesn't by its mere existence shut down any updates of other articles. If there's some policy that says it does then I'll abide by that. My concern there, though, would be that people who just don't like the (at this point, indisputable) fact the name has changed could impose another seven-day freeze on improvements across the whole encyclopedia by reverting, and then challenging, any replacement of "Fort Moore" with "Fort Benning", even when it's entirely supported by the sources. Considering how many schools and units are based at Fort Benning, and how many articles link to it, that could go on for years. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, how widely does "contentious" cast its net? I understand the "contentious" aspect of this is US politics, specifically the Trump administration's decision to restore the names of Fort Bragg and Fort Benning. Does that taint every single mention of those names though? Taking the infantry school as an example - to illustrate my point, not to debate whether I'm correct about the facts or not - its homepage is at army.mil/benning. The header on that homepage says "Fort Benning". The subhead is "U.S. Army Fort Benning and The Maneuver Center of Excellence". The Maneuver Center seal on the page says "Fort Benning" on it. The school is clearly at Fort Benning. Given that, I really don't understand how writing "Fort Benning" as the location of the Infantry School is contentious, as opposed to simply a fact some people wish wasn't true.

Fahrenheit666 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It's the topic -- American Politics 1992-present -- that is contentious. Everything within that topic is considered part of the CTOP.

I don't want to get into content, but you simply cannot try to prove X is at Y by look at government URLs or homepages or seals or any other piece of original research. You could argue those as WP:BLUE, but if people are saying, "Yes, but is it actually official yet?" then BLUE doesn't help. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, but if a website run by the entity that owns both X and Y says "X is at Y" does that prove X is at Y? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

No. It proves the entity is saying so. If what an entity is saying is controversial, we go by what reliable sources independent sources say because what an entity says about itself is not always true. We don't, for instance, source to corporate websites or personal blogs anything that is at all controversial. P&G says their packaging is "delightful". Wikipedia is not going to take their word for it.

Please stop having discussion in two places. At this point you're bludgeoning ANI. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

(EC) Well, as a practical matter, I doubt we're talking years. I could certainly see weeks, but generally (generally!) when a parent article moves, links to that article get changed at some pace. Within a CTOP like AP2, often at light speed, especially if the original issue has a highly politicized component, which obviously this one does. But generally at worst there would be the need for a second RfC on "Now that we've changed Moore > Benning at the parent, is there consensus for making that change at other articles?"

Please don't assume the only reason people would object is due to JDLI. Unless they're actually saying so, that's an assumption of bad faith. There could be any number of reasonable policy-based opinions well-intentioned experienced editors could have on something like this. Some seem to be asking whether the name has actually officially changed yet. You can privately think all you want that JDLI is the reason, but making that accusation is not okay. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There certainly are people saying the name hasn't officially changed yet, but the evidence being cited for that includes a statement that begins "Fort Moore is renamed Fort Benning, effective immediately". So it's actually quite hard to AGF there. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't care. That's content, not behavior. You need to stop making the same argument over and over again, even if you think you're right. If you can't shrug and walk away when consensus doesn't go your way as fast as you think it should, AP92 may not be a good fit for you at this time. Valereee (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm not trying to argue the facts of the matter here, just using it to illustrate why I'm finding this so frustrating and confusing. Say someone was citing a document that says "Lemons are yellow" as evidence that lemons are in fact blue. Would you find that frustrating? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a difference of acceptance and interpretation of sources, which is an extremely common argument at most CTOPs. It is always frustrating for those on both sides because both think their arguments are being misstated/ignored/misinterpreted by the other, and I can absolutely assure you that everyone working there is feeling some level of frustration. Frustration is a part of working at any CTOP. That's one of the reasons we advise less experienced editors to learn policy outside of CTOPs: so by the time they're dealing with that frustration, at least they've already got a solid grounding in policy. Valereee (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I actually took the trouble to look up the policy that was cited as a reason not to move the article, WP:NAMECHANGES. It says that if reliable sources are using the new name, Wikipedia should reflect that. They are. It doesn't. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

And I've told you, multiple times now, that at ANI, we don't care whether you're right. Given the bludgeoning here just today, I am becoming less and less sure you will be able to stop this behavior at AP92. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to thank you personally for being so patient and understanding, but this whole experience has been intensely frustrating and unpleasant. I'm going to step away from editing Wikipedia at least for a while, because life's too short for this shit. Thank you again and I'm sorry this has taken so much of your time. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Being right isn't enough Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Bump. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, I'm hoping maybe this editor is starting to get it, but maybe a logged warning for bludgeoning at a CTOP? Valereee (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Years of original research from London IPs

• 2A02:C7C:5079:A200:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in the UK has been contributing for years, making hundreds of edits all of which violate the WP:No original research policy. The current /64 range started in May 2022 with this edit, and continues through today.[9][10] The person has been given a bunch of warnings, including Level 4 warnings,[11][12][13] but has never used a talk page. Can we block the /64 to bring them to discussion?

The person started doing this earlier. I found similar activity from June 2018 with the nearby IP Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:8ADF:1B00:95D0:41A8:467B:AB8D. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Supporting rangeblock for failure to communicate until the user replies here or to an editor talk page. Looks like the majority of the edits in the range were reverted. 172.56.234.154 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Support Rangeblock. Who knows how many articles have been wronged by original research. DotesConks (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Since this is both a WP:OR and WP:FTD problem, I would recommend a block of the /64 range from article space, that way they can still post messages on talk pages as well as this discussion should they figure out how to use talk pages, while being blocked from editing articles directly. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This IP range is Sky Broadband which has about 6 million users in the UK. These edits just seem to be bickering about pop music and so are of little importance. Blocking so many users for this reason would be an absurd over-reaction. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  IPv6 /64 ranges cover only 1 location/device, the full sky range covers billions of /64 ranges. It's effectively the same as blocking 1 IPv4 address. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  And even if this IP range was bigger than a /64, remember, what actually matters is the weight of the bad edits against the good edits, not the theoretical maximum number of IP addresses. If a large IP range makes 50 vandalism/misinformation edits and 2 good edits every month, then it should be rangeblocked even if it is at the cost of those one or several editors making good edits on that range. Affected innocent users on a blocked range have the option to use WP:ACC to create an account and get around that range block if they want to continue editing.
  I have seen some really large (like, /16 IPv4) ranges where 90-99% of the edits were all coming from just that one person, despite it being such a wide IP range. Kinda crazy, I know. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support To be fair, I don't think the whole of Sky UK's user base will be blocked as a result? It'd be an important reassurance. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  The range has been pblocked from article space since yesterday afternoon, so if it did block everyone on Sky, I'm sure somebody would have read the block notice and come here to complain by now REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  IDK, I did find that the entirety of the Shard in London (tallest building in W. Europe) had been blocked by one of these trigger-happy blocks a while back and it took a while to surface. FOARP (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Talsta long pattern of questionable editing

Talsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is a long pattern of questionable editing that IMO warrants a closer look. Random vandalism here. Has had a number of final warnings over the years. Has limited engagement with their talk page. DaHuzyBru (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

For someone with over 7000 edits, that’s worryingly blatant vandalism. I would definitely like to see a response here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

They are apparently ignoring this thread... Anyway, only 6% of their edits have an edit summary, which is extremely low. A temporary block from articles is warranted until they explain the edits. 84.245.120.101 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I was planning on doing so-- done now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Anna Drozdowska - possible conflict of interest

The page on Anna Drozdowska was nominated for deletion. I attempted to improve it, but the article's creator User:Module100 reintroduced the same issues. I manually reverted the new changes and, thinking there might be a language barrier, moved to the talk page.

Ignoring a few digs they've taken at my grammar and the comment "little bit silly, are you having bad day?", I've noticed hints of article ownership in their responses.

Checking their contributions, this is the only page they’ve ever created or edited. When I asked about a conflict of interest, they replied the subject is a "friend of a friend." While that alone might not be a conflict of interest, their singular focus on this page is concerning.

I referred them to COI guidelines and explained that the article should have gone through Articles for Creation process, to which they responded:

I will read your message carefully and I am going to chat with other editors , cause I found you a little bit of too much… I want you to stop writing or editing my article s and I am going chat with other editors, leave me for a now if you can.

While I suspect the page on Anna Drozdowska will be deleted, I don't feel this user will understand why or is taking on board the comments about article ownership or conflict of interest, and depending on what they mean by "conferring with other editors", this could also raise another issue.

Can I escalate this issue please? ash (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ashlar, Bbb23, Joyous!, and Wikishovel: I must admit this first thought here was "OK Ash, as you wrote, this page is likely to be deleted, Module100 is a single purpose account, and when and if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Drozdowska has a delete outcome, the problem will solve itself, no reason to ask for escalation, just wait it out". That first thought was wrong. Please see User talk:Anna Ania Drozdowska - this may well indicate something that does require escalation. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Aye, the responses on that talk page are curiously similar to, and just as incomprehensible as, those of Module100. Ravenswing 14:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

While I think a larger action is necessary per @Shirt58 & @Ravenswing's comments, I have taken the interim step of partially blocking Module100 from the article and AfD to allow consensus to develop, I will leave a note on their Talk. Star Mississippi 21:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think Topas510 might be a sock of Module100. I went ahead and opened up a sockpuppet investigation on the two. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Module100 and several other accounts blocked as socks by 0xDeadbeef. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

GlobalMindSphere seemingly unaware disruption

I don't know how better to deal with this—GlobalMindSphere (talk · contribs) is making slow-drip, deleterious copyedits to History of science despite my reversions and talk page messages. I don't want them blocked, but I seemingly don't have a way of stopping their disruption and it seems they won't stop until they've gotten to the bottom of the article. Remsense ‥ 论 07:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what he's doing. The first two edits that you reversed just look like he put in paragraph breaks. (Also, it would probably be easier on your nerves if you just let him finish and then revert.) If he's not going back to look, he probably has no idea that you're reverting his edits.

But are his changes really disruptive? ash (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph breaks, as noted to them previous to today on their talk page, are leaving bare paragraphs lacking inline citation. Remsense ‥ 论 09:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Good day Remense,

I understand you have a concern regarding my paragraphing edits. As I understand paragraphing is based on discussion context, if the context changes or a new major point is introduced, a new paragraph is justified. The inline references are not based on context per se, and may be applicable in the wider context of the discussion, thus may be valid for several paragraphs.

Once new references are introduced, we may assume those will remain valid until new references are offered.

If we fail to paragraph based on context of discussion, and are more concerned about references, the paragraphs becomes tediously long and makes for very difficult reading.

I'm far from trying to be disruptive and are spending several hours working my way through an article and ensure I'm completely understanding and following the discussion, and try and represent clarity as far as I can. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The preference on Wikipedia is for inline citations, ie a citation for every sentence. In that article, the citations appear to be at the end of the paragraph (which used to be the way we referenced when I was in uni). When you insert a line break, you're are inadvertently separating part of the material from the source that backs it up. I don't know anywhere on Wikipedia where one source back up multiple paragraphs - we repeat the inline citation. When people cite a single source for an article, a tag is added to the page to say that inline citations are needed. So I think he's right - your edits are inadvertently disruptive or you're too attached to your own principle. If you're going to insert paragraphs breaks for readability, you should copy the citation before you publish. But honestly, are the paragraphs really that necessary? ash (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I've had a look at your contributions and they all seem to be "slow-drip, [pedantic] copy edits". Are you try to boost your edit count or something? ash (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you're referencing – "slow dripping" → not at all, I don't care about the number of edits.

