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

Furkanberk52

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

---

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

Editing pattern suggests they are trolling and POV-pushing Armenian genocide denial, with them calling properly sourced info by experts in the field of the Armenian genocide "biased" or not "objective". ([1][2][3]). A topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan seems fitting. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed- topic ban may be best here. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

experts in the field, hmm. Does expert in the field only mean 1 man or men who's names end with yan/ian? These towards are literally "biased" and one sided.

This is like in newton-modern pyhsics arguement, only using newton's sources.

You are writing, you are playing, then who will counters it? asperagasmanchini (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Some comments for @Furkanberk52:

1. Your signature is confusing, as I see no connection between "asperagasmanchini" and your username. It would be nice to fix that. I believe it has slowed down responses to this issue, as people are having trouble seeing the connection between your post and the original complaint.

2. Why do you refer to Armenians that way (by surname ending)? Seems a bit off-putting to me. Please answer.

3. The references you objected to (as linked above) do not seem to be from Armenians, so you putting down Armenian sources seems to be a non sequitur in this discussion.

4. If all Armenians and people of Armenian heritage (with those last names) are "literally biased" does that mean that all Turkish people and people of Turkish heritage are also "literally biased" and using them for denial of the Armenian information is worthless? Please answer.

5. If you object to a source as non-reliable, please also post objective evidence that it is unreliable. Otherwise, your objection could be seen as frivolous.

Thank you in advance for your reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. @Furkanberk52 if you want to check whether a source is reliable, please see WP:RSP for a list of sources generally seen as reliable by the Wikipedia community. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 23:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Topic ban

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

• Support ban This is not a constructive editor. Suggesting that a source is reliable or not based on the ethnicity of the author is frankly racist. (t · c) buidhe 02:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Buidhe Then, [name removed as per WP:OUTING], there is a lot of racism going on Wikipedia, as prolific Turkish scholars like Yusuf Halaçoğlu are judged based on their ethnicity. Taner Akçam, on the other hand, is funded by Dashnak supported Zoryan Institute and has ties to the terrorist organization PKK. Kiisamyu (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support a ban. There has to be some other sort of policy violation for this as well. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 17:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• support TBAN at minimum: obvious POV-pushing and anti-Armenian rhetoric - invoking last name suffixes as evidence of unreliability is problematic to say the least ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support T-ban at least. The user with the two confusing names seems to be editing in a crudely nationalistic way. The thing about "men who's names end with yan/ian" above is deplorable, and makes me ready to support an indefinite block as an alternative. Taner Akçam is recognized as a "leading international authority" on the Armenian genocide, per Wikipedia's well-sourced article about him. To then write, as Furkanberk52 did on Talk:Armenian genocide, that "[Akçam] is anti-Turk and funding by EU. I'd suggest another sources, it can be from USA genocide researches" and to fall silent when asked for sources, speaks volumes.[4] User:LunaEclipse has given further pretty striking examples. Bishonen | tålk 21:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC).

  @Bishonen Taner Akçam is an operative of German Intelligence Agency BND and is funded by the Hamburg Institute for Social Studies. Source Kiisamyu (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBan but would prefer CBAN. Using two usernames to edit is definitely not on, nor is calling Taner Akçam anti-Turk. That's also a BLP violation. The edits linked are unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DENY The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose Wikipedia is controlled by lunatic leftists and globalists. They want to smear Turkish history under the guise of encyclopedia building. This thread is just as deceitful as the imperialist lie of Armenian genocide. Kiisamyu (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC) A brand new account that has found their way to this conversation to not only defend OP but spew weird conspiracy theories. I'm sure this will end well. — Czello (music) 00:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC) i wonder who it possibly could be ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC) For the record, it was Wallis sabiti who may be Zenzyyx. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Community ban

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

• Would support either this or a TBAN for the same reasons. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 14:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• I support this alternative also, and preferably, per my reasons given above. Bishonen | tålk 15:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC).
• A T-Ban was enough for racist insinuations, but having the cowardice to hide under a false username while doing so gives away WP:NOTHERE editing and a support for C-BAN. Borgenland (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  No comment on the underlying issue, but I don't see their signature as particularly problematic; having different sigs from username is common. The relevant guideline, WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, states that A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username, but this is not required. As it goes, I can think of at least two admins who do the same thing  :) As I say, if it's the edits themselves that are disruptive, I suggest we should focus on them. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I would agree that it's OK to have a signature different from your user name if all of your edits are squeaky-clean, so there is no real need for anyone to identify your user name, but when the edits are problematic it can be an exacerbating factor. I've no idea what policy says about this, but that seems like common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is the best we have on signatures corresponding to user names. Note that the question “can a signature be completely unrelated to the username?” was neither asked nor answered. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• i can support this, as it seems very unlikely that they will engage constructively given their track record ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Ping to keep this open longer for hopefully further input. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bumping thread for 6 days. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN Their ultranationalist behavior has leaked into discussions about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict where they say that Armenia is "illegally occupying" the Nagorno-Karabakh region despite the fact that ethnic Armenians have lived there for a while. If this is how they act over Armenians, I genuinely fear the type of damage they might cause to other Middle East-related topics. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support either type of ban per my comment above. (t · c) buidhe 19:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Cban. Their comments are unproductive and ill-suited for a community encyclopedia. Also, Furkanberk52 has only 88 edits, 500 edits are needed to edit in AA3 topics. They violated AA3, here,here, and here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  They received notice of AA contentious topic April 12. Prior to that, I do not see evidence they knew about the restrictions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Tamilcontent1 and Film Box Office numbers

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

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

• Once again on 19 February 2025, re-added the same claims, this time citing a different source while removing the existing one. I reverted the edit, as it appeared to be a deliberate attempt to present lower figures by swapping sources. Throughout this, they used misleading edit summaries and failed to engage in proper discussion, repeatedly reverting back to their version.

• On 23 March 2025, they did the same again in Lingaa, citing an unreliable source as if it were reliable. I opened a discussion at WP:RSN to request a source evaluation. The general consensus appeared to be to look for a more appropriate source for that content. User:Tamlicontent1 did not participate in the discussion.

• In what seems to be a desperate attempt, they then resorted to WP:SOCKING, creating an account named User:Tamilan CSK to restore the same content. They were eventually blocked for socking by User:Izno.

• On 4 April 2025, User:Tamilcontent1 left a warning on my talk page, saying Snap out of your fan mindset and accept criticism from reliable sources!!!. It can not be stopped.. Then on 7 April 2025, they followed up with a similar message , Another thing is very intriguing to me: There are thousands of authors in Wikipedia. Why are you so obsessed with me? Is it because the article concerned is of a movie star and you have that fan mindset? Please read fully before reverting and avoid disruptive editing. - I have rarely edited box office figures of Indian film related articles and I had not edited Annaatthe prior to this incident.

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

Jeraxmoira, I respectfully disagree with your assertions on several points. Below, I respond to your main claims, especially regarding source reliability and box office figures, using appropriate Wikipedia policies. My edits were based on verifiable information and were made in good faith.

== Competence and WP:CIR ==

WP:CIR ("Competence is required") is not a policy, but an advisory essay that encourages editors to understand and apply core Wikipedia policies. It is not a rule that can be enforced on other users, and it should not be used to attack someone's intentions or abilities without a clear policy-based reason.

Simply linking to WP:CIR without identifying a specific editing mistake or policy violation misuses the essay. If the issue is about which sources are reliable or whether a fact is verifiable, that discussion should take place using WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources instead.

== Source reliability ==

According to WP:Verifiability, information added to Wikipedia must be supported by reliable, published sources. The Indian Cinema Task Force’s FAQ also advises against using blogs or unverified box office aggregators, and instead encourages use of mainstream news outlets with editorial oversight.

I used Pinkvilla as one such source, clearly noting that its reported box office numbers are described as “approximate.” I did not use it as the only or definitive figure — it served to illustrate the range reported by different sources.

== Box office figures ==

=== Annaatthe: changed from ₹240 crore to ₹140–240 crore ===

The article originally stated only "₹240 crore" as the gross for *Annaatthe*, suggesting a fixed number without context. I updated this to a range of "₹140–240 crore" to better reflect the wide variation in estimates from trade sources, which is a more accurate and balanced presentation.

The use of a range follows WP:NPOV and gives readers the full picture. For example:

• Pinkvilla says the gross is estimated as ₹140 crore.
• Hindustan Times reported that the film entered the ₹100 crore club within three days.
• Business Today and The Indian Express reported total earnings in the ₹200–227 crore range.

Using this range is not an attempt to "downplay" numbers — it is to reflect the fact that different sources report different figures, which is very common for Indian box office data.

=== Lingaa: ₹154 crore ===

The article previously listed Lingaa's gross as ₹120–130 crore. I updated this to ₹154 crore, based on NDTV’s article titled “Baahubali to Thuppakki: Tamil Cinema’s 100 Cr Films.”

While the archived version is hosted on iFlickz.com, the article is credited to NDTV, which is a mainstream national media outlet. According to WP:NEWSORG, such sources are considered generally reliable unless shown otherwise

== Disruptive editing and civility ==

Repeatedly reverting sourced edits without starting a proper discussion on the article talk page does not meet Wikipedia’s expectations of civil, collaborative editing. WP:Civility requires editors to assume good faith and avoid hostile behavior, especially when content disagreements can be handled through discussion.

When an editor keeps reverting without attempting resolution, this can be seen as disruptive editing, especially if accompanied by misleading summaries or refusal to discuss in good faith. Such behavior in my opinion is what Jeraxmoira has been repeatedly engaging in regarding the articles I was editing without proper constructive criticism. Tags: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Vandalism

I want to be clear: I did not add these figures to “deliberately lower” the reported grosses for Annaatthe or Lingaa. That claim is unfounded. I simply updated the numbers based on available reliable sources. My edits followed Wikipedia’s core policies: WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and the guidance of the Indian Cinema Task Force.

If there are further concerns about sources or figures, they should be discussed respectfully on the talk page or brought to forums like WP:Third Opinion or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard — not repeatedly reverted without proper dialogue.

I urge the community to recognize that my edits conform to WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and the ICTF FAQ on Indian cinema. Jeraxmoira’s reverts undermine the collaborative spirit required by WP:Civility and WP:Disruptive editing. Let us resolve these sourcing questions transparently on the article talk pages or via noticeboards, rather than through repeated, unconstructive reversions or resorting to topic bans.

== References ==

"Wikipedia:Competence is required".

"Wikipedia:Essays".

"Wikipedia:Verifiability".

"Wikipedia:Reliable sources".

"Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ".

Jogani, Rishil (21 May 2024). "7 Rajinikanth Highest Grossing Movies: 2Point0 Tops". Pinkvilla.

"Rajinikanth's Annaatthe breaches into ₹100 crore club in just 3 days". Hindustan Times. 7 November 2021.

"Annaatthe box office collection: Rajinikanth film crosses ₹200 crore mark in first week". Business Today. 12 November 2021.

"Annaatthe box office: Rajinikanth film collects Rs 227.12 crore in 12 days". The Indian Express. 16 November 2021.

"Baahubali to Thuppakki: Tamil Cinema's 100 Cr Films". ndtv.com. 5 August 2015. Archived from the original on 15 June 2022.

"Wikipedia:Civility".

"Wikipedia:Disruptive editing".

Tamilcontent1 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Agree that the change to the template behavior should be reverted immediately. The editor that introduced the problem seems to have good intentions (using the citation template software to automatically identify and flag cites that have inconsistent data, namely ISBN vs publication date). But that sort of change has vast ramifications and should be discussed, tested, and evaluated first. Noleander (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 98#isbn and pre-isbn publication dates and Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 98#module suite update 12–13 April 2025. The result may not have been exactly what was desired, but it's flagrantly false to say this wasn't discussed or tested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those discussions show the level of consensus that should have been required for this in the first place, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

That may be but this isn't a situation were one editor introduced a change without discussion, testing or evaluation as suggested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The edits to revert are the April 12 edits to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers. I came extremely close to pushing the button myself here and only didn't because I'm not in the mood to jump into another ugly fight. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Not my technical area but I'm thinking you would need to revert all the changes from Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 98#module suite update 12–13 April 2025, unless they can be reverted piecemeal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Changes of this sort often can't, but looking at the code it looks to me like this one can. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery there's a single line change to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration that would, at least, hide the error message until such time as any discussion about whether this is an error or not is resolved. Nthep (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You're an admin. If you want to make that edit, then do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the change here. All this does is hide the error message, it doesn't revert the functionality of working out if there is an ISBN/ date compatibility issue. It will take some time for the job queue to take care of them all and anyone who has css modified to show hidden errors will still see them, but it should remove it from view for the casual reader. Nthep (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

As I stated on the linked discussion, I support reverting this change. The longer it is left in place the more likely it is to cause unintentional damage by gnomes "fixing" the error by using reprint dates instead of original publication dates of sources. But when we have a choice of citing an original publication or an unrevised reprint, we should always cite the original, because its publication date is useful in providing context to the readers about how up-to-date the reference might be. The alternative, removing the ISBN of a reprint, is also not a helpful response. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

So, yet another situation for the millionth time of "let's get a "consensus" of 5 or less people on an obscure talk page for something that will affect thousands of articles, rather than having the discussion on the relevant Village Pump page". Honestly think we should just delete the talk pages of these various policy articles and force people to use the Village Pump. Silverseren^C 23:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The talk pages are useful to have, but I can't say I disagree about forcing consensus for changes at VP. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren and Asilvering: I don't think "an obscure talk page" is accurate because Help talk:CS1 is the talk page for all major citation templates. Via redirect it is the talk page for {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{citation}}, and so on. Nearly every citation template with transclusions above a thousand is either one of the templates sharing that talk page or a wrapper template based on one of them. It has 514 page watchers.

How would discussions be presented on the village pump? Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) have 7 times[5] the watcher count of Help talk:CS1. Although a small increase from 514 watchers, they might be a broader range of editors. However, it would be a mistake to try and make any of the village pump pages into the talk page for all major templates for multiple reasons. First, this could derail the current usage of the village pump by flooding it with highly technical or specific template discussions. Second, maintaining widely used templates would become more difficult. For example, say someone asks which templates accept "volume", "issue", and "page" parameters and why. Right now, one could search the talk archives for "volume issue page parameters" and find the archive with the relevant discussions that give the rationale and consensus. This would be much less feasible if citation, infobox, and so on templates had all of their talk pages redirected to a village pump board.

Updates to Module:Citation/CS1 are implemented and announced in batches or "suites". This update, for example, was announced at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#module_suite_update_12–13_April_2025 with links to relevant discussions on April 6. The changes were implemented on April 13. Is there a desire to have these announcements linked at the Village Pump boards, and if so how? Would a {{Please see}} template be enough?

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyone with the correct rights willing to do this? It all reminds me too much of the hyphenated parameters debacle of 2011, where an attempt to make a million-plus bot edits based on a similar backwater discussion was halted by an RFC[6], only to then need an acrimonious CfD to get rid of the "maintenance" category for the same million+ categories for something that didn't need maintenance[7], which finally, one month later, got implemented[8]. I hope this one can move a bit faster. Fram (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a good reason that the editor who made the change is not being identified here in this discussion? At least link to the template so that the edit itself can be looked at. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I see that Pppery did provide a link. It was a module, not a template. And the editor was User:Trappist the monk. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've made a change here to hide the error message. I haven't rolled back the edits to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers that added the test. Nthep (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Removing the error message, but leaving the error category in place, has the disadvantage that it becomes very difficult to find which reference in an article is generating the error category in case one wishes to rewrite that reference to avoid it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It does, but if anyone is that interested in emptying the cwtegiry then they can always switch on seeing the error message per Help:CS1 errors#Error and maintenance messages. Nthep (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Be advised, that in their RfA they said I don't particularly care to be reverted, so I maybe hold back doing so here? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have any opinion on the underlying issue, but nobody, admin or not, can opt out of normal Wikipedia processes like reversion by making such a statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Fair point that. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  ??? They've continued responding at Help talk:CS1 where they advised on the revert, solicited feedback to develop a clear consensus, and explained that they were looking for clear consensus to revert to (a) hiding the message from editors without custom CSS, (b) hiding the message from all editors, and (c) populating Category:CS1 errors: ISBN date. And there is a discussion about better ways to track bogus ISBN values. They began by moving the discussion to a more visible location so it's not like there is an attempt to hide from or avoid the criticism. I don't think anybody wants a hard revert to the whole batch of changes. That would, for example, break all 40,000 {{cite tweet}} transclusions. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

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

But many of these ISBNs are not erroneous at all. And the category is now at 33000 articles instead of 25000... The issue with the one you highlight [9] is not Citation Bot, but the URL which links to the 1980 edition (with the ISBN)[10], so not the 1958 original edition nor the 2014 edition added in the "reprint" information. Fram (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I am looking at your citation for the John Riordan book in Factorial. There's a couple corrections you can and should make to the way you are formatting your citation that will not only make the data match exactly the book where you got the the content; fixing your formatting will also prevent Citation Bot from making incorrect assumptions as to which edition you are citing.

The main thing you need to do differently is to code both the original publication date and the publication date of the reprint. You can get the data from the url or from the copyright page of the actual book if you have a print copy. Your coding for your citation is | year = 1980 | orig-year = 1958 | isbn = 0-691-08262-6. I discovered that the ref toolbar plugged in some incorrect information into the citation when I asked it to generate a cite from the url. So in the future please check what it generates and make corrections if necessary. I've added the corrected version of this particular example to Factorial. (re-ping David Eppstein and add signature) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful advice telling me to do what I had already done. The original publication date and publication date of the reprint were both there. I had previously separated out the publication date of the reprint to material after the citation template because the template does not make it possible to give separate publisher and series metadata for original publications and reprints. So except for a gbooks courtesy link (which I have now also moved) everything in the actual citation template was for the original publication. Your edit to the article broke this by claiming that the reprint had a 1958 publication date. I do not want to cite the reprint. I want to cite the original publication. It is usually a mistake to cite a reprint. The original publication citation gives more information about the provenance of the information to readers, and often makes it easier to find free online copies for works that have gone out of copyright. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

If you visit the url and scroll to the copyright page at the beginning of the book, you will see that the edition displayed was published in 1980 and the ISBN is 0-691-08262-6. So your courtesy link is not pointing to the 2014 edition. If you look at the article revision before your revert you will see the original publication date in square brackets and the reprint's publication date in round brackets. If you want to talk about this further we should do so elsewhere. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIR issue (not resolved yet)

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

Hello. I'm re-submitting a report I previously filed which went unaddressed. The editor in question continues to engage in disruptive editing and edit warring across Iraq-related articles, despite concerns about their editing being raised multiple times. Their edits are filled with awkward phrasing, spelling errors, and poor grammar, creating big messes that require repeated cleanup by other editors.[11][12][13] They have also shown a disregard for Wikipedia policies such as WP:SIZERULE.

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

@Kharbaan Ghaltaan @Abo Yemen Your input would be kindly appreciated. Skitash (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment Appears indeed to be problematic. But have you also tried ANEW? Borgenland (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Never mind. That edit summary alone reeks of WP:OWN. Borgenland (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think ANEW would be the most appropriate noticeboard here, as the editor is engaging in slow edit warring without violating WP:3RR. They also embed poor quality edits within larger edits as they've done here (e.g. "neighoring" and "Arif's rule was considered as peaceful Iraq") without explicitly edit warring. Skitash (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that @KiddKrazy2 is involved here too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

How? I have not engaged in any disruptive editing. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

no i meant like in the discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

okay now you definitely are involved 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue still only concerns Kharbaan Ghaltaan, as Skitash's complaint is against aforementioned. Also, i am still not engaged in disruptive editing. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

My advice here, if the editor does not respond, is to propose a WP:TBAN on the articles in question. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, that's a good idea. I also think a broader ban from article space should be considered (since they make the same disruptive edits to non-Iraq-related articles too[14][15]). I'd also like to note that the editor has ignored three notices to respond here,[16][17][18] and is currently continuing to add WP:FLUFF to Iraq.[19] Skitash (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

it doesn't mean that what @Skitash should wipe off entire content. As he often highlight about WP:ARTICLESIZE and all, he can later rephrase the added content according to WP:ARTICLESIZE. If he is an active user in this topic, then he must handle to rephrase article as per WP:ARTICLESIZE, not to wipe off entire content Then why don't he take responsibility to fix up grammar or notify us in user page or talk page, instead of wiping off entire content. Without discussing on talk page he has wiped off entire content

@Skitash said Adding minority officers' name to that article is meaningless Listing their names here is just as excessive. Please take a look at related articles like Gamal Abdel Nasser and Ahmed Ben Bella, neither of which have sections dedicated to diversity." But You wont find articles explicitly mentioning those leaders' relations with minorities. Egypt and Algeria are entirely Arab, with only one minority group. So overall minorities (except religion in Egypt and language in Algeria) almost don't exist in these countries. Meanwhile Iraq is ethnically and religiously diverse and is a hot topic regarding Iraq. Saddam's topic is often all about sectarianism, ethnicity and religion. Same can be seen in Josip Broz Tito and Hafez al-Assad — Hafez al-Assad#Sectarianism and Presidency of Hafez al-Assad — presidency of Hafez al-Assad#Corrective Movement And I am not listing their names like a list. I am citing few examples.

As @Local Mandaean said: has removed a huge chunk of infomation containing context and infomation about saddam hussein and miniorites in Iraq, showcasing another side/perspective on saddams regime that not much people have been able to see due to bias in media and so on, this section of the article orginially labelled diveristy in leadership was a well sized addition, which helped give more context to the reader in the leadership ran in Iraq, unlike what the popular opinion is of complete sunni dictatorship, me, and other editors spent time writing more into this, and showing a unbias perspective which showcases that saddams regime did include more then just sunnis then what alot of media says, although one editor has continiousally deleted the section we wrote, citing it dosent go with wikipedias article length rules, although he didnt consult the talk-page for an agreement if that should be shortened, or if instead something else should be shortened. I have tried to talk it through and even rewrote it by making it smaller and trimming it, which was still deleted by @Skitash Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This block of text honestly speaks for itself. If anyone needs further evidence of the WP:CIR concerns raised, it’s right here. Skitash (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

this is what I said Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I propose we rewrite the section of the article to a more trimmed and professional standard, if you agree @Skitash il start drafting a smaller and better-worded paragraph which contains all of our infomation we wanted to be presented on saddams page. Local Mandaean (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

ANI is for addressing behavioral concerns, not content disputes. Skitash (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The thing that triggered this ANI entry is the content dispute. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Not quite. The issue here goes far beyond Saddam Hussein's article. Skitash (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this behavior has continued despite this report. The editor is still citing unreliable self-published WP:BLOGs and forums[20][21][22] and adding repetitive/badly written content such as "from 1968 to until 2003," "first visit to Iran after signing the peace treaty with Iran," and "There also several narratives and reports, that say few Jews also joined al-Gaylani's government."[23][24][25] Skitash (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

How can we go deep and get to know whether its a reliable source or not??? and how does History of the Jews in Iraq have linkage to Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a good resolution to the dispute. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

i do agree. Even I tried to trim the content. But believe me it's not possible for Saddam Hussein article to follow exact WPSIZE rules. So we can trim and short the content, but only to an extent. Many political leaders' article don't follow the WPSIZE rules exactly (ex George W. Bush, Leonid Brezhnev etc).

I agree with @Local Mandaean, just want @Skitash reply. But pls consider my idea too. Maybe be I'm poor in expressing it but you can understand what do I mean Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Local Mandaean @Skitash @KiddKrazy2 @Abo Yemen what's the final resolution??? Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

that's for an admin to decide 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

An admin has yet to decide though. When will there be a decision?? KiddKrazy2 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know when decision will be finalized....I totally agree with @Local Mandaean's resolution as it says "rewrite the section of the article to a more trimmed and professional standard and drafting a smaller and better-worded paragraph which contains all of our infomation we wanted to be presented on saddams page" Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

If y'all think rewriting/improving the article is the right way to go forwards, then do so. You don't need an admin decision for that (and in fact admins do not have any special rights when it comes to article content, so there won't be an admin decision on content). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @The Bushranger and I will would like @Local Mandaean, @Skitash, @KiddKrazy2, and @Abo Yemen to finalize the resolution suggest by @Local Mandaean "Rewrite the section of the article to a more trimmed and professional standard" and "Drafting a smaller and better-worded paragraph which contains all of our infomation we wanted to be presented on Saddam's page" Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Hollowww

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

---

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

Reported editor has a battleground mentality and is engaged in edit-warring, tendentious editing and disruptive editing. They blatantly misrepresent what sources say [26], going as far as edit-warring for the inclusion of a dead king (Shapur I) who died two years before a war [27], [28], [29] while they have been told that the king died two years before. They move articles they created [30] under the pretext that their outcomes have been changed by some "Iranians". I'm ready to hear anything, but an editor who edit wars to include a dead king in an article about a war that took place two years after his death, an editor with a battleground mentality who misrepresents what sources say is not here to build an encyclopedia. Pinging other editors who have interacted with the reported user : @Kansas Bear:, @Iranian112:, @HistoryofIran:.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I confirm, see other examples of Disruptive editings from Hollowww[31][32][33][34][35]Iranian112 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

As of 20 April, user:Hollowww has reverted the Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaign three times,15 April20 April20 April while ignoring the on-going discussion(started 2 April). That in my opinion is reason enough for a 24hr block.

User:Hollowww's articles are, simply put, Roman propaganda. They use primary Roman sources(some of which are used for original research(see Roman–Palmyrene War of 272–273, to include dead Emperor Shapur I), simply to include the Sasanian Empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Also has reverted the Roman–Palmyrene War of 272–273 three times 15 April 20 April 21 April Iranian112 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The main problem was that I used primary sources to create articles, and I have realized this too. In my most recent ones, such as Battle of Europos and Siege of Nisibis (197) I mainly relied on secondary sources. As of the previous articles I made, I don't know when, but I will rewrite them from scratch. Thank you all again for reporting. Hollowww (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Hollowww is still edit warring and adding poor citations as we speak. Here [36] they cite a book about a "financial crisis" in the USA that will "end" its status a superpower in an article about a battle between the Romans and Parthians in 198. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Comment : since Hollowww posted this message on my talk page, I think this report is no longer needed. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I am willing to believe that this editor will rewrite things to conform to policies and guidelines, but, Hollowww, please be aware that there are many eyes on you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Fremrin: created hoax article

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

---

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

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

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

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

I agree. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Support a block until they acknowledge what they did and promise not to do it again. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious to hear Fremrin's explanation, but as they haven't edited since 11 Apr and they edit infrequently, perhaps it would be safer for the project to apply an article-space block until the issue is resolved. IMO, deliberately adding false content to an article is one of the worst wiki-offenses. Schazjmd (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If they do not respond here, I will partially block them. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a plan. Even if they don't know about this discussion, they shouldn't continue editing articlespace until it's resolved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025

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

---

PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs) has been told [37] to not canvass [38] the editors who apparently shares the same view as them on Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025. Now they are openly WP:VOTESTACKING to circumvent the process [39]. Heraklios 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Pings have been done by the other side too [40]. WP:VOTESTACKING mentions that it applies to RFCs, AFDs and CFDs, but doesn't mention RMs. I've participated numerous RMs before, and editors have very often notified other editors though pings or other ways. Only in AFDs, have I noticed that notifying other editors is strictly prohibited, but never in RMs. PadFoot (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That is not what that guideline states. The votestacking section merely lists those as examples: such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD. The canvassing behavioral guideline clearly states Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.. Note the breadth of the definition: notifications that try to influence a discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any decision coming from this RM will be lasting. Maniacal ! Paradoxical was supposed to leave a neutral statement/question and those opening comments have a clear POV. And, PadFoot, referring to editors with different opinions as "sides" shows a BATTLEGROUND attitude. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It is correct that canvassing is as inappropriate in RMs as anywhere else; pings are acceptable only as long as editors are not notified according to their expected viewpoint on a discussion. However, RMs are not expected to begin with neutral statements like RFCs. In fact, it is expected that the editor suggesting the move will advocate for it (WP:RSPM), so there was no problem with the original request incorporating an opinion. Whether the opening statement was one that might reasonably be expected to convince those in disagreement and lead to consensus is a separate question. Dekimasuよ! 04:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Er, yeah. I'm not sure how you could be expected to propose a move with a "neutral statement". Wanting the page to be moved is kind of the point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Rsjaffe, I still had a slight bit of confusion, does this apply to a simple talk page discussion as well? Like say editor A wants to include a newer figure of the lifespan of the Common Irish Mountain Dragon, and an editor B disagrees so they both go the talk page to discuss, and editor A pings another editor C there, would that be canvassing too? PadFoot (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that might be canvassing. In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way.