I'm simply working on an article and once I've made a change, I save the change, and continue through the rest of the article to allow a resync incase others are also working on the article to allow everyone to stay in sync.

If this is problematic – as I can clearly understand I may have ten or more edits per article.

Calling me pedantic, I do not mind, that's my nature - something is either right or not. I however do not scrutinise someones word choice or sentence construction unless I clearly consider it to be problematic.

Most of my edits are: punctuation, paragraphing and incomplete information — i.e. using acronyms without clarity, and a reference to the acronym helps, but it must be clear from the text.

To improve my editing habits, I will limit myself to one save per subsection.

I'm looking forward to suggestions of how I can improve my contribution and avoid frustration to others. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@GlobalMindSphere: If you intend to copyedit a page with high visibility such as History of science, which has 660 people watching the page and over 12,000 monthly views, you will have better results if you copy the source text to a sandbox (with attribution) and work through making revisions at your own pace. Then, you can provide a link to your proposed version of the article on the talk page and receive input there before implementing the changes. Reconrabbit 13:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted and thank you for the suggestion, I will use the sandbox in the future for edits with discussions. .

Appreciated. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Pardon my asking, but are you using an LLM or AI? King Lobclaw (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That seems a little untoward. This editor has a fairly straightforward style of writing. Reconrabbit 14:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, some of their comments are very LLM ("I'm looking forward to suggestions of how I can improve my contribution and avoid frustration to others") though I'm not convinced they are purely using AI. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of LLMs try to adopt those "academic" styles of writing. The key is usually a bunch of corpo-speak "I understand," "I look forward to" and "I will endeavor to avoid doing X in the future". Lots of flowery speech.

I don't think that's happening here, given the overuse of line breaks and some rather poor grammar in spots. It's fair to ask, but I don't see the hallmarks of an LLM here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If you've got any other insults to throw at me, I'm listening. You sound like a (Personal attack removed). Please take a break and catch some life before you choke on your own spewed insults. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While the question of AI use may or may not have been called for, there weren't insults in it. This reply on the other hand was entirely uncivil at best. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 21:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a good way to catch a block for incivility. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

To be more firm: like I said on @GlobalMindSphere's talk page, it's more than a preference. The problem you think you are solving with paragraph breaks (which IMO are often still unnecessary) is much lesser than the problem you are creating by leaving bare paragraphs uncited, which are liable to being tagged as lacking citations or ultimately removed from the article, or to the status of good and featured articles being called into question.

I don't know why you've asked what you can do to improve, given I already made this clear: you need to either ensure material retains proper inline citation, or you need to stop making these copyedits. You also need to change whatever you are doing so you can adequately respond to other editors trying to communicate with you about your edits. Remsense ‥ 论 18:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Have heard you load and clear and I'm fully aware of the greater implications, and I'm taking this discussion very seriously. You've made your point and I now consider this discussion closed. Will revert with specific questions if I have any other issues that needs clarity. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

You also need to go back over the pages you’ve previously edited and make sure you’ve copied the citations. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

GlobalMindSphere is still inserting breaks where they don't need to be. This example splits one line into two inside a wikilink making it much more awkward, simply to shrink the column size.

At this point, I think GMS needs blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The are not line breaks, please read my change notice —

→Techniques and Tools: & →Institutions, organizations, and societies: – <br/> inserted to limit group display width requirement GlobalMindSphere (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe take a look at HTML element § br? Remsense ‥ 论 18:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

These <br/> was applied to the two Template column groups to achieve

i.s.o:

Techniques and tools

&

Institutions, organizations, and societies

to the following:

Techniques <br/> and tools

&

Institutions, <br/> orgranizations, <br/> and societies.

Especially for the last group this drastically reduce the width required for the display for the group header allowing more room for the display of the group lists. GlobalMindSphere (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Please also take note that the person responsible for this template expressed his appreciation for the change:

‪GeogSage‬ thanked you for your edit on ‪Template:Geography topics‬.

/* Techniques and Tools */ & /* Institutions, organizations, and societies */ – <br/> inserted to limit group display width requirement

‪GeogSage‬‪Geography topics‬ GlobalMindSphere (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

We are not confused as to why you think your edits are good ideas. That is not what HandThatFeeds said they were concerned about above. What you think you are trying to accomplish is not remotely mysterious to us. This is not snark: you are already quite good at telling us that.

Frankly, the emerging pattern here seems to be your often appearing oblivious to any secondary issues your edits may create, if you are not yourself interested in that dimension of things (say, ensuring verifiability or avoiding bizarre links). It does not seem that you have really read or skimmed the policies and guidelines that you have been linked so far, because that would tend to garner a more holistic sense of what to watch out for, to avoid unwittingly creating certain classes of issues down the line. Remsense ‥ 论 18:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The first change only effect the display of the link ->

| group2 = Techniques

and tools

the second change has no links attached ->

| group3 = Institutions,
organizations,
and societies GlobalMindSphere (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

And I'm saying those changes were not helpful and part of the pattern of you inserting these breaks where they are unnecessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, edit warring, Bludgeoning, POV pushing, personal attacks, and incivility from Moxy

Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s behavior while editing the United States article is marked by disruptive editing trying to erase any mentions of Indian country from the United States. User frequently removed multiple references to Indian country, Indian tribal governments, and Indian reservations despite the talk page consensus. During this time the user also removed multiple images related to the 1969 Moon landing and a map of all Indian reservations. A talk page consensus was reached. Still, this user continued edit warring with multiple other users against the consensus on the talk page [14] [15] [16] [17]. Said user engaged in bludgeoning, POV pushing, and multiple personal attacks on the talk page and in the edit summaries. The user did not cite any supporting facts and only engaged in disruptive discussion, although there was plenty of constructive discussion held by other editors.

User repeated and escalated personal attacks after being warned not engage in personal attacks. [18] [19] [20] User reverted a simple accurate sentence about 49 continental US states and Hawaii that was being discussed on the talk page. Their only explanation for this edit warring was a personal attack with the false allegation that there was no discussion about Alaska on the talk page.[21] User then refused to engage in the substance behind their reversion, preferring to make another personal attack. [22] This is a clear violation of the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle — there is no Bold, Revert, Disruptive Edits and Personal Attacks Cycle that is accepted in Wikipedia. --Plumber (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit weird that there are several people on the talk-page telling you they disagree with your edits and no one saying they agree with your edits, isn't it? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User edits are getting disruptive at USA article ....resulting in many editors having to clean up and revert changes WP:BOOMERANG]

Lets begin with lead and "Mention of Indian reservations and tribes in first paragraph of lead"

• Original addition Feb17th --Plumber
• Reverted same day - not by me
• Added back the Feb 18th -Plumber
• removed again March 5th again not by me
• Re added again Mar12th with zero attempt by Plumber to start a conversation.

Talk:United States#Mention of Indian reservations and tribes in first paragraph of lead (talk start 12th by thrid party with no support)

• Removed same day by me!
• rRstored same Plumber
• removed by me same day by me i think
• added back same day Plumber
• removed again not by me.

Map and fake consensus Map added here ....map removed not by me map restored this edit also claims a consensus dispite what is being said at Talk:United States#Alaska in the lead. Moxy🍁 01:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks. On a side note, "continental United States" and "contiguous United States" are not the same thing, and Alaska is not located south of Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

As seen by page history many trying to keep up with edits that are simply wrong. Moxy🍁 01:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This complaint is unfounded and should be closed by an administrator. There is nothing actionable here. The original complainant should also look at a map of North America again if they think Alaska is somehow south of Canada or in any way part of the contiguous United States. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This complaint is entirely unfounded. The "facts" and arguments presented here are so misleading and inaccurate that it takes an awful lot of assuming good faith to believe that Plumber might merely be confused and wrong rather than intentionally dishonest. CAVincent (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to invoke any boomerang, but just wanted to stress further that Plumber's editing style seems to be one that will attract concerns and challenges like those from Moxy. Edit sprees like this to Jesus are not inherently wrong, but they are imposing a lot on one of our most mature articles—I am being generous, given some of the material they altered has comments saying to seek consensus for changes first, which they did not. (As stated there, I found all of their edits to be either unnecessary or unhelpful.) If one is to be this cavalier, they have to be able to handle being swatted down with some frequency.

That's not to say their editing is inherently disruptive, but if one does not handle routine criticism and being on the "losing side" of disputes or the "outside looking in" well, it will become disruptive very quickly. Remsense ‥ 论 09:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Various anon IPs closing AfDs in breach of WP:NACIP

2 different IPs 67.87.122.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.199.86.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are making very similar disruptive edits in closing AfDs that really is turning into vandalism. They have been warned on their talk page. User talk:68.199.86.139. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

closing AFDs isn’t vandalism and they’re closed according to consensus. A lot of editors close AFDs all the time. Anonymous 02:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.244.148.106 (talk) blocked IP sock

174.244.148.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also now joined in. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

67.87.122.110 blocked x 3 years w/TPA revoked - 68.199.86.139 blocked x 1 year. Pages protected x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

174.244.148.106 blocked x 1 month by Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Ad Orientem. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• It's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver if anyone has time for paperwork. Star Mississippi 03:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these IPs are BCD, BCD always closes discussions in the exactly same identical way as "No consensus" and some of these closures were more amateurish, as if the IP editor wasn't sure of what they were doing. Also, BCD does multiple AFD early closures all at the same time for the same day. They are easily undone and usually is a registered account. But regardless, these closures all needed to be undone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It may or may not be. This morning's round definitely was the usual nonsense. The "according to consensus" is my BCD tell, which our now blocked friend weighed in with above. Thanks all who were active and caught the latest spree. Star Mississippi 15:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• •  Done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Their closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uzi_Vishne didn't get reverted, so I brought it to DRV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

2600:1001:B1C0:0:0:0:0:0/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is engaged in the same activity. Could someone please block? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell blocked this for 1 week, but I think a longer block (consistent with the other IP blocks) is warranted due to the extent of the disruption. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem handled (TY!)

Currently cleaning up their page creations. If anyone has an objection to the speedy as vandalism, let me know as yes it's IAR but DNFTT Star Mississippi 15:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they are running amok. I'm bumping any blocks that are less than 3 months. I also turned the range block into an anon to mitigate possible collateral damage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Also note that they may now be trying to impersonate admins, see User talk:Ad Orientem#Is this really you?. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• To any non-admin patroller, first of all: THANK YOU! Second of all, don't worry about DRV for their closes, just revert. It's vandalism and you're in the clear. Star Mississippi 16:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, I've seen similar behavior at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raegan_Revord_(3rd_nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

they unfortunately hit AfDs with regularity. I thought for a second that we had yet another Revord discussion. Yikes! Star Mississippi 18:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And now an account Special:COntributions/Bbe23 impersonating bbb23. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, there is the pronoun-thing... ;) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Self-trout I accidentally put in the wrong template. I am now involved as well, by reverting some of their closes. Recommend the WP:RBI page for the admins in this case. Be on the lookout for more admin impersonation.. as they will return. Codename AD ^talk 19:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Star Mississippi, Ad Orientem, The Bushranger, and HJ Mitchell: They're back as Special:Contributions/2600:4041:5F7A:C800:C585:C337:2643:9F69. Does it need SPI. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Fortuna imperatrix mundi /64 Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  They'll be back. As I understand it, BCD uses mobile and public WiFi connections so it won't take long to find a new IP. RBI is the best approach. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• They returned, and they are doing impersonation of CFA. @Star Mississippi, The Bushranger, Ad Orientem, and HJ Mitchell: Could someone do the honors please. User:CFA II is BuickCenturyDriver.