The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive):

1. Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.[1]
2. Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
3. Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
4. Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
5. Soliciting support in indirect ways, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! PadFoot (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

They only pinged users from the previous RM that agreed with them/were friends with, which is blatant canvassing, and then have continued to do so after being warned. Surely that’s sanctionable. Couple that with the original research conducted in the previous and current RM, and gaslighty WP:SEALIONING, like trying to argue ngrams, which gave a massive lead, can’t be used to assess common name because of WP:CIRCULAR, or that Maratha Empire is somehow a WP:POVNAME despite most reputable scholars using it. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Previous concerns were raised about Padfoot’s OR and POV pushing (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing) by three experienced editors which archived without admin input. They raised concerns about anti-Indian bias. There is also User:PadFoot2008/Great Indian Sockwar (2022–present) which seems to be parodying historical conflicts and seems WP:BATTLEGROUND. There is also an ongoing AE case against him. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Padfoot was also warned for canvassing in a AFD discussion here Kowal2701 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Having received that warning, Padfoot's comments above claiming that they didn't know canvassing applied to RMs now appear specious. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, as I mentioned before, I was thus aware that canvassing applied to AfD, because of that warning. However, since RMs are not mentioned, and as I have seen that editors often ping others in RMs, I had been under the impression that canvassing was not applicable to RMs. PadFoot (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be more convincing if you hadn’t continued after being warned. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned right at the top, I had seen WP:CANVASSING before, but as I had seen editors being pinged on RMs before, I thought it wasn't for RMs, and only for AfDs. After rsjaffe cleared it up for me, I haven't pinged any more editors. PadFoot (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You haven't only pinged the editors but have also notified them of the discussion, and failing to admit that is not helping at all. Heraklios 16:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• The response by PadFoot is deceptive; they had previously done the same thing by canvassing editors for the move discussion on the same page, which is Maratha Confederacy. Most of the canvassed editors eventually voted in PadFoot's favor [41][42][43][44][45] Similarly, they also canvassed for AfDs [46] and RfCs [47], and in both cases, the canvassed users ended up supporting them. Even the Move Review process wasn't spared:

[48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] Despite being aware of WP:CANVASSING, PadFoot chose to repeat the same mistakes. They were also warned previously for unilaterally moving pages, which led to them losing their page mover rights. However, they still didn't learn and recently carried out another undiscussed move: [58] [59] This caused unnecessary exhaustion of other editors' time: [60] [61] [62] They have also cast aspersions and refused to accept consensus-driven RMs, as seen here: [63] Their comment was: all these Empire move pushes in India-related articles have been brought about by just you three in a sudden quick succession. Now they continue making these same mistakes, the only remedy remains to restrict PadFoot from moving pages and participating in mainspace talk discussions to prevent further canvassing. Heraklios 16:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TB from page moves and talk mainspace: I think this is the best remedy one could suggest after witnessing repeating disruptive moves and open canvassing. Given that they were warned about these problems and still chose to repeat the same mistake, I don't think PadFoot2008 should be allowed to roam freely on talk pages and moving pages. Heraklios 17:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous, after I was told that canvassing shouldn't be done in AfDs, I didn't notify anymore editors in any other AfDs that I did after the first one. For RMs, after rsjaffe clarified to me that notifying/pinging editors on RMs was not allowed, I have not notified any other editor since then. PadFoot (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're out of WP:ROPE, you knew the consequences for canvassing but disregarded it on this very report by indirectly saying "I wasn't aware of moving discussion canvassing, so it should be ruled out", you want to be warned everytime and for every type of discussions? That isn't how it works and as evident from the above diffs, you haven't only blatantly canvassed editors on RMs but also in AfDs, RfCs and even MRs. Heraklios 18:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I came to know that canvassing wasn't allowed on AfDs after I was told so, and so I never notified any editor on any other AfD again. Your disingenuinity is apparent from your attempt at giving others a false impression by mentioning ROPE, which applies specifically to unblocking blocked editors, and is thus irrelevant to this discussion, as I've never been blocked. As for the move review, I notified every single editor who had participated in the RM, and thus canvassing doesn't even apply in the first place. PadFoot (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from page moves, RfCs, RMs, and AfDs, only way to prevent further disruption. A ban from talk pages might as well be a site wide ban since being able to engage in discussion is needed to edit. Their canvassing has mostly been in these higher level discussions.

Kowal2701 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions - I have never seen a more flagrant example of battleground mentality, just what in the world are you even trying to say? How can we ban someone from " talk mainspace", what is even that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that someone should be banned from talk pages because they are canvassing? When they clearly have acknowledged their mistake and said they were not aware about the specifics of the policy then why are you trying to re-litigate this thread with such an outrageous proposal? WP:BOLD Moves are not always bad, if they are contested, RM is the way. I see zero evidence of any misconduct that would warrant a sanction here. Shankargb (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? they were aware of canvassing and that's a fact and if we're being specific, then they could be sanctioned for participating in user talk pages. Their moves have always been overturned and questioned, you need to relook at the above given diffs. Dympies (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from page moves and user talk mainspace except their own and talk mainspace, of course. Per Kowal they can be restricted from participating in any move, AfD, RfC discussions as an alternative. If we won't sanction them from user talk pages, then I don't know how it can be assured that their canvassing would stop. Their moves are poor which is evident from the history. Dympies (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and close - No evidence has been provided that why a long term productive editor should be topic banned. Furthermore, a report already exists at WP:AE about this user, there was no need to open this report per WP:FORUMSHOP. @Asilvering: can you close this report since one already exists at WP:AE? Azuredivay (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Actually I agree that AE is a better venue for this, someone should summarise this thread there (including the AfD warning, Maniacal’s warning, and Rsjaffe’s comment about Padfoot’s 'defence'). Don’t think a CBAN would be appropriate Kowal2701 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  @HerakliosJulianus, I haven't looked much into this and compared it to what's at WP:AE right now, but if both an "oppose ban" and a "support ban" editor agree this should be at WP:AE instead, I'm inclined to believe there's merit to that - are you alright with this ANI thread being closed? -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I've addressed the canvassing substantively in my examination of the AE report and expect that the conclusion of the AE discussion will likely make this thread moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm ok as well, Rosguill has already picked up the AE report so it's unnecessary to keep this open. Heraklios 14:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  @ Azuredivay,

  The report on AE is about their earlier misinterpretations of sources which may need a remedy of a Topic ban from the entire IPA, however this is mainly about recent canvassing and roughly executed page moves which are subject to immediate sanction from ANI. There is a bunch of evidence suggesting unconstructive editorial by PadFoot. Dympies (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from page moves and user talk pages Padfoot has demonstrated a a pattern of Battleground behavior, they had shown similar behavior in Tripartite Struggle article, where they casted aspersions on me and 2 others in that discussion. On the Maratha Confederacy talk page, despite being previously warned not canvas editors [64], they selectively pinged @Mithilanchalputra7 and @Oxiyam.Primal and a few others, who had voted in the last move discussion to oppose the page move just like they themselves. Additionally, they went to canvas another user:

"Hello @User:Someguywhosbored, your opinion and participation at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025 would be appreciated." [65]. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych

• Roman Shukhevych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manyareasexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I started making some edits to Roman Shukhevych after waiting a long time after a previous contentious discussion with Manyareasexpert. My edits directly cited publicly available sources, with quotes and page numbers often included. [66], [67], [68] Many of my edits have now been jumbled and reverted. I'd normally be okay with trying to resolve this via the BRD cycle, but manyareasexpert's behavior and discussion style has been particularly grating and disruptive.

First, he is repeatedly asking me to read these directly cited sources for him. The talk page is clogged with walls of texts directly from the sources because I am doing his wikipedia homework for him. Almost all of these sources are free to the public. The reason I believe he is not reading the sources is that his objections keep shifting when presented with the text of the source. First, it was that not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres,[69] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [70] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[71] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [72] He didn't remove the sources, so he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it. So he just stuck my content near the bottom of the page [73] and restored his preferred wording. He broke citations while doing so. I am not sure how to engage with someone who repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits.

Secondly, I am deeply concerned he is engaging in Holocaust revisionism. [74] He asked to me to view a uncontested historical fact about the Holocaust (the shooting of Jews by members of Roman's battalion) with skepticism. Additionally, the source he provided for his claims, on page 364, says that the Battalion engaged in killings to on "take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians" alleging, on page 363, that "the indisputable fact is that in Ukraine, over the centuries, a significant part of Jews collaborated with the enslavers of the indigenous population" [75] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [76], claiming they "had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." I sincerely hope this is a lost in translation kind of thing.

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

Apologies, the references for the diffs are messed up. Fixed. isa.p (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I should note that this isn't the first time within the past month that MAE's conduct related to this sort of topic has come up - scroll down here to just above the subsection break and from then on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is all clearly a MAGA inspired witch-hunt to silence my dear friend @Manyareasexpert note that if any action is taken against him all hell will break loose in the form of the mother of all sock puppetry and I will persist until sanity comes back. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Blatant sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It's victimblaming, where the opponent adds WP:OR and blames the opponent for fixing it.

he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it - you should not reach the conclusion, it's WP:OR - On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

It's actually the opponent who, responding to a direct request to provide a quote from the source they supplied Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500-Carlp941-20250402212300 , responds with the wall of text Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500 from different other sources, combined with WP:PA and accusations of "wikihounding" and one quote from the source in question, which do not support their wording.

It's actually the opponent who provides misleading claims that "The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative" Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250403175100-Manyareasexpert-20250403162400, which is also factually wrong, given that "Neither Stepan Bandera or the OUN are a symbols of the current Ukrainian government and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not presenting Bandera or other OUN members as national heroes,[1] preferring to not talk about Bandera.[2]" - Commemoration of Stepan Bandera .

It's the opponent who returns [77] misleading "records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia" , deleting the source which challenges the sentence, and supplying source which do not confirms the sentence, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

content objections aside, your fellow wikipedia editors are not your "opponents." I am really concerned about your approach to editing if this is how you see it. isa.p (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be wp:battleground. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The one who disagrees is the opponent, no? anyway, if editors are protesting, will use something different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not opponents. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Having a disagreement does not make an opponent. We're all here to make an encyclopedia. Why would you think you have a rivalry? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

In some languages, an opponent is the one who disagrees, not a rival. Anyway, duly noted, will use something different. Now, let's attend more serious issues of original research and misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources and possible PA raised above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The only personal attack I'm seeing is you accusing them of victimblaming. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you see why it is so hard to engage with you? My warning of wikihounding was interpreted as a personal attack - you pinged me for two discussions on the same page, I was warning you to not continue that behavior.

On your second point, the goal posts have shifted again. Also, citing other articles on Wikipedia to make your point, especially ones you have contributed significantly [78][79][80] to, is poor form. Anywho, the page is about Roman and includes references to sources talking about a nationalist obsfucation of history. It is not about Zelenskyy's policy towards statues of Stepan Bandera and what he alone says about the OUN. You're not even objecting to my sourcing anymore, this is a red herring.

In re: Vinnytsia, I was trying to follow the BRD cycle, but given that the original source was engaging in obscene holocaust revisionism and was not in English, I had to change tack. I used a high quality english source that referenced the same primary document but didn't include a tirade about Jews oppressing Ukrainians. I then restored the original language. I did my best to follow Wikipedia policy. I certainly did not misrepresent the Ukrainian language source when removing it - I quoted it directly in my justification.

Lastly, you have not addressed my concern of Holocaust revisionism, that is troubling. isa.p (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You don't get to say things like Now, let's attend more serious issues, especially when this thread was started about you. Everybody's conduct involved is open to discussion, yes. But Insanityclown1 is right - the only PA here was by you, and the concerns that arose about your editing in the last ANI you participated in (linked above) are being observed here too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Opponent? Oh dear. GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Comment by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, this really might be an issue of English not being their native language. It would probably be helpful if one would give them suggestions for better wording. I think instead of "opponent" something like calling them "the other party" or "the reporting party" would do or just using the username of the person in question (although that might accidentally ping them, which they might not want). Nakonana (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not think their English is at a good enough level. See for example this edit. Mellk (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some non-sock-puppet input here.

I'm not hoping for any kind of sanction on MAE, if it can be avoided. If the potential holocaust revisionism can be adequately explained, I think we can work on things. isa.p (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact they seem to have come down with ANI Flu doesn't help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Since user Manyareasexpert had me tbanned from Eastern Europe on these very articles,[81] I ask the administrators' permission to bring some of his diffs to your attention. Mhorg (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to relitigate your topic ban here. In my estimation, both of your edits in that TBAN discussion were below standards. Getting back into that seems like a distraction to me, but if admins feel like it is useful thing to look into to observe a pattern of behavior, fine by me.

I have a lot of problems with MAE's editing style, but I was prepared to use a different forum for DR (as I have done in past) until he until he added Holocaust revisionism to the article we were discussing. I want MAE specifically to answer to my question about Holocaust revisionism, and why he seems to have engaged in it multiple times, and why he seems to have come down with ANI flu when directly asked about it. If we work through that, then we can find a way to engage with each other. isa.p (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What nonsense is that, he has not come down with any flu, he just dosen't have the time to be on Wikipedia all day like you. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC) sock.... Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Not sure whose, but blatant. Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC) I requested a CU against CmsrNgubane. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC) You were correct. Blocked half a dozen of their accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 09:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Your IP Block failed dismally old man, I'm way too tech savvy for you🤣🤣🤣. 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC) Your block attempts will fail like every other admin before you you may as well just block my entire City 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC) We could continue playing this game forever or we could come to a deal where my original account is unblocked, you should look at the reasons why I was blocked, it was because I opposed manyareasexperts nonsensical contribution to the BRICS article but if you don't want to unblock me then I will continue doing this for many years to come. 41.144.1.188 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC) I don't think I blocked any IPs, just some accounts. I guess a few IPs might have ended up autoblocked. Anyway, I've now put in place a couple of range blocks that might have an effect, and won't have much collateral - that might be more effective, I guess we'll see. Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• MAE, a regular and prolific editor up until now, suddenly went silent when their conduct was called into question here - since February 1, the longest gap in their editing has been a single day, while as of now it's been 9 minutes short of five days since their last edit. This looks very much like an attempt to avoid scrutiny by playing possum until the thread goes stale. Given the severity of the concerns raised above and that apparent vanishing, I've pblocked them from articlespace until they return and address the concerns here. Once they do adequately, anyone can lift the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Full disclosure, MAE started an ANI thread against me for "personal attacks" after I told them I do not wish to engage in fascist apologia. Simonm223 (diff) and Rosguill (diff) disagreed with MAE and said that their behaviour could be seen as fascist apologia. But that whole thread is now gone, wtf? ManyAreasExpert tries to hide Nazi links of Ukrainian nationalist organisations: diff thread, diff thread, diff thread.