Codename AD ^talk 17:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeffed by HJ Mitchell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was offline. We're training for the Olympics in Whack a Mole. Star Mississippi 22:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Sunnya343 from initiating airport & airline destination deletion discussion

This is a chronic, slow-simmering behavioural issue with User:Sunnya343. Sunnya343 initiated 4 identical/similar discussions in 15 months around whether airport and airline destination tables should be included.

1. September 2023 in Village Pump
2. March 2024 in an AfD
3. April 2024 in Deletion review of previous AfD
4. January 2025 RfC in WP:NOT

Every time, the result was "consensus to keep", "no consensus to keep/delete" or "endorse the keep". Note that the same issue was raised at 4 different venues, exhibiting the textbook definition of forum shopping. During the most recent discussion in January 2025, after I left Sunnya343 with a warning for their behaviour and they acknowledged, two days later the user tried to unilaterally withdraw the RfC to prevent a discussion that was steering towards reaching a consensus. Four other users contested Sunnya343's withdrawal [23][24][25], with one explicitly saying I'm concerned that the early withdrawal was because consensus was so overwhelmingly against both, and there will be another attempt to forum shop in the near future.[26] The withdrawal was reversed and clear consensus was reached yet again. The pattern has become apparent that Sunnya343 refuses to "get the point".

As everyone can see in the above diffs, considerable amount of volunteer time was sunk into the discussions each time to arrive at the same outcome. Based on past behaviour and barring a topic ban, I believe that Sunnya343 will continue and waste more of volunteer's time in the future on same kind of discussion.

Therefore, I am proposing a topic ban to be applied to Sunnya343 from initiating airport or airline destination table discussion in any namespaces or community processes (broadly construed). However (and for greater clarity), Sunnya343 may participate in these discussions/votes if another editor initiates these discussions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban, but I'm not so sure they should be able to participate in the discussions either as I'm leery of filibuster and bludgeoning. Star Mississippi 16:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any kind of sanction. Four similar discussions in 15 months isn't a lot, especially cause the Village Pump topic found consensus that there needs to be secondary RS mentioning a destination to justify its inclusion. Below is a content overview of the RfCs and why I think they were justified in starting them, but since AN/I is for behaviour I collapsed the text.

content overview

With that in mind the March 2024 AfD seems appropriate and in good faith as Sunnya343 identifies many lists where the consensus from the Village Pump RfC isn't being adhered to. I clicked on a random one (List of Air Caraïbes destinations) and there only 8 out of the 20 destinations have a WP:RS citation, and a lot of those citations come from RoutesOnline.com which describes itself as "The Routes business is focused entirely on aviation route development and the company's portfolio includes events, media and online businesses." It is not a news organisation, it is a company that has a vested/financial interest in highlighting the existence or non-existence of air routes in hopes of helping airports/airlines fill those routes. This puts into question how "R" that Source is. I think @Sunnya343 has a point in the March 2024 RfC, these lists are just catalogues of previous and current destinations that are obviously taken from the airlines' websites with citations added as an afterthought. They are also full of language that you'd expect from an ad, here's the List of British Airways destinations article: "British Airways serves destinations across all six inhabited continents." Did BA marketing team write the prose? The March 2024 RfC came to no consensus so I don't see how a review of it can be considered disruptive. Sunnya343 January 2025 RfC in WP:NOT makes the mistake of bundling two separate articles, with different issues and policy concerns, into the same RfC. That is why WP:RFC says that RfCs should be simple and about one issue. Editors were right to defend the inclusion of one of the articles in the RfC, but I think a case for deletion could have been made for the other one (based on WP:NOTADVERT.

--

I think Sunnya343's heart is in the right place, perhaps a bit eager, but they do seem to start discussions (and participate in them) in good faith. They care about airports and air routes a lot, but so what? Shouldn't editors ideally be interested in the topic area they edit?

--

@OhanaUnited The only attempt you seem to have made to communicate this issue to Sunnya343 is your response to a topic on their talk page where your first sentence is: "Just so you know (and consider this as an advanced warning), after the conclusion of this RfC, I am intending to start a TBAN discussion on your forumshopping behaviour around initiating airport and airline destination deletion discussion." Sunnya343's response was not combative or confrontational. Even an admin, @FOARP, said they don't support a TBAN and that they don't see a TBAN passing based on "4 discussions in 15 months".

Sunnya343 needs guidance, not punishment. It says on the top of this page "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" This is neither an urgent incident (2 months passed without incident since your warning) nor a chronic behavioral problem. I hope @OhanaUnited withdraws this ANI report before editors light their torches and sharpen their pitchforks, in order to save everyone some time and a good faith editor from a TBAN in their topic area of interest. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any kind of sanction. In my humble opinion this looks like bludgeoning a valid concern/discussion. I have my concerns too over these listings (it is remarkable how many low-cost airlines have long listings without sources compared with "regular" airlines) but the consensus is to keep the listings. However, consensus can change, so stopping those discussions and hammering one user involved is not a good plan. The Banner talk 14:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Confusion as to why this is being brought now - the behaviour complained about is four discussions in 15 months, the most recent of which was already 2 months ago. FOARP (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I was travelling for work in remote places for better part of last month with limited internet access. Moreover, the RFC only closed three weeks ago. And I don't want this topic ban discussion to run in parallel while the RFC was still open to avoid any "contamination" or influence the RFC discussion that focuses on the nominator instead of the policy. The fact that Sunny343 tried to short-circuit the RFC by withdrawing while consensus was being reached demonstrated pointiness and failure to observe & respect community processes. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  ”only three weeks ago” - please go and look at the header of this page to see what it’s for.

  I’m also confused as to what your objection was about the most recent discussion. You apparently both didn’t want it started but also didn’t want it to be withdrawn. Either this discussion was a waste of time in which case withdrawing it was fine, or it wasn’t, in which case bringing it wasn’t objectionable. FOARP (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• I stopped following the discussion after I withdrew it, so I didn't realize several people in addition to OhanaUnited were opposed to the withdrawal. I'm sorry for not responding to you all. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Normal rookie

Normal rookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Anwar Ibrahim cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This editor continually reverts my changes (IP 183 and 118) on Anwar Ibrahim cabinet, without providing adequate reason. This behavior clearly falls under the issues listed in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. During our discussion here, instead of addressing my concerns, the editor dismissed my question and focused on my status as an editor, attempting to assert authority (pulling rank).

This behavior also extends to the article Anwar Ibrahim, where my changes, for which I clearly provided an explanation, were reverted here without an explanation. 183.171.113.29 (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Normal rookie, the statements "no need change on the article, is perfect" (diff) and "<...> Stop editing on Anwar Ibrahim cabinet, no need improvement" (diff) and then reverting 9 of the IP user's edits in a row with no explanation, including at least one edit which appears to be clearly in good faith and has improvements (diff), is not compatible with possessing editing privileges. This behavior is concerning coming from an editor with your tenure (3 years) and edit count (19k). (Non-administrator comment) —Sirdog (talk)

I know, but the user continue editing the article, without stop. Normal rookie (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The IP is allowed to edit the article, as they explained to you. I'll note for any administrator reviewing this that they were given a warning back in 2023 for WP:OWN in relation to Anwar Ibrahim cabinet which was not acknowledged (diff). Rookie's talk page is littered with warnings within the 30 to 45 day mark about various things, such as inappropriate WP:RFPP requests, a reversion without explanation until pressed for them, and cut-and-paste moving. This may also be a WP:CIR issue. —Sirdog (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned, they are absolutely allowed to edit the article. You do not get to declare it "perfect". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruption at RFD

• 112.207.123.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.29.77.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ongoing disruption at RFD: spurious and baseless nominations, including to sockpuppet categories [27][28]. I am moving this from SPI, where the original report stated:

The IP nominated Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pokamona. And the other IP is only commenting on CFDs in support. [29]

[30]

In general their behavior is fairly suspicious to be nominating sockpuppet categories. ^SMason_Garrison 03:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Moving here, since this is not really a matter for sockpuppetry investigation. MarioGom (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!@MarioGom I was on the fence between the ANI and sockpuppet.^SMason_Garrison 11:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Inactive since 15 December 2024, but 176.40.228.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can be thrown into the mix. Narky Blert (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Can someone provide the SPI this was originally copied from? The first one sure looks like a sock to me. -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I have neither an elephant's memory nor an eagle's eyes, but have a sneaking suspicion that someone with one or both might be able to merge some longstanding SPI threads and categories... Narky Blert (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a snaking suspicion? EEng 09:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/120.29.77.232 ^SMason_Garrison 23:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so not already organized under any particular other sockmaster. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing from User TarnishedPath

Normally wouldn't file this, but this user has explicitly said he would not yield unless brought here [31], so here it is.

I'll try to summarize best I can. There is a discussion/quasi-RFC going on on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. The page has a template broadly outlining different past established consensuses made by the community for the subject matter. At one point, an editor unilaterally edited the template to add the word "exclusively" to one of the consensus, (despite it not being in its 2021 RFC closing) and then immediately posted a discussion comment with that same word and used the template as backing, without mentioning that they had just edited it. (They said it was a BOLD edit, that more clearly reflected the 2021 RFC in their eyes).

I, along with another editor, pointed out that doing this to templates was clearly frowned upon per WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace, which states "Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." We also disagree with they're assertion that it is more accurate, especially when it's without broader community discussion as called for by guidelines, and was seemingly done just to strengthen a party's argument in a debate. User @TarnishedPath ignored this, and reinstalled the change. On that basis, and because there was at the very least a dispute, I reverted per WP:STATUSQUO. He again ignored this, and, despite the fact that it is against policy, added it back in, saying to be taken to AN. I do not want to revert again because I don't want to get into an edit war. I generally never revert more than twice.

He has also recently participated in edit warring on the main COVID-19 lab leak theory page, which I warned him for. (I again did not want to revert more than twice. He did not explicitly break 3RR like I originally thought, he "only" reverted 3 times in one day.) Unfortunately, the warning appears to have done no good.

Lastly, he is continuing to post on my personal talk page (mostly in direct retaliation for me warning him) despite the fact that I've kindly asked him not to in the past for posting erroneous messages. [32] and he has said that he is aware of this request and yet does so anyway. That's why this isn't just in the normal edit warring noticeboard. I don't know if that qualifies as harassment or if a long-term block is appropriate, but this blatant disregard of policy, particularly WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace, is incredibly frustrating and I think WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and I see no other choice since he demanded AN.