ManyAreasExpert's MO is clear, they're the JAQ (Just Asking Questions) type of Nazi apologist. I am not surprised that isa.p noticed Holocaust denialism behaviour, as those are usually also the JAQ types. MAE also likes to "question" sources until other editors get so frustrated that they have to copy paste and italicise and bold the relevant sentences because MAE often refuses to see the argument, WP:IDHT.

Other editors have also noticed this behaviour, here is an example.

All in all, this is a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor who displays WP:NOTHERE behaviour in their attempts to WP:POVPUSH. If this was a fringe topic or some cutesy content dispute over numbers of feathers on a bird or something I wouldn't say anything, but because this has to do with whitewashing nazis and their crimes I think it is particularly egregious, per WP:NONAZIS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about this thread? 128.164.171.24 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ping to keep this open awhile longer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support making the block permanent unless they return to address the above allegations Andre🚐 05:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  The pblock is already indef until they address them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  It’s possible it’s more of an extreme pro-Ukrainian POV rather than antisemitic/Nazi POV? One can only hope they don’t appreciate what they’re doing Kowal2701 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Why would an "antisemitic POV" argue against the censorship of sources criticizing "Gaza Ministry of Health" numbers Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#c-Manyareasexpert-20240311111300-Selfstudier-20240311110700 . Or expressing an opinion that Palestine-sourced numbers should be attributed Talk:Gaza war/Archive 34#c-Manyareasexpert-20231206003600-Crampcomes-20231205200100 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Even if it is "extreme pro-Ukrainian POV", you might still be looking at a topic ban, whether that’s from Jewish history or even Ukraine-related articles. Please address comments admins are about make Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  The argument that you can't possibly be antisemitic if you criticize Palestinian perspectives is laughably bad, and itself evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am gobsmacked at this response to my concerns about Holocaust revisionism. You aren't antisemitic because you took a pro-Israel point of view in a content dispute? In addition to not being related to my concern at all, this reeks of a battleground mindset. isa.p (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  If you don’t address the concerns, the indefinite article-space ban will probably stay in place. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Accidentally misplaced. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose CBAN, but though I would support COI-esque restrictions. What I see is preference to use more familiar (and in this case archaic) language, not deliberate whitewashing. JayCubby 13:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC) I assume you meant to post this in the section regarding Davidbena below? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC) @JayCubby: The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Goodness, yes, I am, @The Bushranger. Thanks a bunch! JayCubby 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Looks like I already did. JayCubby 22:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC) No worries. We've all been there and done that! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Giving this one final ping to keep it open another 72 hours, since MAE has apparently gone on unannounced Wikibreak. If they return after this rolls off ANI, the pblock will remain until they address the concerns that led to this, and their vanishing immediately afterwards. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I've requested an investigation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  You're past three days on the warning above and are trying to shift the conversation elsewhere; please comment here rather than forcing a forum shop in a clear last-ditch attempt to evade scrutiny. Nathannah • 📮 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Noting as a passerby: that request has been rejected by Ealdgyth, expressly because of the existence of this discussion, and because MAE's approach to that process was out-of-step with the purpose and procedure of AE. ManyAreasExpert, I'm not familiar with this dispute or the involved articles (beyond having read this thread, and having reviewed the diffs and some of the related discussion), but this looks like a pretty blatant attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP and derail an ongoing behavioural discussion regarding your conduct (that is, this thread). You cannot use the technicality of an AE request (bizarrely filed against yourself) to void or inhibit a developing consensus regarding your activities, regardless of whether that consensus has yet been rendered into a formal closure. This tactic is definitely not going to do anything to improve your standing with regard to this situation, nor the framing of your overall behaviour in the eyes of the community respondents. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to what Snow Rise said above, it's really interesting that after this complaint was raised and not immediately dismissed, MAE, who had been editing steadily for several months, utterly vanished - only to reappear within the day after this thread was finally (intially) archived from ANI. That's not behavior associated with an editor in good standing with no behavioral concerns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • That said: MAE, you need to respond here to the allegations raised above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert:
  First, we should attend an overwhelming support (except maybe @Tristario), expressed at ANI for "whitewashing of Nazi crimes" and "Holocaust denial" aspersions.
  Let’s face it: we were discussing subjects engaged in, or connected to, atrocities. The thing is, people (including me) are naturally against atrocities. The reason being, among others, simple survival. The atrocities are bad for people. The atrocities are terrible so much that when people read about something related to, or connected with, atrocities, and they encounter somebody supposedly insisting on not including something "bad" into the article, making the subject a bit "not-that-evil", people feel that their natural rejection of atrocities is endangered. They perceive this editor endangers their rejection of atrocities, is trying to hide atrocities, and is essentially wrong. Regardless of if editor’s arguments are simple denial, or they are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules.
  With that, Russia-relater articles are a contentious topic, with personal attacks not allowed (WP:ASPERSIONS - An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe). In related recent arbitration cases, even the editors with serious proof of violation of Wikipedia rules were not treated to similar accusations by the Arbcom. Instead, the editor who made "Holocaust denial" aspersions was investigated and sanctioned. As the arbitrator has said, "it is fine to argue that you think someone is POV-pushing, but implications of Holocaust denialism are very serious and hurtful and should not be made without extremely compelling evidence".
  I call the admins to apply the same or higher standards of investigation to this case as well. No, a talkpage response with the quote from a book by a historian is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to sources is not "Holocaust denial". To argue that "collaboration" and "alliance" are not the same thing, pointing to WP:OR (contested by @Rosguill), is a legitimate discussion and is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". The OUN wasn't "nazi"! (although, had some links to).
  With that, I’m not sure if the community can overcome (or even agree with) the issue described in the first paragraphs. There are and there will be editors willing to walk an extra mile and equate "collaboration" to "alliance", "nazi links" to "nazi", and so on, and many, as evident, are against MAE expressing arguments opposing that. As was apparent from ANI requests above, this approach is to prevail, and MAE will remain outcasted. Who would enjoy being called atrocities supporter for their volunteer work, after all. Still, the correct investigation of all the parties should be carried, evidence collected, and correct measures applied.
  MAE's contributions to the topic area should be considered. Most of my edits ( [82] [83] [84] [85] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. Some, however, are seeing UN reports and academic books getting replaced with WP:RIANOVOSTI banned in Ruwiki, WP:TASS and the like.
  @TurboSuperA+'s usage of accusations to leverage the discussion should be considered. [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] editors reminding the editor to stop accusing other editors. Did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles?
  @Carlp941's previous accusations of "wikihounding" and more which they had to withdraw should be considered. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  This request for an investigation is... bizarre, to put it nicely. My dispute with that editor was resolved amicably, and we shared friendly exchanges after the incident in question. so I'm unsure why this is being drudged up a year later unless the intent is to try to flip the tables on me for asking you to not wikihound. This attempt at starting an investigation into me and others feels like retaliation. It is troubling that in response to being asked to not wikihound, you try to drag me into another forum so you can get your way and have me investigated.

  Instead of attempting to get me and other editors investigated, would you please just answer the questions asked of you? This whole essay does not do that, and is mostly about a bunch of different content disputes. isa.p (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is ultimately irrelevant whether the POV motivating the edits was one of deliberate holicaust revisionism, of hard-core pro-Ukraine POV or one motivated by an otherwise good faith total failure to read the room. If you are pushing edits that multiple other editors are calling holocaust revisionism the appropriate course of action is to stop pushing those edits and do a bit of reflection. Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Manyareasexpert:, please directly address the concerns raised in this thread above. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. @Manyareasexpert, I am not deeply involved in this, however I think perhaps it would probably be helpful if you considered the critiques and concerns people have raised and then perhaps described how you could take steps to ameliorate their concerns and and edit in a more collaborative, productive, non-combative manner with other editors. I do think there is a bit of miscommunication going on here in general and some WP:AGF would go a long way, too. Tristario (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  He might be trying to counter Russian propaganda which portrays Ukrainians as modern-day Nazis? (Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  I tend to be a WP:YESRGW kind of editor but their behavior is not helping them. I am open to this being a misunderstanding, but MAE has now attempted to have me investigated after refusing to address any of my concerns. I believe I have done my best to demonstrate my good faith, I'd appreciate MAE doing the same. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  And as I noted above, the timing of their vanishing act, combined with once they returned throwing out...this as their response, raises more red flags than a parade in Red Square. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. The core issue is "Holocaust denial" accusations [91] . No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to the source is not "Holocaust denial". The source was in the article before for who knows how many years, and I fixed the sentence per source [92] . I may agree now that saying As historian Ivan Patryliak writes, Nachtigall fighters had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews may be perceived as some justification "to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews". However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially. Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was). The edit was removed after ([93]), and the content not corresponding to the source was returned. I fixed the undisputed part per source after ([94]) . (Edit: Carlp941 actually removed Patrylak, returned previous content, and inserted another source, with me fixing the content after per new source, with the content corresponding to now-removed Patrylak as well). Later, the whole sentence was removed [95] because it's not about the article subject, and I agree with it.

  Now, an editor may express an opinion that Iwan Patrylak is "Holocaust denialist". Or, maybe saying that Iwan Patrylak, a living person, is "Holocaust denialist", without evidence, is WP:BLP violation? I see nothing about Iwan Patrylak being "denialist" in the article about him. But maybe the party raising the issue will support their opinion with some sources, who knows. Anyway, this opinion can be discussed in talk, in civilized manner, and the wiki-editor should not be accused of "Holocaust denialism" because he fixed the article per source which was already there for who knows how long.

  No, opening separate discussions on different topics is not "wikihounding" (Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500).

  With that, serious accusations require serious evidence. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence . I'm effectively been kicked out.

  What other questions need to be answered? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Coming to ANI for protection You didn't open this thread. It was opened about you by Carlp941. And accusing another editor of victimblaming is, in fact, a personal attack. Also I still don't see any explanation of your absence during the time this thread was up previously, and how you just happened to return within 12 hours of it being archived. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  The explanation is there. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence. I'm effectively been kicked out. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  In my view, this is not a good justification. I empathize with being frustrated, but a three week disappearance followed by demanding an investigation into multiple editors... isa.p (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Might get better results if you weren't effectively trying to gaslight people involved on this thread. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Manyareasexpert Another issue that some editors have expressed concern with is a combative attitude. Perhaps you could outline some areas where you may have gone wrong there, if you believe you did, and where you could do better in the future? Tristario (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  concern with is a combative attitude
  I heard that. I would appreciate some examples of that, and how the communication could be done better. I need to learn a better more diplomatic approach. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Manyareasexpert You should consider some of the issues people have raised, such as: the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent", acknowledge that you brought up issues unrelated to the issues at hand, making dealing with the present issues raised more difficult and confusing, and acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence.

  Some behavior of other parties is also not great, however it's important not to get into the mindset of letting that justify substandard behavior in yourself. In general, if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation.

  There's also been a fair bit of miscommunication going on, more than people may realize (this is partially related to your level of ability in english). So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it.

  I hope you appreciate this advice. Like, I said, I think outlining where the way you've done things hasn't been great, and how you can do better in the future, would be a good idea. Tristario (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  the use of the term "victimblaming", "opponent"
  Thank you, I appreciate the feedback and will not use these

  acknowledge and apologize for your extended absence
  That would confirm I went "lurking" with some evil intentions to introduce disruptive edits into Wiki articles, which is not the case. Very serious accusations of "evil behavior", supported by the community, really curb the motivation for volunteer work.

  if someone may have a different understanding of a source, to acknowledge where they might be getting their interpretation from, and then explain in more detail what your interpretation of the source is, and then maybe suggest some kind of compromise. It's good to actively try to seek common ground with other editors, rather than, for instance, just stating something isn't in a source without further explanation
  Thank you for the advice. Will do that, and will look for the 3rd party feedback more often.

  So you want to be careful about trying to make sure you're well understood, thinking about how you or others might be taking things differently - if there's a misunderstanding, you want to actively try to figure it out and explain it
  Thank you, will look for the 3rd party feedback more often. I will also look for a mentor to work contested edits and discussions with them and to help my discussion be more diplomatic online. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Re vanishing, see WP:ANIFLU, it’s pretty common for people to avoid editing Wikipedia when there’s an ANI case open against them, hoping it passes and gets archived Kowal2701 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like my responses here are working against me. So the case could be very well concluded without them.

  And even with the case archived, would you be called an atrocities supporter, get this designation supported by the community, and return back to the topic? I don't know where would I get such a motivation. The correct approach is to step out if your edits are not appreciated, regardless if you are thinking you are right. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I will get into the content later in this, but repeatedly accusing me of victimblaming is crossing a line. Please stop the personal attacks on my character. I have not requested any sanctions on you - I certainly have not victimized you. Your current block is the result of an admin observing your behavior and subsequent disappearance when you were directly asked about said behavior.

  I get that no one likes being accused of wikihounding, but my firm warning does not warrant your fixation. You should note that my initial post does not include an accusation of wikihounding. Yet, you think it necessary to include it here, in the reply above, and in your bizarre request for an investigation. You drudged up a long forgiven dispute to discredit an accusation I did not make here. Pardon the continued dog analogies, but maybe a hit dog is hollering. You'd help your case a lot if you stopped focusing on wikihounding and stopped opening new venues of discussion to dispute it.

  A lot of your post is just trying to rewrite the history of our dispute in your favor, so I am going to press onto the core of the dispute, which is this sentence:

  However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially.

  What does this actually mean? I keep rereading this sentence, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Nachtigall had bad ideology and it justified atrocities? Or that they had bad reasons grounding their murders? This sentence is incredibly unclear.

  Your edit, on the other hand, was crystal clear - OUN had "ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." The source had an extended diatribe about how Jews allegedly victimized Ukrainians, and how their murders were justified as revenge against enslavers. That is ahistorical Holocaust Revisionism, it has no business on Wikipedia. Troublingly, you have not addressed this, and instead allege that I am slandering someone. I made no comment on the historian's motives and I made no edits to his page, so in my view, BLP does not apply. Someone would have to dig into the edit history of a parituclarly obscure article to find out that one of his works engages in Holocaust Revisionism.

  Do you think this work did not engage in Holocaust Revisionism? Why did you deflect here? Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism? isa.p (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is valid discussion for a talk page and editors should be allowed to discuss it, without accusations of "Holocaust revisionism". I've already agreed with the questioned content removed.

  Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism?
  No, I asked [96] to check if the article contend corresponds to sources provided. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was).
  

  It's not just the Roman Shukhevych page. On a lot of articles on Ukrainian neo-Nazis (sorry, ultranationalist, far-right people and groups aligned with Nazi Germany or linked to Nazi ideology), you are there questioning sources or introducing sources that whitewash their Nazi connections:

• Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B. On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert and then question the reliability of Le Monde. Another editor questions your motivations: if your claim is that Stepan Bandera was not Nazi collaborator, it is hardly tenable, as it was discussed here zillions of times.
• Here you introduce a source that argues that "Slava Ukraini" is not a neo-Nazi salute "imbued with a new meaning, free of the original claims to ethno-national superiority and exclusivity" while at the same time arguing to remove statements that connect the salute with its fascist roots.
• Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party).
• Here you remove a Newsweek source titled "Ukrainian Nationalist Volunteers Committing 'ISIS-Style' War Crimes" citing WP:NEWSWEEK as a reason to remove it, ignoring that it actually says "so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis."
• Here you argue for removing Nazi Germany as an ally of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
• Here you start a discussion on the reliability of sources regarding the "controversies" of the 3rd Assault Brigade and when editors try to meet you half-way and address your concerns all you can say is "Perhaps...".

And on and on...

Your defense against allegations against you is to dig up previous disputes I and others have had with other editors and suggest that we're the problem and that we simply throw accusations around without good reason. This leads me to believe that you actually see nothing wrong with your behaviour and think that everyone else is the problem.

Based on the evidence I laid out above, I think you are here on Wikipedia to whitewash far-right, ultranationalist, fascist (take your pick) people and groups, to remove information that links them to Nazi Germany and (neo-)Nazi ideology. For that reason you should receive a TBAN from any area where you might continue these efforts. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Here you question if "Massacres of..." is an appropriate category for Stepan Bandera and suggest he wasn't aware of the atrocities committed by the OUN-B
... and then I add that ... being well informed about the violence, was however "unable or unwilling to instruct Ukrainian nationalist military troops (as Nachtigall, Roland and UPA) to protect vulnerable minorities under their control". As German historian Olaf Glöckner writes, Bandera "failed to manage this problem (ethnic and anti-Semitic hatred) inside his forces... [97] sourced to academic book.

On the same talk page you say a person isn't an expert
No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Maryna Shevtsova not an expert .

and then question the reliability of Le Monde
No, you need to reference the actual thread Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4#Le Monde an unreliable source .

Here you argue for the removal of "ethnic nationalism" ideology descriptor from the Svoboda (political party)
... and then I replace sources containing no such designation with the actual academic source [98] containing such designation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• I second this. You vanished for three weeks, right after this thread opened and only came back when it was about to close @Manyareasexpert. This has become an issue on its own which needs to be addressed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have read through again and see you have responded to them. I sympathize with your feeling of frustration but do not see quitting for three weeks without word, then only addressing the point after being pressed multiple times, as an appropriate response. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  It took me reading through this four times to figure out that this was supposed to be the explanation for their dissapearance, because it doesn't pass the smell test at all. Even with, as Hetman observed, it being a...odd response if true, it also doesn't make sense that they would completely stop editing so abruptly, and then return within twelve hours (looking at the history, it was seven and a half hours) after the thread was archived. That isn't the action of somebody who is blameless and was demoralised, that's the action of somebody who thought they could play possum until the problem went away, and on returning realised the pblock was preventing them from editing until they addressed it. (Also, again: you weren't getting accused by admin of "personal attacks". You made a personal attack and were called out for it.) And even if completely true, it doesn't change the fact that their response to the issue above is...let's go with "wanting". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  ... one of edits I would like to bring attention to is [99] , where the editor removes content referenced with UN, EU Council, ECHR reports, academic books, academic articles, instead adding WP:TASS, unknown "civic-nation.org" , WP:RIANOVOSTI and such, under the description of "sockpuppet account". How can I politely note that such an edit is not an improvement? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note that as MAE has returned and is engaging with the issue, I have lifted the pblock from articlespace. I'd suggest they hold off on editing the topics suggested in the tban discussion below until it is resolved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

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

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

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

SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: per consensus by all respondents up until this point, up to and including Kowal2701's !vote, the original proposal has been amended to refine its focus. Additions appear in green. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support We've seen similar problems from ManyAreasExpert before and their responses here make it seem likely we will have similar problems in the future unless action is taken. A topic ban on these topics seems a reasonable preventative measure. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• concerns about MAE's ability to contribute productively and neutrally to areas regarding the holocaust, Nazism, and related topics of far-right extremism
  Editors should consider that most of my edits (Stepan Bandera [100] [101] [102] [103] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others , Azov Brigade [104] [105] [106] ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

MAE, for purposes of explaining the thinking behind this proposal, I'll just assume that you're correct about the assertion that most of your edits in this area are regarded as non-controversial and non-problematic by other editors of the related articles. I don't know that that is actually true, and I'm pretty sure the respondents here would not agree, but for the sake of argument let's take that truism. I believe that even if that concession were granted, consensus would still be that your tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits constitutes such a source of disruption and drain on community time and manpower (much of it from how you approach the criticisms raised and those who raise them) that allowing you to contribute in this area would still be a clear net negative. I don't think these issues can just be set aside because you are convinced your overall performance average is decent. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation, which is actually quite friendly.
tooth-and-nail approach concerning the remaining edits
Had to look it up, it means "fierce fighting". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you MAE; I'm very gratified to hear that the observation was taken in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN - holocaust denial and revisionism is a huge red flag for community, and the lack of real apology and willingness to address shortcomings in this thread sealed the deal. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support TBAN although I'm not entirely sure about the proposed scope. "Modern European political organizations" is vague, with differing definitions of when modernity starts (and/or ends). Most of the problems on display also seem to narrowly concern Ukrainian history, or more broadly Eastern European history, rather than "European political organizations" writ large. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the battleground attitude towards the Arab-Israeli conflict expressed in this thread, and would thus want to consider a Jewish history scope as part of the proposal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I considered multiple variants of that last entry, as narrow as "Modern far-right European political organizations" and as broad as "modern political organizations". I believe the "broadly construed" probably removes any real concerns about the "when does the modern era start?" insofar as any broad definition of the modern era includes the entire period in which the Nazi party was created and rose to prominence (the 1920s and 30s) and thereafter. But I admit that leaves reasonable concerns about the scope. Having seen a lot of TBAN discussions, including those arising from editors playing at the edges of their ban, I felt it was best to prevent temptation by circumscribing all topic matter that might be reasonably connected to direct influence by Nazi ideology, and went as broad as I could without completely shutting MAE out of socio-political topics, which would be too broad in my opinion.

All that said, I have absolutely no issues with anyone re-defining the focus of the proposal if there is even basic consensus for it. It should be changed sooner, rather than later, if it is to be changed, so as not to frustrate any eventual closure. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN with the wording of ManyAreasExpert is topic banned from engagement with the subjects of the Holocaust, Nazism, Eastern European political organizations post-1941, and Jewish history broadly construed per Rosguill. @Rosguill: does the clarification regarding the history topic work for you? {{ping|Snow Rise| @Simonm223: @Bluethricecreamman: does this tweak look alright to you?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Snow Rise:. Curse you typo'd pings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

    works for me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

    Yes this is fine as a refinement of the proposed ban. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

    I was uninvolved in the previous discussions, but as other editors have pointed out, restricting this to Eastern European political organizations post-1941 misses a big chunk of potentially problematic history. In the discussions mentioned above a prominent role is played by debates rergarding the Nazi ties of the OUN. One of our sources for that article, Per Anders Rudling's "The Cult of Roman Shukhevych in Ukraine: Myth Making with Complications", describes the group thus: Founded in 1929, the OUN was the largest and most important Ukrainian far-right organization. Explicitly totalitarian, the movement embraced the Führerprinzip, a cult of political violence, racism, and an aggressive anti-Semitism. It sought the establishment of Ukrainian statehood at any price, and utilized assassination as legitimate means to this end. A typical fascist movement, the OUN cultivated close relations with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Spanish Falange, and the Croatian Ustaše. A footnote adds that Melnyk assured, in a May 2, 1939 letter to Joachim von Ribbentrop that his organization shared the Weltanschaaung [sic] of the National Socialists and Fascists, and offered to help in the ‘reorganization’ of Eastern Europe. In other words, not only did this organisation exist before 1941, but so did its racism and its ties (political and/or ideological) to Nazism, which are the core issue. With this in mind, the proposed cut-off year sounds both artificial and inadequate. Furthermore, from a more practical standpoint, this excessive tailoring of the TBAN could easily lead to future arguments over what exactly falls into the ban or how broad "broadly construed" really is, leading to more heat when what is intended is to lower the temperature, if only slightly, of a perennially hot topic. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

    I don't know if it is appropriate for me to weigh in on potential sanctions, if it's not I'll strike this. But, I agree with this. I don't think the cut off year is clarifying, and I am not sure if OUN would qualify under the TBAN proposed. isa.p (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that works, although there is a far amount of redundancy among those topics. "Jewish history and Nazism" nominally covers all of it, although I know that sometimes we include extra prescriptions in order to preempt lawyering over gray areas. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think that's a workable solution, though it is worth noting that Nazi ideology was influencing central and eastern European groups (in Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, for example) well before 1941. Still, those topics are probably covered by the rest of the wording? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Eastern European political organizations post-1941
  That means TB on Russia, Ukraine and related political parties and so on. A state is a political organization as well, right? Would editors please be so kind and post some disruptive diffs in the area so we can see the specifics. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBan with Bushranger's edits. I agree there's some redundancy in the proposed TBan range, but, other than for esthetics, I don't see any reason to fix that, and fixing while preventing loopholes may make the definition of the ban even longer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as Bushranger's proposal.

Kowal2701 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN Reading this whole thread it seems clear that MAE's perspective on Ukrainian nationalism and the Nazis is, at best, heavily skewed, and that they are unable or unwilling to change that. Therefore a ban from editing on the topic seems necessary.--Tulzscha (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]

I have had previous issues with the user not discussing, see [110], there response to this was by removing the request for discussion, [111], and ignoring me on Talk:List of 2024–25 Premiership Rugby transfers. I did not report this to AN/I or AN/3 then as they did no further reverts of my edits. This user also does not use edit summaries despite myself requesting them to do so. They have also previously been warned about possible Sockpuppetry. And multiple other users have requested them to engage in discussion and user edit summaries over the past years.

I had previously posted this to WP:AN/3 but was advised it was more appropriate to post here. See [112] - SimplyLouis27 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This editor almost never uses talk pages, so your failure here is unsurprising. I'll pblock them from main for now, which will hopefully change the behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello asilvering and SimplyLouis27, first of all, I apologise for any misbehaviour and misunderstandings I was a part of with any regards to disruptive editing or edit warring for the last several days. The main reason is I am diagnosed with a learning disability from a young age and because of it, I have problems with communication skills with other editors. This is no lie and it is very hard to say I have a learning disability to other users online. I enjoy doing these edits .because they make me really productive. I do not understand much of the policies or guidelines when it comes to editing, I just follow the other users in how they edit. Every time an edit I done is reverted by another user for some reason, I get really annoyed because of my learning disability, so I ignore them no matter the reason whether I explained to to the user or for something else. I know it is an open policy for anyone to do edits on any page but I feel all the work I done, small or large, is all for naught. If you could unblock my account, I would appreciate that. From now on, I will be more careful and consider to other edits and be more open to communication with other editors on the edits made. Thank you for your time. NikeCage68 (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I just fixed your unblock request on your talk page. Some other admin will take action on it there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@NikeCage68, I think 331dot wrote a very good decline of your unblock request and gave you a good suggestion. I'll close this thread for now and come by your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

From content dispute to vandalism

User @FuzzyMagma: and I were having a content dispute about 2025 Omdurman market attack and RSF atrocities in Khartoum. User kept attributing those attacks to the RSF, despite them denied any involvement and accused the SAF instead. Both Amnesty International and the United Nations recognized that both parties are committing massacres and war crimes, with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also pointing out that Markets have frequently come under attack by both parties since the conflict began in April 2023. Despite that, the user kept removing any mention to these facts. I assumed good faith and informed him of my concerns on his talk page, from which we later moved the dispute to Talk:RSF atrocities in Khartoum. Meanwhile, things got worse. The user kept removing both the relevant content about the UN and the maintenance tags I had added to the page (without even mentioning that in his edit summaries), despite me advising him against doing that. I then warned him on his talk page too,[113] and all they did in response was vandalizing my talk page[114] (note that we can all play this game. you need to engage, as this is all a game to him) and repeatedly deleting both the content and the maintenance tags again, always without even mentioning that in his edit summaries. This doesn't look like a content dispute anymore, but more like a POV-pushing edit-war mixed with vandalism, and I'm not willing to engage into that further. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

let's breakdown this:

• The content dispute: As I explained in Talk:RSF atrocities in Khartoum#Editing conflict, this source is about Kabkabiya, not Khartoum. these are two different areas. The SAF has airplanes so normally they do "airstrikes" and the RSF does not, so the do "shelling", completely two different words. Further I explained that this report is about a sentence in an article that contains over 20 shelling events, with couple of them having more deaths than the 2025 Omdurman market attacks. I requested a WP:3O (see Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements, when the editor stopped listening.
• Assuming good faith: This is a big claim as the editor has already posted something on my talk, see User talk:FuzzyMagma#RSF atrocities in Khartoum and refused to reply to my comments when challenged. Further, I explained to them couple of times that I am currently editing the article (adding more shelling events) which will create an edit conflict, so they should stop especially as we yet to resolve what they wanted to add. The editor refused, accused me of having a WP:POV, tagged the article without a discussion, reverted my edit with the additional shelling events, and went as far as warrning me while the discussion is ongoing. This last thing was really silly, as what is the point? you have an ongoing discussion and you refused to go for a WP:3O when challenged, so what are you doing? forcing your points?

I am really not sure what the editor is trying to achieve from this notice, especially when they refused to understand the context of their comment and source, quoting "we can't exclude the fact that RSF denied its involvement and accused the SAF.. I guided them to look at the War crimes during the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) (which I wrote) if they are interested in that but the RSF atrocities in Khartoum article is just about that, RSF and Khartoum.