TLDR: Requesting help, clear violation of WP:STATUSQUO, possible harassment and overall battleground behavior. Just10A (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, TP has posted just the once to your talk page when they shouldn't have, which hardly falls under WP:HARASS (repeated offensive behavior, my emph.). I suspect that you didn't take it to ANEW because you were (correctly) afraid that you might be equally sanctionable. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

He did it twice, and in direct retaliation to me warning him of edit warring. But I agree, that's not the meat and potatoes here. That's why I said I wasn't sure. He also might be WP:BLUDGEONING the talk page discussion at this point, as pointed out by @Horse Eye's Back. Just10A (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You're talking about the 3RR warning. The other was a CTOPS alert, and anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template. Indeed, it is neccesary that editors are so alerted, and is intended to be a useful reminder to them. If you assumed good faith (as you are demanding from TP), you would appreciate that... actually, the 3RR warning is also an essential precursor to a noticeboard filing. Per WP:NOBAN, a user cannot avoid... notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to. So it looks like, actually, there was little or no harassment. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, I agree. Its just the cherry on top of general battleground behavior. Again, keep in mind that this was directly retaliatory of my warning. Just10A (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, that's an aspersion, as they were arguably two necessary administrative templates. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if thats the case, but I figured the fact it was *2 minutes* after his warning reply got it pretty much into WP:SPADE territory. Just10A (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Just10A: to be clear CTOP awareness is required before there can be any sanction. Provided an editor is clearly editing within a CTOP area, and is unaware or at least might be, then there should be no question about giving a CTOP alert especially not a justified first CTOP alert. While tit-for-tat alerts are dumb because someone who has given a CTOP alert is themselves taken as aware that isn't what happened here. Also you say "2 minutes" as if it proves some sort of retaliation but in reality it could easily be just you both started to give notices at the same time and neither of you knew the other was doing the same thing. This is especially the case if this warnings came very shortly after you both were editing the article which resulted in the warning. BTW, the two different notices/templates may have been in different edits but they were about 28 seconds a part with no intervening edits [33]. So while there might be two notices, they should be treated like a single edit so can be considering posting only once. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually I see now TarnishPath had replied to your warning before they warned you, so they were clearly aware of it. Frankly I consider tit-for-tat warnings a bit silly since I'd imagine most admins at WP:ANEW would consider that the other editor having just given a warning means they should be aware edit warring isn't okay. However I have little experience with ANEW so it might very well be that some admins don't consider it enough so perhaps it was necessary to warn you. More importantly there seems to have been reasonable concern about your understanding of our edit warring limitations since you made an accusation about violating the bright line 3RR that seems to have been unsupported and perhaps giving you even a templated warning would help with that. And most importantly as silly as I find tit-for-tat warnings, it's even sillier to care about them. If you feel it was fine to warn someone, there's no reason to care that the other editor warned you for similar behaviour. Revert it if you want, but don't make a fuss about it. BTW, I also see the CTOP alert wasn't a first one somehow I thought it was. Even so the rest of what I said stands. There's no reason to care about CTOP alerts when the editor might be unaware. I'd add an editor is free to use the 'already aware' templates on their talk page for any areas they're aware, if they care so much about not receiving a CTOP alert. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment an editor unilaterally edited the template to add the word "exclusively" to one of the consensus I am that editor. Please link to the edit and notify an editor if you're implicating them in a WP:AN incident. As far as I can see, every edit on the template has been unilateral in exactly the same way. There's no notable discussions on the template talk page that would indicate otherwise. Many edits on templates and wikipedia in general are made unilaterally. We notice things that need improvement, and improve them adhoc. I initiated a discussion per WP:BRD after Just10A reverted me, but they still haven't explained why they think my edit didn't improve the template.
  • despite it not being in its 2021 RFC closing As I noted in my edit summary, the edit was intended to clarify the RfC outcome summarized on the template, which clearly states that both sides have valid arguments and goes on to say that Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories. This is already covered by WP:RS. Clearly, WP:MEDRS sources are still important in the origins of viruses. That's why I added the word exclusively to the template.
  • My edit to the template was partly in response to Just10A misconstruing the RfC outcome in a comment on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory.
  • Since my edit to the template, I have been the recipient of multiple WP:ASPERSIONS, for example here, here, and here, one of which was made by Just10A.
  • He has also recently participated in edit warring In that case it was Just10A who was edit warring. Per WP:ONUS, the editor trying to add new content is the one who has to initiate the discussion as outlined in WP:BRD. In the case on Covid lab leak theory, Just10A was trying to add the new content, and also did so while there was an ongoing, high participation talk page discussion on whether that same content should be included. Just10A also wrongly warned TarnishedPath and then removed a warning template from their own user talk page.

The void century 17:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief and just let the admins sort it out, because I think the evidence is pretty clear.

-"Other people got away with it" doesn't override clear guidelines and policy.

- Multiple editors explained. It's not in the closure and they do not agree it's accurate.

- The "aspersions" have already been addressed by other editors. Pointing out something you objectively did and asking you to stop is not an aspersion.

- I reverted twice, and only twice, specifically to not be edit warring . (Edit: striking this because it's causing some confusion, better language would be "because I'm explicitly trying to not edit war." ) Just10A (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Specifically to not be edit warring: You're talking about the three revert rule. But per WP:EW, it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. In fact, what you just wrote is effectively an admission that you deliberately sailed as close at you could to the letter of the law, which is, of course, against the spirit of it. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think you're assuming good faith. I purposefully hold myself to 2 reverts so I never get remotely close to violating the bright line rule with a 10 ft. pole, not "deliberately sail[ing] as close at you could to the letter of the law." Just10A (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, and by purposely doing so, you make yourself safe from accusations of breaching 3RR but not necessarily one of edit warring. Best, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

As a fellow law student, not breaking a bright line rule is not necessarily dispositive. 3rr is a factor in determining edit warring, not an element. Best of luck with your studies @Just10A. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the wishes. I'm not trying to say it's totally dispositive. It's not. I'm just attempting to express that I'm trying to interact with these people within the bounds of policy and guidelines,(QUO and template), and they are not doing the same. Just10A (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• I would make an extended comment but I just don't think that this is ANI worthy... I think that Just10A has been essentially baited into opening this discussion when the wiser course of action would have been for all parties to drop the stick. Recommend a quick close and everyone eat some trout. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, but I don't know what other action there is to take when they defiantly demand they will not cease unless taken to AN.

  I really am not trying to bludgeon the convo here: but what should I do? We currently have a template that has been changed (and is currently still changed), flagrantly in defiance of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BEBOLD #Template namespace here [34] and just no one cares? Can we at least agree that clearly policy calls for that to be changed? These guys are breaking policy, no one is disputing it, and we just do nothing? Just10A (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Looks to me that the one word change clearly clarified the template’s explanation of the lengthy RfC close, which should improve discussion. I see no harassment, disruptive editing, or battleground behavior by TarnishedPath. This belongs back at the template talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• TarnishedPath has been bludgeon-y generally, and shouldn't have tried to enforce the change to the template. Messing with the template during a highly relevant widely participated discussion was inappropriate from The void century. Maybe the baiting should catch some trouts... SmolBrane (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Templates are used in multiple articles, so clarifying the wording on a template is warranted regardless of whether there's an in-progress discussion on one article's talk page. Am I supposed to wait until all relevant discussions have resolved on all pages that use the template? That might never happen. The void century 18:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  In general you should wait until the discussion(s) you are involved in have concluded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  This is clearly a false dichotomy. You chose an extraordinarily poor time to boldly edit this. TarnishedPath's enforcement was much worse though. And upon further assessment, TarnishedPath has made 30+ comments in the German intelligence section across three days(!), and also boldly closed an RfC as highly involved during this time. They have also been blocked ~3 times(?) historically for edit warring. This section has stayed pretty civil all things considered, but normally sanctions are escalated when experienced editors continue to transgress. SmolBrane (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  It's always a good time to fix issues. That's why WP:BOLD says Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia.. Just10A reverted my edit, and I continued with WP:BRD. They've had ample opportunity to convince other editors as to why they reverted the edit, but their only arguments so far have been that they disagree, it was bad timing, and they think a discussion was warranted before making the edit. None of those arguments substantively explain why the edit was reverted. The void century 19:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  We don't need to do any convincing. You do, per WP:ONUS. All you have is 2 editors edit warring it onto the template in violation of WP:QUO. Just10A (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  We don't need to do any convincing. You do Which is exactly what I did, both in my edit summary and the talk page BRD discussion.

  WP:ONUS says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Consensus has a very specific meaning on wikipedia. It's based on convincing policy arguments, not a simple majority vote. WP:TALKDONTREVERT says The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.. The ONUS being on me doesn't excuse you from participating. If I make a convincing argument to include the content, then you need to explain why that argument is wrong. You can't just WP:STONEWALL the edit. The void century 19:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  Multiple editors explained. We can have a more in-depth discussion on the talk, but I'm trying to deal with the edit warring and violating WP:QUO first. Just10A (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, they didn't. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an explanation. The void century 19:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  "I (as well as others it seems) do not think the addition of "exclusive" is accurate, and it is not found in the RFC closing." Just10A (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  That's just a more verbose way of saying you don't like it. The question I am asking you is why you don't think the addition is accurate. The void century 19:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'll see you on the talk. This is not for the ANI board or relevant to the WP:QUO violation. Just10A (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  This became relevant when you used it as the premise for your ANI notice. It's important for admins to have proper context. I agree that further discussion should be on the talk page, now that the context has been shared. The void century 20:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  That linked essay, about AfD arguments, is irrelevant to this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  You're right, I should have linked WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT The void century 23:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  You've ping-ponged from "never" to "always" and I would suggest that the truth lies somewhere in between. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  They have also been blocked ~3 times(?) historically for edit warring. Careful with arguments like this. TarnishedPath has over 20,000 edits to Just10's 1,100 and Just10 has also been blocked for edit warring. Also, in the last 500 edits to that TP, Just10 has more edits than TP. In this case, Just10 reverted two editors. Stick to the current incident. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have been blocked a *single* time for what was largely unintentional because I did not yet know policy as a new regular editor. Avoid WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, it's a meaningless statistic. I edited many times as an IP prior without issue. Just10A (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  it's a meaningless statistic. That was my point. Two of the three EW's TP had were over a decade before you became a user. That's the problem wiith bare stats and why I said be careful with arguments like this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• User TarnishedPath's actions, including unilaterally editing templates, ignoring community consensus, and engaging in edit warring, are clearly in violation of established Wikipedia policies. I participated in the BND discussion on the LL talk page and their constant bludgeoning makes for a disruptive environment, contrary to the collaborative values Wikipedia upholds. I second HEB's sentiment that this looks like a baiting, but since a complaint has been filed, administrator attention is due. 180.249.187.157 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

He also just up and unilaterally prematurely closed an RfC that I filed on that page talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, despite having a previously clearly stated position on the matter. I was considering reporting him here for that as well. Red Slash 01:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

[35] This is well into WP:OWNBEHAVIOR now. I don't recognize the RfC to be malformed and I didn't the first time it was closed 64 minutes after being created either. SmolBrane (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Folks are we really trying to bring a content dispute to ANI in order to preserve a status quo, about Covid, from four years ago? What am I missing? Why is this here and not the subject of a new RFC or a perfectly ordinary talk page discussion? -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Any time a new source is found, for one side or the other, this is typical of that talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, like Covid, the Covid discussion is infectious. This belongs back at the template talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear from User:TarnishedPath. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It would be wise for them to participate. The sudden editing absence is unlikely to go unnoticed. Concerns about collaboration are not well satisifed by non-participation. SmolBrane (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But if I were TarnishedPath, I don't think I'd want to get involved in this mess. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that parts of this have devolved significantly. But at the core we still have the same issue. We have an experienced editor who (unless he just up and forgot WP:STATUSQUO) knowingly and openly violated norms/policy, and then dared to be taken to ANI about it. No one seems to be even attempting to defend that issue, because it's pretty much undisputed. Now, should we string him up and hang him? Probably not. But I don't think anyone's disputing that's clearly aggressive and problematic behavior. All the other testimonies/issues from other editors just add to the profile. Just10A (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You quote WP:STATUSQUO but then have amnesia about your reverting three times, while discussion was occurring, against that policy and WP:ONUS (See Special:Diff/1280320706, Special:Diff/1280353026 and Special:Diff/1280355614 for your reverts). TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything 3 times. At that time there had shown significant support for a new addition that had been workshopped in the talk. The discussion was relatively moderate. That discussion obviously ballooned afterwards when you tagged dozens of editors from the old RFC, but at that time I was adding the workshopped version (that I didn't make, FYI) that seemed to reflect the overall community posture it had expressed at that point. That's all present in the edits and the talk page. So no, that did not happen like that. I think the fact that your only defense to your actions is an attempted Whataboutism speaks for itself. Just10A (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything 3 times.

Refer to my diffs above.

At that time there had shown significant support for a new addition that had been workshopped in the talk.

A bunch of people going 'I agree with x" does not constitute consensus. Consensus is not a head count. It was clear that myself and an other editor were providing policy bases arguments why the edits shouldn't occur. Clearly there was no consensus for inclusion and you reverted three times against the above mentioned policies.

Ps, calling whataboutism doesn't work here. You started a report and so your own actions are also subject to review. Regarding anything else here, from what I've been able to digest of this mess of aspersions, quite a number of other editors have put forward good defences on my behalf. TarnishedPath^talk 03:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

So, do you have any defense to your actions other than alleging "someone else did it?" (despite it not being the case) Or do you agree that your actions clearly violated WP:STATUSQUO? Just10A (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

despite it not being the case

Please don't WP:GASLIGHT. I've provided clear diffs of what I allege above. TarnishedPath^talk 04:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I think that refusal to answer speaks for itself. Just10A (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You also think that you didn't revert 3 times against WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO, which is demonstrably incorrect. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I have already explained why that is not the case. I reverted twice, and only twice, like I've maintained since the beginning. You have offered no such defense for your actions. You've just said "but what about them!" and refuse to answer direct questions, because you can't, because you know they indicate guilt. Again, your refusal to answer speaks for itself, I think we're done here. Just10A (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've already provided three diffs demonstrating three reverts (Special:Diff/1280320706, Special:Diff/1280353026 and Special:Diff/1280355614). You claiming that it didn't happen is plainly false. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The first edit you've linked to is not a revert, did you link the correct diff? BabbleOnto (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR it is a revert because it partially restored material which had previously been removed at Special:Diff/1280196777 and Special:Diff/1280241341. TarnishedPath^talk 04:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It's the correct diff. He's arguing it's a revert because I'm adding a totally different paragraph that was made (again, not by me) per discussion on talk because it's the same general subject matter as the pre-discussion version. If it was a premature BRD, I get that. Like I said, the discussion was moderate at that time, but showed clear general support for inclusion. I honestly didn't even think it's addition would be contentious per the talk. If that was a hasty BRD, my bad and I take responsibility for it. Obviously arguing it's a revert is silly, and is just trying to distract from answering the direct questions about his behavior. Just10A (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It was clearly a revert as it partially restored previously removed material. You started this discussion and so your behaviour is under review as much as anyone else's. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, you ask what you're missing about the lack of an RFC. You're missing that RFCs that might find a change in 'status quo, about Covid' aren't allowed (admins allow them to be shut down). Unless this incident results in admin action. I just confirmed my recollection : TarnishedPath shut down this RFC: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#RfC the other day - and I didn't buy the rationale or irredemability, but said nothing, not wanting to be beaten up, so to speak, as is the norm on this topic. That page is COVERED with aggressive Wikipedia:BLUDGEONing by TarnishedPath. You don't even need to count their comments on the page to see the volume; it's visible from afar.

Paid editing semi-tangent: I see lots of such behavior from several editors on the topic indistinguishable from that which I would expect of a paid editor. Have there been inquiries as to paid editing? How would I search to find out if an editor had been asked about paid editing? (Is there a search that would work? Will try to figure out myself...). Guidance is really vague on when it's OK to ask about editing indistinguishable from that one would expect of a paid editor, such as in topic area where there are relatively large financial incentives to push one point of view and disallow others.

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change is supposedly wikipedia policy. I mean it's marked as such. But it's not, looking at how editor behavior on the topic is policed.

The template in question and Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK are used as bludgeons to effectively intimidate and get away with Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change violations.

I find the edit summaries by TarnishedPath on these edits to the template glaringly consistent with a PoV and so glaringly logically inconsistent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)&diff=prev&oldid=1280339718. vs

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Origins_of_COVID-19_(current_consensus)&diff=prev&oldid=1280514726

It seems to indicate such desperation it scares me. I mean I would not be surprised to see that only if someone was pleading because their life depended on being right. RememberOrwell (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The second of those is what this discussion is about, and there's no consensus TP was in the wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the first edit summary. As for why admins allow them to be shut down, I can't imagine why. Also that little hidden comment at the end of your post I mean I would not be surprised to see that only if someone was pleading because their life depended on being right. is tiptoing around WP:ASPERSIONS and the fact you chose to hide it indicates you know this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Those edit summaries are perfectly normal. Of course you can't change a statement that says "there is no consensus" until a consensus has been achieved. Shutting down an RFC that is obviously non-neutral is also a perfectly normal thing to do. I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with someone being a paid editor. -- asilvering (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

>Of course you can't change a statement that says "there is no consensus" until a consensus has been achieved.

Agree.

> Shutting down an RFC that is obviously non-neutral is also a perfectly normal thing to do.

Agree.

I'll ask the paid editing question elsewhere. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you find it's true that TarnishedPath's "edit only clarifies what consensus arrived at", as claimed? RememberOrwell (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm asking @Asilvering, Phil. SMH. @Alexis Jazz ruled the consensus is: "who created something or where it was created is historical information" not BMI. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought this discussion was being held in public. I can't say any more, not because you seem to want to exclude me, but because I have no idea what you mean by "SMH" and "BMI". Please communicate in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Presumably, "Shake my head" and "Biomedical information,' respectively. BabbleOnto (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we need to hear from TarnishedPath.

There's a near total breakdown in normal editing processes in this area, and our articles reflect that. The article STILL has this blatant falsehood in it, months after it was tagged ^{[dubious – discuss]} : "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV". It persists even months after, after much effort, @Ultraodan fulfilled my request to "Please add ^{[dubious – discuss]} after the sentence". You can find the WP:Status quo stonewalling, largely by TarnishedPath, leading up to the tag placement, and continuing after the tag was placed in an extensive discussion: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 41#WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses. That discussion section also has the proof, since last May, down to the specific genetic manipulations of a specific SARS-related bat coronavirus, described in and copied from peer-reviewed, published work by none other than WIV's Zheng-Li Shi herself - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 etc and her saying her WIV lab did the work, sourced to linked articles included in MEDLINE, proving that the sentence that is still in the article is a blatant falsehood.

Admins, e.g. @Asilvering, do you follow; do you see and are you OK with the behavior violations I've identified, or should I ignore any violations in furtherance of there was no lab leak? I try to stay away from the area because it's so lawless, but I hope it gets cleaned up someday, and hope it's soon.

I want to further clarify what is glaringly inconsistent between these two edit summaries by TarnishedPath:

"Don't change the current consensus template unless there is discussion that leads to a new consensus."

"No new consensus is required as edit only clarifies what consensus arrived at."

With those edit summaries, TarnishedPath conveys the glaringly inconsistent belief that they don't need to prove there's a consensus before changing the template, but anyone they disagree with does need to prove there's a consensus before changing the template. In other words with those edit summaries, TarnishedPath conveys a "Rules for thee but not for Me." mentality, Is there a WP: link for it, I wonder!? Note: I do acknowledge that there's no issue if it's true that TarnishedPath's "edit only clarifies what consensus arrived at"; I just don't believe that the record shows that's true; Just10A already adequately explained why it's not true when opening this discussion, though I don't assert there's consensus on that. I WILL add that as I see it, the edit of the first edit summary only only reverted clarification of what consensus arrived at when, by removing time info. So I see the edit that that edit reverted as in fact NOT a change to the current template that tried to impose a new consensus. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

(In isolation, these would be fine statements:

Don't change what a current consensus template indicates is consensus unless there is discussion that leads to a new consensus.

No new consensus is required for an edit that only clarifies what consensus arrived at.)

It's the "then immediately posted a discussion comment with that same word and used the template as backing, without mentioning that they had just edited it." action complained of in the OP that makes the whole place stink. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

On the first half: personally, I think an edit request to add a maintenance tag is ridiculous. They're not supposed to be decorative. If you think something is dubious and needs discussing, you can just go ahead and discuss it. This isn't a low-traffic article where you might suspect no one will turn up to the discussion. I agree that article does say there was genetic manipulation of bat coronaviruses (note: I'm a historian, not a geneticist). What I am unclear on is whether that happened at WIV, though I would assume so. It seems to me like a simple fix here would be to remove the "there is no evidence" sentence from the article - it's not like the rest of the article isn't extremely clear that scientists overwhelmingly do not believe this was the origin of the pandemic. WP:DRN would be a good place to solve this, if regular talk page discussion isn't working.