Can someone with some knowledge about the Sudanese Civil War please explain to them the source they are citing is irrelevant to the article ? Also they need to do some reading on MOS:ACCUSE and WP:WEIGHT. Anyway, I will leave it to the community to decide. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Also can I ask someone to have a look at 2025 Omdurman market attack, this editor is including the SAF as perpetrator (which I just removed) in the infobox although all reports (Aljazeera, france24, altaghyeer, BBC, Radio Dabanga, and The Guardian) are pointing to the RSF but this editor is goving the RSF denial and thier accusations of the SAF the same weight?

I do not want to stretch Wikipedia:Competence is required, but if you don’t have knowledge about a topic, you should not really be that loud and should stop and listen. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

(I found this via WP:3O) This is in fact a content dispute. @Star Mississippi can you lock the two pages, 2025 Omdurman market attack and RSF atrocities in Khartoum, for a couple of days? The two editors need to sort through the sources and agree how to include the viewpoints neutrally and according to their prominence among WP:RS.

@FuzzyMagma @Est. 2021 you two just need to agree how much weight to give to each source/claim, and you can get help with that at WP:NPOV/N. Any source you're not sure about there's WP:RSN. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+: As I said, for me it was a content dispute as long as said user didn't start repeatedly vandalizing my talk page, stalking me and carrying out multiple personal attacks to me. I stopped interacting with him as soon as I started this thread; on the other hand, besides the vandalism to my talk page I linked above (21 April), he did that again yesterday (23 April), personally attacking me under a totally unrelated talk about my user rights (despite I never used them against him). I always accept criticism on my talk page, as you can check, but I don't tolerate vandalism, stalking and personal attacks. That's not good faith. I don't want him to ever interact with me again. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

While templates can be annoying, posting them is not vandalism. I think you should reconsider this ANI report (withdraw it) and give collaboration another go. I'm not taking sides here, I think that would benefit both of you. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I would not call it personal attack. You were given a privilege, that me and the editor who started the conversation did not think you deserve. Please read about the definition of personal attack at WP:PA, unless you think your ANI is a personal attack.

Can you please link where I think I attacked you so other editors here so they can weigh in. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ unfortunately I do not have time to look into this right now. PErhaps another admin lurking can weigh in on protection needed. Star Mississippi 20:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Est. 2021: Note that the diff you provided is not vandalism, it's an editor communicating. You may think the warning is spurious, but that doesn't make it vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND. You may have a legitimate grievance, but calling that diff vandalism distracts from it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ and EducatedRedneck: Vandalism has a specific meaning, and we were already communicating. Two vandalism warnings in a row, including a final warning, without me even interacting with the page between the two warnings? And what about that we can all play this game? And why would they stalk and personally attack me again on 23 April despite I stopped editing those articles and interacting with him on 21 April, before I even started this thread? None of this makes sense, nor indicates good faith. No way I'm collaborating with them again. They must stay away from me. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism has a specific meaning Yes, exactly. I assume you haven't clicked the link I supplied, because it clearly lists disruptive editing and personal attacks as not being vandalism. Communicating one way does not preclude communicating another way as well. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: I'm perfectly familiar with WP:NOTVAND, looks like you missed my point. How is it acceptable that they accused me of vandalism twice in a row, including a final warning and useless provocations, without me even interacting with the articles in that timespan? And how is it acceptable that they stalked and attacked me multiple times under unrelated talks, even days later after I stopped interacting with him and the articles? Make it make sense. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I do agree vandalism was the wrong UW for them to use. I only see one diff of that. That still doesn't make their warnings themselves vandalism. (Note: FuzzyMagma, you should also give WP:NOTVAND a read.) I also don't see you acknowledge anywhere that they have not performed any vandalism. If they've stalked you to other unrelated pages, you'll have to provide diffs, because it doesn't look like it to me. If that can be demonstrated, perhaps something can be done.

As for the rest, I can easily view that as attempts to communicate. I understand they don't feel that way to you, but from where I'm sitting, good faith is entirely plausible. Again, if you can demonstrate WP:FOLLOWING, that may put a different light on things. But when you accuse them of something, be sure to supply evidence, or it becomes WP:ASPERSIONS.

In the meantime, two things. 1) User warnings are necessary but not sufficient for admin action. If the warnings were truly spurious, they do you no harm, final warning or no. 2) If you don't want them posting on your talk page, tell them to not post on your talk page. Between that and editing in a completely different area for a little while, it looks to me like you'll get your wish of not interacting with them. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: They wrote on my talk page twice on 21 April[115] and twice on 23 April[116] – both links I provided include intermediate diffs. I did tell them to not post on my talk page again, by the way. Maybe harsh, but I hope clear enough. I don't mind editing in a completely different area for a little while and I proved that since 21 April, unlike them, but someone else should check the articles and make sure they stop deleting content and maintenance tags without even mentioning that in the edit summaries, as they're clearly going on. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Again, maintenance tags were removed because we edited at the same time plus why did you tag a page in the middle of a discussion and when I requested a 3O!
• You now upset because I warned you when it was a revert for your warning of vandalism.
• The “I did tell them to …” happened just a few hours ago, and please don’t write something like that on my talk again. I don’t work for you to talk to me this way.
• by your logic “someone else should check the articles…” is a personal attack.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It may take some time, but I'm sure someone will step up. It sounds like you have a workable solution, then. And, of course, if FuzzyMagma does turn up on articles they've never edited and harasses you, that would be a fairly open-and-shut ANI case. It sounds like you're doing the right thing: telling them not to contact you, and disengage from an editor you have trouble getting along with.

Fuzzymagma, ANI is not for content disputes. Est. 2021's warning was not of vandalism, it was of unexplained removal, and the warning is also not vandalism. They also have the right to tell you to not post on their talk page, as they linked, and if you do so anyway, it's considered harassment. I do agree that their request contained personal attacks, but as you've asked them to not post on your talk page, you two won't be talking to each other again, so problem solved. Neither of you has been very WP:CIVIL to the other, so I think it's good that you two will go to your own separate areas of the encyclopedia and not have to interact again.

As long as you both make an effort to avoid articles the other has edited (think of it as a voluntary, unofficial 2-way WP:IBAN) then both of you get what you want: to edit without dealing with the other. So long as that is the case, I suggest we let this thread close, and get on with improving the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

• 82.46.25.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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

• [117] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
• [118] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
• [119] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
• [120] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
• [121] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
• [122] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
• [123] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
• [124] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
• [125] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
• [126] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)

— YoungForever^(talk) 22:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This IP also has a habit of repeatedly removing and restoring redirects over and over for seemingly no reason. When asked about it on their talk page, they've either silently removed the messages or provided complete non-answers. On its own it didn't strike me as enough to warrant reporting, but I think it highlights a pattern of disruptive behavior on top of YoungForever's issues.

A few of the IP's sprees of removing and reverting. [127][128][129] Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

In looking this over, it appears that two actions should taken at about the same time. The IP should be blocked, and the drafts in question should be semi-protected to protect against IP hopping or the creation of throwaway accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. They've already been blocked four times before, so this one is for six months. Leaving the drafts where they are for now, partly because I don't want to bother and partly out of a morbid curiosity. If they start hopping around on other IPs ping me and I'll deal with the drafts too. -- asilvering (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

In addition, the IP address was canvassing for another editor to create articles for them as shown here User talk:IAmJustPete#Create an article for television season few days before you blocked them. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

might be worth salting the article space for those articles as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Bluethricecreamman wrote: might be worth salting the article space for those articles as well. Any protection of the titles in article space should be semi or ECP. I see too many titles in article space that are admin-protected due to disruption, and this makes it difficult for good-standing reviewers to review and accept good-faith drafts. Does Bluethricecreamman mean semi-protection in mainspace? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

CIR issue with Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira

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

---

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

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

Oh, s---! Are you talking about me because of my so-called exaggerations on this site?! So... Are you guys going to sue me?! Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is going to sue you. However, several people have been spending a lot of time trying to communicate with you, and have been understandably getting very frustrated. Communicating with others is a crucial part of Wikipedia, and it does not appear that you have sufficient fluency in the English language to meaningfully contribute here. There are many other Wikipedia editions, including Portuguese. You would also have a more satisfying experience editing a Wikipedia edition in a language you understand.

(Machine translation): Ninguém vai processar você. No entanto, várias pessoas têm dedicado bastante tempo tentando se comunicar com você e, compreensivelmente, têm ficado muito frustradas. Comunicar-se com os outros é uma parte crucial da Wikipédia, e não parece que você tenha fluência suficiente na língua inglesa para contribuir de forma significativa aqui. Existem muitas outras edições da Wikipédia, incluindo a em português. Você provavelmente teria uma experiência mais satisfatória editando uma edição da Wikipédia em um idioma que você compreende. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I have tried extensively to get through to them, without any success. I hate to block anyone who wants to edit in good faith, but at the same time, I agree there's a serious CIR issue, and I don't know what else to do. There's just too much of a language barrier. You can see it up and down their talk page. You try to tell them something, and they respond with something like "I'm having a nervous" and then continue on some random tangent. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from mainspace as an interim step to encourage communication and limit disruption to the project. Star Mississippi 01:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I have looked at her Portuguese Wikipedia contributions, she has good command of the language. She is not proficient at editing, but knows wiki markup and can add a couple of bare references. She caused a lot of disturbance there too, when created many articles about children's cartoon episodes back in 2016–2017. Most were deleted and redirected. (Could it maybe be that she thinks the English Wikipedia needs such redirects?)
She should just be very politely told to go back there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem here. Redirects from episode names to the list of episodes are...kind of what redirects are for? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{R from television episode}}, which may need to be DEFAULTSORTed, e.g. if there's a leading "A", "An" or "The". Narky Blert (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The bigger issue has been that they've been quite prolific in creating redirects for things that weren't mentioned in the target at all, and its been difficult to tell if they were understanding of the problem. It's only recently that they've sort of "upgraded" to mass creating redirects that are more debatable in their usefulness - like creating The Lunch (Peppa Pig) that redirects to an episode list that says something like "The Lunch" - Peppa Pig packs a lunch and eats it." Is that a likely search term? And if it is, was that info actually helpful to the reader? Do these need to be mass created for every episode? I don't know. The problem is that its impossible to even discuss it with them.

Anyways, a quick skim of their talk page should help you understand the variety of issues with the editor, and the constant struggle in trying to communicate anything with them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

One of the main pain points is their edit summaries. Just scroll down this user's logs and you can see a copy-paste of "I wanted to create this category page... And so, what do you think about that?" hundreds of times, which are completely inappropriate as edit summaries. This was called out multiple times on their talk page: 1, 2, 3. Their response always something like "Oh s---! How nervous... thanks I guess" and then they go right back to doing that exact behavior. ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I wrote a note to her explaining what she did wrong. (What I wrote may not be 100 % correct. I should have added: "The above comment may not reflect the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative corps." But anyway, I tried.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, their behavior with the edit summaries and elsewise does seem to be an issue. But the creation of the redirects themselves, at least at present, seems to me to be perfectly cromulent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I see... But I already wrote to her that the redirects and her "acting like an elephant in a china shop" were the reason she was blocked. (And her poor English.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, I showed her how to request an unblock. If she figures out how to use the unblock template, then you can maybe try unblocking her and see what happens. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You were still right to say what you did. Even Bushranger conceded that there were other issues at play here, and I still stand by my statement that even if the recent redirects aren't seen as outright disruptive, it still isn't working out that it's impossible to hold much of discussion on them with Sarah. Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Axel1382004

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

---

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

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

So it seems I didn't have the full picture with respect to the CSD tags, mea culpa. Interested editors may view the discussion about attribution on my talk page § Speedy deletion declined: Philosophy Gustav Klimt. The editor has not created any new unreferenced pages since my filing here so I doubt this matter can be considered "urgent" anymore. I hope that they have developed a better understanding of the policies from the respective warnings or would be willing to respond to their talk page messages in the future. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Popward123 - no edit summaries

• Popward123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Edit summaries are strongly encouraged but not required. FIES is a help page and specifically says it is neither a Wikipedia policy nor guideline. Unless you have something else to complain about, there's nothing to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

And the lack of communication? Umpteen messages on the talk page, not one reaction… Danners430 (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The user doesn't talk. That is always a problem because this is a collaborative project, but to sanction them, someone has to provide diffs of disruptive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

OK - if we set aside the edit summaries for a minute, and give an example of some of the other problematic behaviour we've seen:

Edit warring at Central Line (London Underground):

• Made several edits
• Was reverted by @Murgatroyd49
• Popward then restores his version with the summary I put that the Central line runs from West Ruislip or Ealing Broadway in West London.
• They are once again reverted.
• Popward then proceeds to make a very similar edit with the summary I just added that that line runs through Central London.
• Once again, they are reverted
• Popward yet again attempts to make exceedingly similar edits with the summary I just added that the line runs from West Ruislip or Ealing Broadway in West London.
• They are finally, and yet again, reverted and the edit warring stops.

This all played out over 4 days... and the reason I bring it up is it's a recent example of this editor ignoring other editors, and just carrying on pushing their own edits.

A quick glance at a filtered Contributions page (has mw-reverted applied) shows just how many of this user's edits have been reverted in a very short period of time. Various editors have tried to engage them on their talk page, but nothing has happened... are we to keep following them around in the knowledge that we're likely going to have to inspect each and every one of their diffs because a) it could be unhelpful, and b) is not explained? Is that not the definition of a net negative editor?

If the user engaged with the concerns raised on their talk page instead of refusing to engage, this could change - I don't like editors being blocked any more than the next person... but if things don't change, why are we wasting our time following them around inspecting diffs? Danners430 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

"strongly encouraged but not required" ≠ "all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page" ? Turini2 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia:Consensus page ("This page documents an English Wikipedia policy") states "all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page."