On the second half: I don't think TarnishedPath needs to be pilloried for an incautious edit summary. But it is very clear that there is stonewalling going on in this topic. Four years is plenty of time for editorial opinion on a topic to change, especially when it's a very new topic, like covid. Rather than edit-warring each other over the template that describes the consensus from four years ago, you could simply have a new RFC to settle the matter. @Novem Linguae, apologies for tagging you in, but that's what you get for writing the defining essay on the issue. Are you able to help out here by setting up a neutrally worded RFC to affirm or overturn the results of the 2021 one? Given the updated research you've added to that essay, I expect the outcome of that RFC will be to affirm the previous one, which presumably won't make these editors happy but will at least clearly lay down that there will be no editorial interest in revisiting the question for some time. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I think it would behoove User:RememberOrwell to strike their aspersions and tone down their own bludgeoning and sealioning. Frankly, the accusations of paid editing and nefarious editing on the part of others should be worth some sort of sanction. King Lobclaw (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This is also typical of that page when editors don't get their way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Either that, or tell me where my paycheck is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

No you're just meant to put up with constant low level aspersions and sealioning, you don't get paid for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm issuing myself a script-imposed break from wikipedia, so I won't be responding to any of these discussions for at least a year. I am a healthy person, but as a semi-expert with a degree in biology, every time I'm dragged into Covid-19 discussions on wikipedia, it harms my mental health. The degree to which pseudoscience and far-right politics have taken hold on this platform is concerning and stressful, and makes me want to stay away. And comments like this one from the closer of an important RfC causes me great concern. How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when admins are closing RfCs based on the way [they] see it. That is a non-starter and the effort required to reopen that RfC and deal with that can of worms is just not something I'm willing to endure. I doubt me saying this on an ANI discussion will make a difference, but I'll end by linking to WP:YWAB. Cheers. The void century 16:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The admin did not close the RfC you linked simply in favor of of the "way they see the issue." They provided a logical explanation a second time, in response to your questioning of it, personally explaining it to you, with examples, as to why they closed it the way they did. Taking their introduction, "The way I see the issue is..." out of context here, without pinging them to defend themselves, to imply the admin just closed the RfC based on their own personal opinion, a very serious charge, is ridiculous and should be stricken. Not even to mention it being completely irrelevant to this ANI. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

From my interactions with them on other topics I don't believe that Alexis Jazz is either a pseudoscience promoter or subscribed to any brand of far-right politics. This theory is even less plausible than the one advanced about paid/coordinated editing above, that at least was supported by a smattering of evidence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @User:Alexis_Jazz in case they want to respond. Ratgomery (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The void century, first of all, I'm not an admin. I'm sorry to hear the stress harms your mental health.
The degree to which pseudoscience and far-right politics have taken hold on this platform is concerning and stressful
Wait, you accuse me of that? You also suggested that based on your expertise you strongly suspect I'm a creationist over on Template talk:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus). I didn't want to justify that with a response. Let me just say some idiot on Twitter said that the audience in my Harris-Walz rally panorama was AI-generated. Clearly me is a far-right creationist robot. 🤖
How are we supposed to build an encyclopedia when admins are closing RfCs based on "the way [they] see it".
You guys are asking me about a closure I did nearly 4 years ago. I re-read my own closure, but I didn't re-read the entire discussion. I have no memory of writing it. I'm not a regular editor on the subject of COVID-19. So in this discussion I have to consider my words and trust that nearly 4 years ago I did my homework, which from the looks of it, I did.
It's actually unclear to me what exactly the problem even is. Your reply there actually seems to largely agree with what I said. The only issue I see is the exact definition of what is historical and what is scientific. If there is a problem with that definition or what kind of sources are allowed because of it, why not open an RfC to redefine the definition and/or change what kind of sources are acceptable? Or if I made a mistake, show me where the correct definition is. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like to me that the Discussion portion of BRD had just started on the template talk page, when TarnishedPath apparently and unilaterally decided enough Discussion had taken place after just a few comments, and reinstated the disputed edit; a mild edit war ensued, and TarnishedPath dared to be dragged to the drama boards. And here we are. Nothing really requiring sanctions in my view, but TarnishedPath should be reminded if BRD is invoked, and a good-faith Discussion is taking place, don't just reinstate the disputed edit, instead, join the discussion and express your argument. Now that the original RfC closer has weighed in and removed the word "exclusively", this can probably be safely closed, unless there is an appetite for more dramah. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• I really don't know what to write to defend myself here which others haven't already done on my behalf. Apologies for my late attendance, but I have swimming and gym classes with my children on Sundays, which means my editing is generally reduced on that day of the week. Per asilvering above I'm not going to address most of the weak aspersions levied at me here because they reflect on those editors more than they do anyone else (paid editing FFS?). TarnishedPath^talk 02:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• I should note this user has additionally now summarily closed two [36][37] RfC's unilaterally, before anyone could comment, without any reasoning other than pasting the RfC instructions and saying "this violates these." One of which was just recently, after the start of this ANI, and after the user presumably was put on notice that their edits would be put under more scrutiny. This seems like textbook WP:SQS. BabbleOnto (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with stonewalling. This was a seriously malformed RfC. Read the close. If hey hadn't closed it, someone else would have after wasted editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  The close, aside from copy and pasted sections of WP:RFC, is one sentence long and reads, in its entirety:

  This RFC falls a very long way away from those instructions and so I'm closing this malformed RFC

  This is the equivalent of closing an RfC and just saying "It breaks a rule." Just calling an RfC "malformed" and "A long way from the instructions," then closing it without elaborating any further, is not a good-faith action ESPSECIALLY when the person closing is actively involved in the content dispute which the RfC tried to address. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  RFCs questions are meant to be neutral. It's not uncommon to close RFCs that are so far from neutral, it stops the RFC from being a waste of time. If the RFC is needed it can be restarted with a "brief, neutral statement or question". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  closing it without elaborating any further, is not a good-faith action The included text gave options on how to fix the problem, which is beyond what we normally see in closing a malformed RfC. And as far as your WP:SQS link and bad-faith accusation, haven't we had enough casting of aspersions in this filing? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  The included text gave options on how to fix the problem, which is beyond what we normally see in closing a malformed RfC.

  I have quoted TarnishedPath's writing in its entirety. It does not give any option on how to fix the problem. Here I'll put it again:

  This RFC falls a very long way away from those instructions and so I'm closing this malformed RFC

  Please point to where in this sentence it gives options on how to fix the problem. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ideally, the question should have come first - How should the lab leak theory be addressed, in both the lead and the body of this article? - then sign it, publish it, so Legobot can do its thing, and then go back and add your brief summary and options underneath the question. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Netitas06

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

---

Netitas06 (talk · contribs) has never posted on a talk page or used an edit summary other than "Little fix", "small changes" etc. The "little fixes" are almost exclusively fiddling with terminology on and adding original research to articles about Latin American race, class, and ethnic groups.[38][39][40] They've already received a final warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie to no avail. Remsense ‥ 论 21:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

User:RingoFreakus clearly WP:NOTHERE

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

---

• RingoFreakus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They have triggered the edit filter multiple times trying to vandalize and have received 3 warnings from other users for vandalism that got through. Now hes gone ahead and posted a talk page message to another user for no reason. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and its amazing he hasn't been blocked yet. DotesConks (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

DotesConks, admins usually don't know about vandals until they are reported at noticeboards like you have done. That's how we find out about them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

that’s not very nice i’m just trying to source truthful information RingoFreakus (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh and a violation of edit-warring/3RR rule as well. DotesConks (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Since I've been patrolling the abuse log today and I've seen this person a few times, I'll go ahead and provide diffs here: 1, 2, 3. Looks like in-joke vandalism to me. Support block as NOTHERE unless this immediately turns out to be a one-off as some similar incidents do. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 00:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

shhhhhh RingoFreakus (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@DotesConks, I've indefinitely blocked this user. They had already been reported to WP:AIV; in the future, it might be better for that report to go through than go to ANI. Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Moneytrees Understood, will do next time. Thank you. DotesConks (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Delectopierre incivility and ignoring of policies

• Delectopierre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Delecto has previously brought me here twice, I just want to preface with that. (first time, second time).

Following the last ANI discussion, I made an attempt at trying to build a better editor relationship, I reached out to them while trying to ask how I could avoid potential issues with them in the future, offer to explain any past policy issues they thought I had misapplied with them, and just work towards making the article we had disagreed on before better as a whole. I followed up a week or so later when our Dispute Resolution was archived, congratulated them on their new articles they had created while pointing out I had removed a name from one on BLPCrime grounds and again tried to work together.

Another editor @Counterfeit Purses: later removed material from the article, which led to a [[41]] talk page discussion being started by Delecto. I commented on it, and later removed the rest of the material several days later since there wasn't a consensus for including while commenting to please address on the BLP noticeboard before restoring due to BLP issues, which was ignored. I removed again, which was again restored. Delecto's reply of go bother someone else. i have been attempting to ignore you, and you continue following me around. cut it out. seems less than civil especially when I have been trying to be polite and attempting to work towards the betterment of articles while following policies, so I figured I would bring it here rather than engaging any further. Delecto had previously asked me to essentially 'check in' before I revert any of their edits which struck me more as a violation of WP:EPTALK than an olive branch, but even attempts to talk to them first seem to end with issues.

This is not to discuss the above as a content issue but rather an attempt to figure out how to work with a user who wants to be consulted before their material can be removed (if that is even required) and always restores their preferred version regardless of the policy based reasons for removal (regardless of who has removed it as noted in prior discussions - I cannot provide a direct diff due to the link not being clickable on my end but it's my last comment on the first ANI discussion listed above). If consensus is the goal of Wikipedia and two editors cannot get along or one prefers no communication with the other but also wants their preferred version of an article to say what they want and is unwilling to collaborate with another user, how does that work? Respectfully, if someone is being uncivil with me, I would rather not communicate with them at all. But I also respect the consensus process and would like to follow it, and if communication is required I would prefer it at least remain civil. If I could make a possible recommendation going forward - If material is removed that Delecto has inserted, by any user, and Delecto disagrees with the removal for them to please focus on trying to work towards a consensus first in accordance with WP:ONUS before reverting back to their preferred version since this has been an issue with multiple separate edits (1, 2, more diffs available but cannot get currently because 5% battery life on laptop without a charger) involving multiple separate editors which have also pointed to ONUS going back months to when they first started editing full time.

Awshort (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Leave me alone. Delectopierre (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

While editors should generally take care when following a thread to some unrelated dispute of someone they're in frequent disagreement with, in this case since Awshort was fixing a serious BLP vio they clearly did the right thing. User:Delectopierre if you want to continue to edit about living persons you need to start to take BLP editing more seriously. The alternative is you either voluntarily stay away from all edits about living persons or we topic ban you. You've already been given the necessary BLP CTOP alert [42] so should be aware of how seriously we take BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Nil Einne what is the serious BLP vio, exactly? I do take BLP quite seriously. Awshort has decided that in this instance I must follow a stricter standard than BLPCRIME prescribes: i.e. "must not include the material". BLPCRIME actually says must seriously consider not including material. But because I declined to follow Awshort's new standard, they decided it's a BLP violation. Delectopierre (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned I will give my thoughts. I don't think this is necessarily a BLP issue if the accused is not named. I think that it should be obvious that this alleged crime has nothing to do with the person's employer and therefore doesn't belong in the article, but that's a content dispute. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Report of User Misconduct: Vandalism of Userpage and Refusal to Engage in Discussion

My userpage has been repeatedly edited by @Indonesiainfo24, with false claims that I am being blocked, despite the user not being an administrator. This occurred after I politely invited the user multiple times, including on their personal Talk page, to engage in a constructive discussion on the talk page regarding the Rendang article, but they chose not to participate. Instead of collaborating, the user made misleading statements, including posting on my Talk page that I had been blocked, which is not accurate. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed, as this behavior disrupts the collaborative and civil environment that Wikipedia encourages.--Native99girl (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Another @Mat Kiyan has kindly helped restore my page, but if you check the edit history, you can see the disruptive actions. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed, as this behavior disrupts the collaborative and civil environment that Wikipedia encourages.--Native99girl (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Indonesiainfo24 has blown past the 3RR boundary on Rendang, so I have blocked for 31 hours to stop the edit war. To allow the user to reply here and to participate in the talk page, the block only applies to articles. This is an interim action, and is not intended to limit or prevent further action if needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a long-term pattern of behavior from Indonesiainfo24. It's high time for some sort of longer-term block or CBAN. King Lobclaw (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Indonesiainfo24's conduct at Rendang has certainly been poor, short-circuiting an ongoing discussion on the talk page to edit war in their preferred version while dropping in vandalism notices for people who disagree with the changes, all while refusing to join the discussion. Not to mention, in a rare actual use of an edit summary, going with Some of the citation sources in the article were recently published to distort history, which they fabricated using their own logic. This is not the true historical account that has been reported for a long time which does not appear promising. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to the false ArbCom block notice on User:Native99girl Indonesiainfo24 has done the same at User:MrCattttt. I have added user namespace to the pblock imposed by rsjaffe, and extended it to indefinite in order to ensure that Indonesiainfo24 engages with this discussion. No prejudice to the outcome of this discussion. Cabayi (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Some of the citation sources in the article were recently published to distort history, which they fabricated using their own logic. This is not the true historical account that has been reported for a long time. Indonesiainfo24 (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  How does this explain your addition of false block notices to the user pages of two other users? Cabayi (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Some articles from the cited sources actually discuss fried chicken instead of Rendang, making them inaccurate references for the page. Indonesiainfo24 (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Hello Admin, I was only issuing a vandalism warning for a page, but I was blocked without a clear reason. Could you please review my case and clarify why this happened? I believe my edits were made in good faith to maintain the accuracy of the content. Indonesiainfo24 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Indonesiainfo24 To be clear: you were adding a block notice to editor's userpages, which is different than a vandalism warning. The editors your were warning for vandalisim were not actually vandalizing the article; there's a difference between the edits they were making and vandalism. You were then blocked from articlespace because you were edit warring on that article; even if you are on the "right" side of a content dispute, edit warring is not allowed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support extension of block to site-wide due to continued refusal to understand the problematic nature of their editing and either—I'm not sure which, possibly both—NOTHERE or CIR. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Support indef. block. King Lobclaw (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Dash9Z failing to communicate about attribution issue

Dash9Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has failed to respond to my request at User talk:Dash9Z#March 2025 about fixing attribution where they've copied from one article to another, despite a couple of reminders, one of which mentioned WP:COMMUNICATE. I'm hoping that a post here will be enough to elicit a response. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Still no response from Dash9Z, despite them having edited since my post here. Does anyone have any suggestions for how we can get them to communicate about this? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Channel 1915 and User:Francis 188 on Richard Heydarian

• Channel 1915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Francis 188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richard Heydarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Richard Heydarian has been under heavy editing recently due to his controversial remarks about Mindanao, an island in the Philipipnes during a CNN interview.

I would highly recommend taking a look at multiple talk pages before commenting on this dispute, linked here and here. I would also recommend taking a look at the edit history of Richard Heydarian, specifically recently after the page was semi-protected and Channel 1915's edits before the controversial CNN interview.

Context for viewing:

• [43] GMA Network
• [44] Daily Tribune (Philippines)
• [45] YouTube video of the interview

Both editors have been edit warring and have likely broke 3RR. I took this dispute here instead of the edit warring noticeboard, as this looks to be a very complex article conduct dispute. I would prefer for the users to not be immediately blocked under WP:3RR so they can comment on this discussion and if needed opting for page protection or a page specific block.

Francis 188 is accusing Channel 1915 of undisclosed conflict of interest editing and being the article subject Richard Heydarian. As of the writing of this message, Channel 1915 has written 72.6% of the article and the majority of the accounts edits have been to the article. The user previously recieved a COI notice in December 2024 by Jay8g. The user's edit summaries (visible here) have very specific mannerisms that should be compared to the common mannerisms of Richard Heydarian.

On the other hand, Channel 1915 is accusing Francis 188 of WP:POVPUSHING in the article. This edit here [46] shows the user editing the infobox caption to "Heydarian declared Persona Non Grata and became one of the hatest personality in the Philippines by the Filipinos" and adding a copyvio image which was a meme of this image (facebook link) with a huge rubber stamp over the image that states Persona non grata. Other edits that should also be analyzed include creating the section traffic violator [47] and this edit [48].

Parksfan1955 (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Francis 188 is copying content from an article called ‘Sub-Saharan’ Mindanao: These memes might make your day. Someone needs to explain to them that 1. this is not a reliable source and 2. this is copyvio, instead of going over the top with accusations of vandalism and bias. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The two users continue with their back and forth editing from this diff Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Channel 1915 and @Francis 188, please discuss over here so that administrators can hear your points. Parksfan1955 (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Semiprotection didn't help so I've locked the page for a few days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Massive copyvio about an Armenian hoax

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

---

Article: The Memoirs of Naim Bey
Source: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=The+Memoirs+of+Naim+Bey&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0
It was fun to read about the Armenian hoax, but how could have guessed it was also a massive copyvio 😂 Sarımtrak (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Straight to contentious topics, eh? Secretlondon (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Describing the article as a whole as a 'massive copyvio' seems excessive, but there certainly is content in it which is copy-pasted from the source cited: see [49]. This edit was made by an IP back in 2016. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Deniers of the Armenian genocide should be indeffed on-sight. No point in wasting time trying to reform someone who submits crap like Draft:Legal status of the Armenian genocide. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Possibly. Doesn't alter the fact that Wikipedia has been hosting a blatant copyright violation for over 8 years. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

And someone should probably fix it. But having seen what content generated by the OP looks like, it obviously shouldn't be them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Also let's be clear, the content in question is an attributed statement of a single source's opinion, in an article with lots of block quotes from various sources. It can be written better, but it's not like this is significant chunks of wikivoice text that need to be thrown out, it's just a quote that needs to be more appropriately integrated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is everyone so keen to try to gloss over the fact that Wikipedia has been hosting a copyright violation for over 8 years? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Because of WP:GS/AA and the obvious bad faith motivating the initial report? I would fix the copyvio but am involved as an admin (and had this actually been a total non-issue, I would have just removed or closed the report). You, on the other hand, could fix it straight away. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are arguing with. My only point in commenting is that the OP should be indeffed for being a genocide denier. That doesn't preclude you or literally anyone else other than the genocide denier from dealing with the copyvio. I honestly didn't expect to get pushback for saying that a genocide denier should be indeffed. I know you're a grump, but c'mon. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that policy would appear to require WP:REVDEL, and given that I do not have the necessary tools, I am in no position to fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The first step is to remove the content, and given the amount of unrelated edits made to the page since 2016, revision deletion is unlikely to be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I reported this over at WP:CP, the text is currently hidden pending rewriting/deletion. Since the OP is blocked for a week, this thread could be closed, unless someone wants to make a proposal for indef. Never mind, OP was unblocked on a technicality. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

And blocked again due to sockpuppetry. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• I have CU blocked the op; they are part of a string of accounts harassing User:Buidhe, who has done (excellent) work on our coverage of the Armenian Genocide. These accounts have engaged in some rather nasty (oversighted) harassment, so admins might want to keep an eye on her talk page. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Trying to determine if these users fit the pattern of User:Maelbros

There has been an annoyingly persistent IP-hopping user editing children's animation articles over the past 6 months or so. This user keeps adding false information, often adding bizarre plot summaries that are implausible or slightly inappropriate for the intended audience, changing infoboxes to the names of other cartoon series, or adding crossovers that the user wishes would occur--oftentimes with the same off the wall plot summaries. The user has a highly distinctive immature writing style. Initially, I thought this was just a run-of-the mill IP user, but one of their accounts commented on the talk page for User:Bandatoryy, which is a banned sockpuppet of User:Maelbros. I was wondering if someone familiar with User:Maelbros MO maybe could comment here to determine if this user reemerged so we could have more of a ban on site approach for their IP's.

Here are some examples of their contributions, to showcase the patterns I'm referring to.

[50]

[51]

[52] (This one lasted for 16 days before I reverted it.) --Thebirdlover (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I reported it here instead of SPI because the editing is being done over IP's so the checkusers won't be able to find anything, and I also wanted to get consensus to relaunch the relevant LTA page for this user. --Thebirdlover (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Cdvbfgb persistently edit-warring at University of California, Davis to smear the university

• Cdvbfgb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• University of California, Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In February, I noticed an unregistered editor making POV edits to smear the university by adding multiple minor events to the article as "controversies." They reverted my attempts to remove this material and ignored the subsequent talk page discussion. Shortly thereafter, User:Cdvbfgb created their account and began making similar edits to the article to impose a negative POV. Multiple editors have shared their concerns in the article's Talk page and reverted Cdvbfgb's edits; Cdvbfgb has only responded once to post a short note accusing another editor of working for the university despite being specifically pinged multiple times by different editors in different parts of the discussion (e.g., [53], [54]). Multiple editors have also asked or warned Cdvbfgb on their User Talk page to stop making these edits (e.g., [55], [56]) with little apparent impact.

Cdvbfgb was briefly blocked by from editing that article in the wake of their edit-warring. The block has expired and they have resumed their POV edits and edit-warring. In response to a warning on their User Talk page, they indicated that they are willing to continue edit warring and making POV edits: "I used the words carefully so not to be blocked. If blocked, it is a short-term blockage at most. a completely neutral wiki page of a big school with this rank is rare--I cannot say any more.

Examples of their POV edits including their edit summaries:

• (no edit summary and edit marked as "minor")
• unnecessary and misleading information cut off
• to improve accuracy
• misleading. they mainly reappeared when you do not give a tuition. not closed to the reality. they are pretty passive and beaucracutic, unless there is a serious issue, they disappear. (made after returning from their block)
• uc davis is public schools--of course many people can use for public interest. things mentioned potentially are common for a nuclear lab. intentionally promoted-- why not mention all facility with this details? because they want to promote how good nuclear lab is to the public as if there is a mission of landing on Mars. (made after returning from their block)

To be clear, the article needs a lot of work. There are many unsourced statements that need to be sourced, edited, or removed. And it's also clear that parts of the article were written with an overtly positive and promotional point of view. I don't object to some of Cdvbfgb's edits and I welcome their help in improving the article. But deliberately editing the article to now have a negative point of view and doing so while refusing to collaborate and communicate with other editors is not acceptable, particularly when Cdvbfgb has already been blocked once and has said that they plan to continue edit warring because the penalty for doing so the first time was so light.

@Ritchie333: You blocked the editor after my March 12 request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring so I am pinging you so you're aware that this behavior has continued. I am not pinging the other editors who have been involved in these disputes; my goal is to stop Cdvbfgb's edit warring and POV edits and I don't think that further comments from other editors who have already weighed in on the article's Talk page and Cdvbfgb's User Talk page will be helpful or effective here. ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Because Cdvbfgb has been persistently pushing a negative point of view in violation of the neutral point of view, a core content policy, and editing against consensus, I have indefinitely pageblocked the editor from editing University of California, Davis. They are free to make neutral, well-referenced, formal edit requests at Talk: University of California, Davis, which will be completed if their requests gain consensus.