In my opinion, explaining your edits is part of a core Wikipedia policy – not just guidance or a help page. Turini2 (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

If your opinion were correct, we'd be blocking a helluva lot of editors. Consensus is in keeping with the Help page, the key word being "should" not "shall" or "must", i.e., it's a good idea. Another thing: how would you handle users who use edit summaries that don't really explain their edit? Would that satisfy policy (if there were one)?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure - there's one thing of occasionally forgetting an ES (I'm certainty guilty of that) or writing a poor quality ES – but consistently providing none at all? There's zero consequences for that? Turini2 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23, every single one of their last 50 edits was reverted, and they've only ever made 1 edit to a talk page in their entire edit history. That's more than enough for me to pblock from main, so I'll do that. -- asilvering (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@asilvering: To be clear, the link that Danners430 provided above leads to a filtered Contributions page that has the mw-reverted tag filter applied; while 50 reverted edits in the span of less than a month is a lot, it's not as bad as every single one of their last 50 edits. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I did try to make that clear when I wrote my message - I was using the filter to show the extent of their disruptive editing. Obviously not all of it is… but when someone has that level of reversions, surely patience runs out when they’re refusing to engage? Danners430 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks for pointing that out, @DrOrinScrivello. I must have forgotten I had opened that link (their contributions page is also the visited-link colour for me). I'd lift the block, but... unfortunately, in the meantime they've edited their own talk page in a way that suggests to me we're headed for an indef anyway, so I'll leave it for now and see how this plays out. @Danners430, it was probably an oversight on my part for having too many browser tabs open and clicking back to the wrong one, but if you wanted to make your original link more clear, putting "a filtered" and "page" into the hyperlink rather than just "Contributions" would have helped. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

As with any such issue, it’s no one person’s fault - I’ve made the suggested adjustments above… and I’ll try and remember to do them if there’s a next time :) Danners430 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ll use edit summaries from now on. Popward123 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Popward123, that's good to hear, but can you also address some of the editing issues? You've gotten into edit wars with other editors over your changes. What will you do instead to avoid that happening again? -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Instead of getting into edit wars, I will prioritize discussion and consensus-building before editing. I will also avoid reverting an edit more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. I'll engage in respectful communication on the talk page and will present my arguments clearly with citations. I'll be willing to compromise. Popward123 (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Danners430. Have you read my reply to your question. If not, please read. Popward123 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Popward123, you say I will also avoid reverting an edit more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. This is a bright-line rule, meaning that if you fail to observe it, you'll be blocked, end of discussion. But it's still edit-warring if you keep reverting other people's edits and just manage to stay under the 4-reverts-in-24-hours line. If you aim to prioritize consensus-building and discussion, that means not coming even close to 3RR. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I will follow the bright-line rule and won’t revert other people’s edits. I will also continue using edit summaries for the edits I make. Popward123 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I've unblocked, and sorry about my earlier error misreading your contributions history (I've noted that in the unblock log). By the way, it looks like you were trying to ping earlier, but you didn't actually send a ping - just checking that you know you can do this easily when using the "reply" button, by typing @ and then selecting the name of the editor you wish to ping? -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant Asilvering. Not Danners430. Popward123 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE Serge's comment on the article talk page: I also want to add that Serge seems to doubt the article has improved overall since I started working on it, which I think is quite silly. A comparision of it before and after I started editing it shows a lot of positive changes have been made, like swapping out unreliable sources. They also snarkily suggest I've downgraded the article. I just can't get this kind of blatant bad faith towards me. jolielover♥talk 12:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Jolielover, this is a content dispute and I see nothing in SergeWoodzing's comments that cross the line into sanctionable behavioral problems. I agree with you that the Stockholm image is mediocre. However, you have been unable to gain consensus to remove it. I suggest that you move on. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't even care about the image, like I said, I added it back initially. It's just his repeated bad faith comments towards me that bothers me and his blatant refusal to communicate effectively. jolielover♥talk 17:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Cullen328 that there is nothing actionable. Also, I'd like to point out the discussions regarding this image, both at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 256#One Direction and Talk:One Direction#Stockholm image. Seeing the full discussion in context reinforces the finding of lack of inappropriate behavior by SergeWoodzing.

I suggest dropping this, move on, and focus on improving Wikipedia. Also, assume good faith in future discussions with SergeWoodzing as you do with other editors. In any disagreement, stepping back and taking a calming break when you are upset about something aids in participating calmly in disputes. Both of you are working to improve the article; you simply have different viewpoints. And your viewpoint may not always be the 'winner' in a disagreement. That's normal. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

...so I'm the only one who should assume good faith, when I've been doing nothing but that to this day, only for Serge to accuse me of being rude and not actually assuming good faith, accuse me of edit warring over one (1) edit, accusing my edits as being 'sneaky' whilst outright refusing to listen to any of the explanations I have provided? I mean, Serge accused me of promoting Madame Tussauds due to one image of it being in the article, which I didn't even add, mind you. Any type of conversation I try to have with him just ends with no resolution. I'm not some master manipulator, secretly plotting and timing my edits meticulously, I'm a high school girl trying to make the Wikipedia page for my favourite boy band better (mine you, when that image in question was taken, I couldn't even speak English lol). I've tried to explain several times but Serge just can't seem to get it - for instance, I tried to explain that the previous 'image' section did not just 'disappear', but was merged onto the legacy section as many parts overlapped or were redundant. I don't know why, for instance, Serge takes me calling him dude as such a big offense - ok, i'm sorry, but English is not my first language and I thought it sounded friendly. I call my friends that. He hints at the article not being improved at all, I suggest more editors have a look to see if those of you interested and involved actually think the article overall is being improved. I stopped already at the third sentence.... I've dedicated hours to improving this article, for someone to hint that they think otherwise despite only stopping at the third sentence. I'm willing to make changes, but I need someone to actually communicate what those changes they want are. And, again, I don't think anyone owns an article, but i do think it's ridiculous given I've authored majority of it and Serge has like 4 edits, all minor.

I don't know if this is a contributing factor to his insistence about the image (if it's still about that at this point), but he's the one who uploaded it and added it all those years ago. I also should note that despite Serge claiming I waited a month to change an item back to what I wanted, the page did not have the image for a month, I added it back since I wanted the dispute to be over with and respected Serge's opinion, only for another comment at FAC complaining about the quality of the image, so hence I removed it again. Not because I was trying to be 'sneaky'. jolielover♥talk 18:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Jolielover, you are now being argumentative, which is not a good look. I suggest that you stop now. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Breakdown of the Issues

I see three main parts to this dispute:

• 1. There is a content dispute over whether to include an image in an article.
• 2. There has been a race condition at the Third Opinion noticeboard which has caused confusion but can be ignored.
• 3. There is a conduct allegation, but it appears that no one other than Jolielover thinks there is a conduct issue.

The content dispute was and is over inclusion of the image. The Third Opinion was a good idea as to how to resolve that. However, two editors replied at the same time, because the Third Opinion request remained on the queue while it was being worked. Neither SergeWoodzing nor I have seen a Third Opinion race condition before, which means that it probably is not likely to happen again in the near future, and it will not be useful to re-engineer the process to avoid race conditions. The two Third Opinions conflicted. The next step was DRN, which was also a reasonable next step, but DRN fizzled out. At least two editors think that the image should be included, and two editors think that the image should not be included. This is a content dispute that needs to be resolved by a Request for Comments.

I advise that Jolielover pay attention to the opinions of other editors that we do not see an issue with the conduct of SergeWoodzing.

I suggest that the editors work on a neutrally worded RFC on whether to include the image. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding by Leechjoel9 in a contentious topic

User:Leechjoel9 has been consistently monitoring my edits and reverting whatever edits on the Eritrea article [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136], among on other articles that I've made since September 2024, a brief look at his edit history all but confirms it. Now that he noticed I planned to retire he seems to have decided to strike, and deleted a large chunk of my work from various Eritrean related pages. Most notably, he consistently accuses me of being a sockpuppet, I believed this is out of revenge for a previous dispute we had in September 2023 which led to both of us getting blocked (me for 42 hours and him for around a month if I recall), during this period he has opened several SP investigations to get me banned [137] [138]. I think that he is too emotionally invested in this topic to contribute to it in a neutral manner, and I think his history of blocks and behavior above show that he is not capable of collaborative editing regarding this issue. At the very least, he needs to be prevented from constantly deleting large sections of my work for no apparent reason. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Reverting edits on the grounds that you're a sockpuppet is obviously out of line. -- asilvering (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Socialwave597, has Leechjoel9 gone on a similar reverting spree of your edits before? I didn't notice it in a quick skim. I don't mean edit wars in general, but the kind of thing that appears to be happening now, where after a time a bunch of your edits are all reverted at once. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering He went on a similar revert rampage as early as May 2024[139][140]. Socialwave597 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Leechjoel9 please explain your conduct. Gommeh _(T/C) 19:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Socialwave597, while @Leechjoel9 has much to answer to, why are you calling their edits "vandalism"? Special:Diff/1287044596 Vandalism is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Content disputes are definitely not vandalism. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe Apologies for that, and you are correct. Definitely should not have added that to my edit summary. Socialwave597 (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

New editor doing mass creation of articles with AI

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

---

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

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

I don't see any acknowledgement on their end of their problematic page, but I do see this at Special:Diff/1287033831 - Pages getting banned without any reason, Well done mods. There's also Special:Diff/1286822096, adding a link to Fascist at the top of their userpage, which could be argued as worthy of WP:HID or WP:No Nazis if it's anything but a formatting test. I think they should at least be blocked from making new articles until they respond here. Definitely feeling a few notes of trolling here. Departure– (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed the Fascist thing—thanks for catching that. That strikes me as almost certainly an attempt to troll rather than an earnest self-description, given the content of their edits. Still indicates disruptive tendencies, of course. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• CIR-blocked. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Given their response to "read the policies before requesting an unblock" was four crying-laughing emojis, a cromulent block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

    Heck, I think that anyone asserting that something was done "Without! Any! Reason!" has their foot on the path to a block. Ravenswing 20:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Are you sure it's AI? Looking at this → [141], he is just (machine-)translating from Polish (from the Polish Wikipedia). --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Some are machine translations (like the biographies), others AI. The four listed above did not correspond with human-written articles on other Wikis. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, "German–Polish War (1007–1013)"" (redirected by you) is different from "pl:Wojna polsko-niemiecka (1007–1013)". --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and "Draft:Honchyi Brid Massacre" is different from "uk:Трагедія села Гончий Брід". --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The line between machine translation and AI is becoming more and more blurry by the day. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at "Draft:Eastern Orthodoxy in Nazi Germany".
I don't think a book titled "The Nazi State and the New Religion" authored by Friedrich Wilhelm even exists. (And "Friedrich Wilhelm" doesn't look believable.) I have actually found a book titled "The Nazi State and the New Religion", but it is written by Richard Bessel.
And this one doesn't seem to exist → Laqueur, Walter (1999). The Church and the Nazis. Penguin.
So, yes, this page was almost surely written by AI and should be just deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Richard J.Evans has written a lot of books about the Third Reich, but none were called The Third Reich and the Christian Churches. Others are nearly right, but not quite. Phayer's book was not called The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, it was called The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965. And so on. Deleted. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

LLMs don't have the concept of "reference", where title and author, for example, must be immutably associated. Instead, they work on maximizing likelihood of next word fitting the model based on previous words. It's one of the underlying reasons for hallucinations: the words are likely to follow, given the LLM's model data, but contradict reality, which has constraints that the LLM has no idea exist. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Excessive complaining, non-encyclopedic rants

The user Justina Colmena ~biz (talk · contribs) has persistently complained about citations and Wikipedia's presentation of certain topics, including in (sometimes misused) {{citation needed}} templates such as Special:Diff/1266120117 at Tate–Shafarevich group, Special:Diff/1273516738 at Bring radical, and Special:Diff/1275625952 at Maxwell's equations (the only edit for which they received a warning). They will more often post their rants at talk pages such as Talk:Calabi–Yau_manifold#That's_a_lot_of_weed_being_smoked_to_come_up_with_these_theories, Talk:Isotopes_of_fluorine#Too_much_house_style_with_nuclear_chemistry_notation_and_symbology, and most recently a a removed section at Talk:Uranium hexafluoride. Almost every edit is like this. They seem to have unshakeable gripes about quantum field theory and a distrust of US government agencies, in particular. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"Flash back to the 1960s, the assassinations of JFK and MLK Jr., the Vietnam War, the moon landing, the Summer of Love and today we're looking at a heavy fog of government disinformation coming from the Chinese Communist Party."

Well, I'm convinced. Not sure what of exactly, I just know that I am. The editor might be better off improving articles about alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics rather than going on diatribes about drugs and paraphernalia. That said, I don't think a sanction is necessary at this point. This report is more suitable for WP:FTN. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

User:MHD1234567890

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

---

• MHD1234567890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MHD1234567890 keeps on recreating deleted pages, and creating new pages with the same issues of the sources not supporting the claims. Despite the deletion after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rawandiz in January, they created Battle of Rawanduz on 20 April and again today. Something like Kurdish unification of 1830 was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish unification of 1830 with rather scathing delete votes. An article like Sack of Azekh hasn't been challenged yet, but while this sack is supposed to have happend in 1832, one of the two sources mentions 1832 only once, regarding a cholera outbreak[142], and doesn't mention Azekh; this leaves us with one sentence in one source. The same issue is being raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Rabban Hormuzd. And these are the best articles, they at least are somewhat verifiable.

But they continue to create articles which are unverifiable or at the very least not supported by the sources (never giving page numbers doesn't help), see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mardin, or at best WP:OR POV pushing (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawanduz Revolt). They came to my talk page to with User talk:Fram#Hi, Look at this., presenting yet another article with the same issues. I've draftified it, and then saw the above mentioned re-recreation of Battle of Rawanduz, and think it is time for a topic ban from mainspace. Let them develop articles in draft space so people can check them before they pollute the mainspace. Fram (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that the account has been here for three years, has a talk page littered with afd notices and reminders to do or not to do certain things (like add sources or recreate deleted articles), and apparently at least once in April was accused of coordinating with other accounts in what was interpreted by the posters as a possible spi violation I’d vote for simply indef blocking on grounds of not here and then mass deleting the remaining pages that have been recreated, but that’s me. I do agree though that something should be done beyond the usual ‘please do/don’t do this’ template notices, they aren’t working. 2600:1011:B119:EBD:4541:BECB:3011:8A6C (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The user is also slandering me, [143] (user “Kajmer05” appears motivated by anti‑Kurdish nationalist sentiments and repeatedly seeks to delete or ban any pages related to Kurdistan) WP:ASPERSIONS. But he is trying to delete these two articles for no reason. (Malformed AfDs) [144] [145] Also see these comments. [146] (What?? I don’t even need sources for this battle it’s so known in the Kurdish history, I don’t understand your persistence about deleting everything about Rawandiz) [147] (Only for Kurdish peoples) Kajmer05 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Response to Fram, 2600:…, and Kajmer05:

I would like to respectfully clarify several points regarding the articles I’ve created:

The sources I use are real and relevant: For example, the Battle of Rawanduz is clearly described in Gérard Chaliand’s respected historical work Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan. The book provides detailed information on Mir Muhammad’s military preparations in Rawanduz, the establishment of a regular Kurdish army, the conquest of southern Kurdistan, and direct clashes with Ottoman forces beginning in 1833. Just because the term “Battle of Rawanduz” does not appear as a formal title does not mean the event is unsupported — the content absolutely reflects a historically significant military campaign that justifies inclusion.