Because of the evidence free accusations that Cdvbfgb has been throwing around, I want to state that I am not and never have been a student, staffer, faculty member or alumni of UC Davis or any other UC campus. However, I have visited that campus many times because I have lived relatively close to it for many years, and Davis is a delightful town. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the primary author of Manetti Shrem Museum of Art, which is located on the UC Davis campus but I do not believe that makes me involved with the University of California, Davis article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like MangoEater King Lobclaw (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Ky01535 disruption via repeated copy-paste move

• Ky01535 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think it's time for an admin to get involved with this user. They were first advised not to do copy-paste moves back in January [57]. Then they repeated it and were advised a second time a few days later [58]. They just did two again, back to back: Draft:Miss Charm 2025 -> Miss Charm 2025 and Draft:Miss Earth 2025 -> Miss Earth 2025.

I don't know if this is CIR or deliberate disruption, but the effect is the same. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This user never appears to have spoken to anyone. Maybe a partial block from non-talk pages will get their attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Long-term weirdness by a couple of IP's at List of You're Under Arrest characters and many other pages

• 58.69.182.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 112.201.182.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• List of You're Under Arrest characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These IP's, which both geolocate to the same country, have been adding often barely intelligible unsourced excessive detail to the page linked above and many others, and the first IP has been doing this since late 2019 (pick just about any substantial diff in their list of edits to this article for an example). In August 2022, they were blocked for six months for this behaviour by NinjaRobotPirate, but they went right back to doing the same thing, resulting in this revdel at List of incidents at Disneyland Resort, where they'd edited before. As for 112.201.182.65, not only do they share a peculiar interest in the "Under Arrest" page as the 58... IP, they've also put very broken English into the mouthes of world leaders at International reactions to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. I'd suggest that the 58... IP be re-blocked for a very long time and probably the 112 ... address too, along with perhaps some semi-protection at List of You're Under Arrest characters. I would have mentioned this at NinjaRobotPirate's talk page except for their reply at the end of their talk page (permalink). And I should also never check how articles on my pre-purge watchlist are going now, ever again ... :-) Graham87 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

46.201.211.132 and persistent addition of unsourced info

46.201.211.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The user is only interested in one article, in which they persistently add unsourced info which contradicts to existing sources. When challenged they went to personal attacks. Since this is a static IP, it is easier to block than to protect, but I am obviously involved. Thanks Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked three months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

39.56.210.104 IP vandal on articles of cricketers

39.56.210.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this ip is continuously changing or adding false spouse names to various cricketers page, see 1, 2, 3 TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Indo-Pakistani war of 1965

This involves Comsats777 and Pax98

Rather than provide an overwhelming list of diffs, I will provide a link to the edit history of the article which clearly evidences the disruption.

• Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 revision history from 10:46, 5 March 2025

Please note some of the edit summaries with allegations of disruptive editing and sock puppetry.

There are similar edits at Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 revision history from 07:35, 6 March 2025 but these do not rise to the same level.

For further context please see:

• Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971#Aircrafts losses
• Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Fatal casualties of 1965 war
• User talk:Pax98#1965 war solider losses
• User talk:Cinderella157#1965 war losses (deleted by Comsats777)
• User talk:Cinderella157#1965 WAR (Comsats777 replacing the deleted section immediately above)

Both editor are CT aware for IPA. Most of these edits pertain to the infobox but I do not see they are CT aware for this.

• User talk:Pax98#Introduction to contentious topics on 23:00, 8 February 2025
• User talk:Comsats777#Introduction to contentious topics on 12:01, 15 March 2025

There may be mitigating evidence to treat these two editor slightly differently but I will leave that for wiser minds. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Since Cullen's notice on Pax98's talk page, they have made two edits to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 and they are reverting Comsats777 edits. [59],[60]. Most of their editing comes from Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 revision history. Conyo14 (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and restoring versions by blocked users, User623921

User623921 is constantly edit warring, with different users, on several articles. Probably also lacking basic knowledge in how Wikipedia work. His edits has been reported twice at WP:DRN, for edit warring on Ant Wan. I am also asking for attention on this user now, as he seem to in the the process of trying to restore (also, see talk page) an old fork previously created by several blocked users [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]. I don't know whether he could be a sock or not, but it is disruptive in anyway. Shmayo (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Which different users? I am constantly in the Talk pages, I had one agree with me on a village of Tur Abdin "(The sources do overwhelmingly use "Syriac".)", he changed it to Syriac, following changes I made on other villages was based on the consensus we reached on said village since all the other ones use the same sources.

I have been reported by you and Surayeproject3, two persons following an Assyrian bias. I am simply changing to what the sources say and I am active in the talk pages, see Ant Wan for example, left a comment, no answer, thus I changed it.

I am not trying to "restore" a old fork, I was looking through old version of the article where Arameans are written as a existing people, I reverted back literally one second later and I am active in its talk page where we are trying to reach a consensus before making any changes.

You accused me of being a sock earlier, and your accusation got dismissed.

Everyone not following your agenda is not edit warring. User623921 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

New entries in talk pages and reaching consensus are two different things. What you are doing on Ant Wan is edit warring. Shmayo (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

it is not. i have constantly referred to the sources and suggested the other editor to do the same. i was left without a response for over 24h, i then edited. it was left as the other editors version before i reverted back, more than 24h later. User623921 (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

non-admin comment: This is definitely a matter of content dispute. See WP:DRN if you need assistance or go to the project's talk page for more input. However, it seems like User:Surayeproject3 is the person edit warring with User623921. Conyo14 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Conyo14 The issue for the article Ant Wan has been posted on the DRN here, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ant Wan. I edited the article before User623921 made their changes [66] [67], I then expanded the article [68] before they then changed the subject's ethnicity [69] and I reverted, requesting them to leave a post on the article's talk page [70]. Despite proposing a compromise, they have so far continued to revert their edits to fit their point of view of the subject, so please view the Talk page for more info.

The user being discussed has applied this same style of editing on other articles regarding Assyrian musicians in Sweden as well as Assyrian villages in southeastern Turkey, which has been discussed by Shmayo and another editor as well. Hope this information helps and if there's anything that needs clarification, please let me know. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I'll let others judge from here. Conyo14 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I have repeatedly raised this issue on the discussion page, emphasizing that claims not supported by referenced sources should not be included in the article. I then made edits to align the content with the sources. However, Surayeproject3 did not cite any references to support his claim and continued reverting the article to promote an Assyrian ethnicity.

I addressed him on the discussion page, but after more than 30 hours without a response, I revised his version to better reflect the source material. User623921 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Well. The OP has come here accusing User623921 of edit-warring, yet if we look at the history of Ant Wan I see that this is mainly a long edit-war between User623921 and User:Surayeproject3 (who, incidentally, on their talk page, has My goal on Wikipedia and WikiMedia Foundation is increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people, which includes those identifying as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean, so there's something that needs to be looked at. Meanwhile, the sentence that is mainly being edit-warred over is this one - Afram ... was born to an ethnic Assyrian/Syriac family originally from Syria (Surayeproject3, the OP) vs Afram was born ... to an ethnic Syriac-Aramean family originally from Syria (User623921). Now, this sentence is cited to two sources, and - well what do you know - neither source says anything about their ethnicity (apart from the fact their background is Syrian). My temptation, given the long disruption here, would be to change the sentence to Afram ... was born to a family originally from Syria and then block anyone who starts trying to insert the Assyrian/Aramean nonsense without a really good source. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Black Kite There was a source originally used that identified the subject as Assyrian, but it was deduced to be unreliable during the talk page discussion so it was removed. Incidentally, the page was changed to say something different around the same time this dispute was happening, but I am fine with the change you've proposed as long as it settles the dispute.

  And yes, my User page has my intentions on Wikipedia and WikiMedia Foundation. I come from these backgrounds and edit articles relating to my community, nothing wrong with that though. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  I am in favor of this proposal. Alternatively, we can write: "Afram... was born to a Syriac family originally from Syria." Both sources explicitly state that he is Syriac, that way we can exclude both Aramean and Assyrian. The newspaper published in Sweden uses the term 'Syrian,' which should not be confused with Syrian Arabs. In English, this is translated to 'Syriac,' while the Swedish term for Syrian Arabs is 'Syrier.' User623921 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think Black Kite's proposal works the best as the sources do not explicitly state his parents are Syriac and it is best to include more than one source on this contentious topic. No to the alt. Conyo14 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

  No worries! Black Kite's proposal works just as good. User623921 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are content disputes resolved at ANI and not on article Talk pages? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Billclinton1996

This user created the page 1995 United States elections by copy and pasting from other articles about elections in this year. No attribution was given to the pages copied from. The standard text regarding attribution ({{Uw-copying}}) was placed on their user page[71] which was promptly deleted. No efforts have been made to provide attribution.

Of more concern is that the article is largely unreferenced. When the unreferenced parts are removed the user simply reinstates them[72][73][74] even though WP:BURDEN has been explained to them both on their talk page[75][76][77] and in edit summaries.[78][79] --John B123 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Billclinton1996, you stated: I decline to participate in the noticeboard discussion. I suspect that I will be unilaterally blocked for a short period by an admin, but that's a natural consequence of concentrating immense power to a select group of editors. You are correct; I will block you if you refuse to discuss your edits, but it will be an indefinite one from mainspace until such time as you choose to discuss them, not a short block. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that user name may also be problematic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not. There is already a notice on my user page indicating that I'm not related to any people with a Wikipedia article by that name. I have already given my full reasoning on my talk page. I don't feel the need to discuss anything further right now. Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Billclinton1996: As much as I admire Bartleby, the Scrivener, "I would prefer not to" is not an option on Wikipedia. If you refuse to discuss your edits, I am inclined to indef you until you decide to do so. Copyvio is quite serious, and combined with edit warring and a refusal to communicate, you're veering into WP:NOTHERE territory. I'll give you one last chance to respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Fine. I understand that my tone could have been construed as inappropriate and "not here to build an encyclopaedia". Are there any particular questions you feel I have not addressed already on my talk page? Or perhaps some comments? Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't feel that content needed sourcing because I had left a "main article" template on each of the sections indicating where I got my information from, and if a reader really wanted a source they could just go there. WP:BURDEN requires citations in an article, not citations in a different article: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." We do not and cannot rely on citations from other articles, both because Wikipedia itself is not reliable and articles and their citations can change. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is such an urgent matter that you feel my editing privileges need to be revoked. It was urgent because you failed to attribute, refused to communicate about it, and edit-warred to reinstate it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

"Please don't unilaterally redirect articles. Take it to Afd if you want." Ask and ye shall receive. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems highly likely that this is a returning editor, given their talk page commentary about the nature of ANI. I'm guessing their previous account didn't cease editing on good terms. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Not a returning editor. I have simply garnered enough experience to establish a few key facts about this noticeboard. I don't know if you've ever been on the receiving end of an ANI complaint, but the flurry of notifications and mentions certainly feels like a "horse whipping" to me... Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been dragged here a few times, yes. I know the drill. But you speak with the air of a jaded veteran, something that scarcely reflects the age of your account. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)