The lack of page numbers is a formatting or editing oversight: I’m fully willing to go back and include exact page numbers upon request. It was never my intention to mislead or violate Wikipedia sourcing guidelines.

Accusations of POV-pushing are unfair: My intention is not to promote any ideology but to document a neglected part of Middle Eastern and Kurdish history. These events are real, and they do have a place on Wikipedia — as long as they are treated with academic rigor and sourced properly. The fact that they are lesser-known or underrepresented in mainstream Western sources does not make them any less valid.

Personal accusations: I firmly reject accusations of coordination or slander. The comment cited was a clumsy way to express my concern that Kurdish historical content is being repeatedly deleted. I now understand it could have been worded more constructively, and I regret if it was misinterpreted.

Willingness to cooperate: I am open to working within the Draft namespace, collaborating with editors to ensure sources meet expectations, and improving article quality. I am here to contribute in good faith — not to “pollute” mainspace, as was claimed.

Please understand that I am not acting in bad faith, and I’m willing to adjust, discuss, and collaborate. I ask only that these contributions be evaluated fairly based on their content and sources, not assumptions about my motives. MHD1234567890 (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"the Battle of Rawanduz is clearly described in Gérard Chaliand’s respected historical work Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan. " I presume you mean page 32here, which tells us that in 1833, he had an army of 30,000 which had established rule over the region of Soran, Badinan and Mosul? But which describes not a single instance of a battle to achieve this? Nothing about a "major military confrontation", nothing about the Ottoman army being routed, nothing about the Ottoman general... Basically, you have a source for the second paragraph of the "background" section, and nothing for the actual battle, i.e. the topic of the article? Never mind that the article you created about the same battle four days ago, situated it in 1832, and now you place it in 1833? That is not "clealy described", that is WP:OR. Fram (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

You’re right to insist on solid sourcing, and I agree that Gérard Chaliand’s Les Kurdes et le Kurdistan (p. 44) outlines Mir Muhammad’s regional dominance by 1833 but does not describe a specific, detailed battle at that point. However, additional sources, including Chaliand (pp. 44-45) and Helmuth von Moltke’s Letters from Turkey (as translated), provide more context on the military confrontations between Mir Muhammad and the Ottoman Empire.

On the Date:

The 1832 vs. 1833 vs. 1834 discrepancy is due to overlapping phases of conflict. Mir Muhammad began consolidating his rule over Soran and surrounding regions in 1832–1833. However, the actual large-scale confrontation with the Ottoman army took place in 1834, as documented by both Chaliand and Moltke.

On the Battle Itself:

While Chaliand provides political and strategic context, Moltke, who was a young captain in the Ottoman army at the time, vividly describes the campaign of 1834. He notes the intensity of the fighting, stating that Ottoman soldiers had to fight 30 to 40 days to capture even minor hills. He also mentions that Kurdish forces, including regular units and guerrilla fighters, offered fierce resistance. Eventually, the Ottoman troops—exhausted and demoralized—retreated.

On the Ottoman General:

The commander of the Ottoman forces was indeed Mehmed Reshid Pasha, as stated by Chaliand. He led troops from Sivas, supported by forces from the governors of Mosul and Baghdad. This coalition aimed to put an end to Mir Muhammad’s growing power.

In summary, the battle—while not described blow-by-blow in every source—is part of a clearly documented military campaign that escalated into a major confrontation in 1834. The current article will be revised to clarify the timeline, distinguish between the phases of expansion and military conflict, and better reflect the source material. MHD1234567890 (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Omg this AI blather :(. Just block now please. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Have to agree with the IP, my first idea that topic banning from the mainspace might be sufficient seems misguided. If you need 4 efforts to even get the "year" of this supposed battle (which apparently isn't even a battle but a campaign) right, then you lack the competence to let you edit here. Fram (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, former mediator for this situation here, I agree with banning MHD for atleast a monnth, but any draft he makes should be EXTENSIVELY looked at for correct sources. and also, i propose we make a new wikipedia policy against throwing mud at another user just for upholding the rules of the AFD. Shaneapickle (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead an indefblocked the account, if anyone wants to adjust the block feel free to. I’m not wading into the articles or the drafts at this point, but if they need help or if they need deletion I’d suggest either a mass move to the draft space or csd tags for admin attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

I've been banned from reverting a Wikipedia page back to its original status before it started being brigaded.

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

---

Hi! I'm a wiki noob. I'm a concerned individual regarding the late Harald Malmgren whose page is being brigade by individuals trying to turn his reputation as a long standing advisor and public servant into a Japanese whale lobbyist. Quite unfair! I've had my IP blocked from editing the page further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodenamePingu123 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 April 2025

@CodenamePingu123: I blocked you for 24 hours from editing Harald Malmgren because you went over the three revert limit and made more than three reverts on an article in 24 hours, which generally leads to a block to force editors to stop reverting and start discussing. I don't have any interest in the content of the article, I'm just trying to stop editors being disruptive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: a minor point since I think an edit warring partial block was justified regardless but CodenamePingu123 did not break the 3RR bright line rule. They've only made what can be counted as 3 qualifying reverts in the time period. While their edit history may make it look like they made 4 reverts, in fact 2 of them were made with no intervening edits [148] so count as a single revert per WP:3RR. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Please stop assuming bad faith on other editors. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Ritchie - appreciate the answer - there is a large discussion online regarding the content of Harald Malmgren's page being brigaded by unknown persons. Even the Wiki founder stepped in. If you will see, what I'm trying to do is maintain the edits on his page - which delete most of the verified content - until the brigading can stop and then the normal editing process resumes. Is that fair enough? CodenamePingu123 (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about Harald Malmgren aside from what I've just read in his Wikipedia article just now. There is a discussion at Talk:Harald Malmgren, and my initial thoughts are, for whatever reason, there are people with strong views on Malmgren for whatever reason. I will say this - if you have strong views on anything, you need to leave those views at the door when you edit Wikipedia, as we require articles to be fair and representative. Given that, the most recent talk page, where an IP accused Chetsford of "vandalism" (scare quotes intended) it looks like we need to get some experienced editors onboard to resolve this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) @CodenamePingu123, as you say there are large [off site] discussion[s] (i.e. [149], [150], [151], [152], etc), agitating for a poorly sourced previous version to be kept, in opposition to multiple long standing editors advocating for the article follow or Policies and guidelines. I therefore agree with you that there is brigading (or as we say here WP:CANVASSING) occurring, but we likely disagree which side is doing it. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

" individuals trying to turn his reputation as a long standing advisor and public servant into a Japanese whale lobbyist" He was a Japanese whaling lobbyist (according to WP:RS). I mean what do you expect the article to say? Chetsford (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

As somebody who hasn't the faintest idea what this dispute is about, can somebody explain how Jimbo Wales comes into it? [153] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• On account of the Reddit canvassing and its results, I've semi'd the article for a month. Bishonen | tålk 10:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC).

(edit conflict), @Ritchie333, Jimbo made a keep comment at the AFD ([154]) and now the various reddit fora ([155], [156], [157]) are convinced that he's on there side in a war against gurrila skeptics (which they blame for the article being nominated) instead of him just expressing an opinion at an AFD. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That, plus per the article, Malmgren is a Wales Lobbyist.. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)"can somebody explain" I have to be circumspect in what I say because, apparently, I'm now being sued over my on-WP activities related to this article. (Which is fine, it's not my first time at that rodeo.)
  In any case, there was a wild UFO movie released on X last night that claimed Malmgren prevented global nuclear holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis [158]. As a student of the Cold War, I was surprised Malmgren's central role in the crisis hadn't been mentioned in any book, article, journal, comic strip, or back-of-napkin notes ever, at any point, anywhere in the universe. I then looked at his WP article and, seeing that it was largely unreferenced, did a WP:BEFORE. That failed and I nominated it for deletion. Our Founder was apparently lobbied on X [159] to intervene. He joined the AfD and !voted Keep [160]. Based on sources that emerged in the AfD, I subsequently decided to voluntarily withdraw it in favor of a rewrite to bring it up to our standards. That brings us up to the present. Chetsford (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Hmm, let's see. A concise but well-sourced version of the article, or a bloated and mostly unsourced hagiography that conveniently leaves out some important issues in his life being edit-warred in by multiple IPs and the OP? Yep, can't think why that particular edit-war might have been decided in favour of the former. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• How does the rewrite "delete most of the verified content" when it is the version with citations, quotes, and objective facts? CodenamePingu123 reverted back in "Malmgren is currently Contributing Editor to The International Economy." and did so multiple times. Is Malmgren not currently deceased? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Look out for that boomerang! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

    ScottishFinnishRadish, just for the record of the dispute here, what prompted the indef-ing of CodenamePingu123? I wasn't able to deduce it from his or the article talk page. Was the WP:NOTHERE call based on just the behaviour already discussed here, or was there further disruption? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

    I assume SFR upped the ante to indef because of off-wiki canvassing / co-ordination on Reddit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

    That is safe to assume. Didn't think it was worth the lift for a full Arbcom block of a new editor with a dozen edits and a weak grasp of how we work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

KarsVegas36 edit warring + POV pushing

This user has been edit warring on Turkish people article, previously on Turkey. See another ANI the user opened, but others suggested a boomerang.

• 1st edit: claims to put WP:RS (no pages, etc.) undue weight, removing other sources.
• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• warned the user (also look at the other users putting similar warning)
• 3rd revert
• then deletes the talkpage, as if no one will notice
• didn't end. putting a warning on my page after reverting 3 times

I tried to explain the user on Talk:Turkish_people, but user insists that Turkish people is not an ethnicity / genetics based, while the article uses the worth ethnic like 100 times, and there is a whole genetic section. This is blatant edit warring POV pushing. Not to mention that the article mentions literally 0 thing about Christian or Jewish "Turkish people". Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

So, you put an edit warring template on their talk page when they had reverted 2 times and you had reverted three times? And then you complain that they blank their talk page (which is perfectly allowed) and put an edit warring template on your talk page?

As for your "explanation": "No, it is important to note which sect of Islam. Secondly Turkish "Jews/Christians" aren't ethnic Turkish. " Er, what? Fram (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

First, Jews in Turkey numbers around 20 thousand, Christians maybe 100 thousand. Jews are Sephardic, while Christians (there may be some Turks) but are generally of non-Turkish origin. The article is about ethnic Turks, it's an ethnicity article, not nationality. This user doesn't understand and is deliberately POV pushing. Replaced "RS" has not even pages, plus the user removes other sources in a sneaky way as if no one is going to notice. Beshogur (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Refer to Article 66 of the constitution for 'Turkishness', which is also clarified in the article. I did not remove the references 'in a sneaky way', I've replaced them with Oxford, which complies with WP:RS. The content stays the same. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not about article 66. Turkish people article is about Turkish ethnicity, not nationality. Wikipedia isn't based on constitutions or laws. Yes it is mentioned here once, which is normal. You claim that Turkish ethnicity doesn't even exist, which is a nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding sects, according to OP, putting the information of 100 thousand Christians and 20 thousand Jews, who aren't even of Turkish ethnicity rather Turkish citizens, are more important than denothing Sunni Islam or Alevism (which has millions of followers). Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't say that. I didn't denote them there because they have no Turkey spesific articles such as Jafari Islam in Turkey, they're already covered by the main article of Islam in Turkey. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, this is getting crazy. There are no Jafari Turks either. Jafaris are of Azerbaijani origin. (Azerbaijanis in Turkey). Turkish Muslims are either Sunni Muslim or Alevi. (exception for Iraqi Turkmen that are considered in Azerbaijani group sometimes). Beshogur (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Any proof that there isn't a single Jafari of Turkish origin? Any proof that there isn't a single Christian of Turkish origin? Any proof that there isn't a single Jew of Turkish origin? (don't tell it to Tuncay Güney though) KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Proof of what? Also first time hearing that person, but clicking his article says he's a Dönmeh. Is this your best example? This is getting nowhere btw. Beshogur (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't my best example, rather a pun. Well said, let's wait for admin input. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This user is the one who actually contested with the 3RR to begin with. I've explained everything on the article's talkpage. Turkish Christians and Turkish Jews are very influential on the country's history and therefore, they do deserve to be mentioned in the infobox. "The article mentions literally 0 thing about Christian or Jewish" - until - we put some information about them, which we clearly can. They are probably motivated by nationalist ideas, given their attitude and contribs backlog. KarsVegas36 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

until - we put some information about them no one thought to put information here in 20 years? Turkish Christians and Turkish Jews are they Turkish or Turkish citizens? Stop confusing both. They are probably motivated by nationalist ideas, given their attitude and contribs backlog Great personal attacks, while you're the one POV pushing here. Beshogur (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a time-out limit to put information in the articles? Turkish Christians and Turkish Jews articles are there anyways, right?

And no, there isn't any personal attacks whatsoever. No need for agitation, it's just that I am struggling to understand your actions and that's why I used 'probably'. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact that Turkish Christians article doesn't exist, and talks about Christians in Turkey, not Turkish Christians. Same of History of the Jews in Turkey not Turkish Jews. Turkish citizen Jews are of Sephardic origin, not Turkic. This is straight up creating imaginary stuff. Beshogur (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but what you can't do is put that information in without a reliable source, which you don't have at the moment. This source is utterly unverifiable without references or page numbers, which you say it "doesn't have yet". Surely there must be an alternative source for what is a quite basic piece of demographic data? Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The issue is, even if we can verify, verifiability doesn't mean inclusion. Undue. Yet we don't even know what the source says. It's so shady. Not to mention removing other sources. No one thought of mentioning ethnic Turks who are either Christian or Jewish in the article, but OP did in 20 years of wikiepdia history. It's also a fact that Turkish people are either Sunni Muslim or Alevi traditions (not mentioning irreligion, etc. of course). OP claims there is no Turkish ethnicity, there are Jewish/Christian Turks, there are Jafari Turks. So I don't even stand this. Beshogur (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, I did not 'remove' soruces. I replaced them with Oxford, which is much more reliable. The content is still the same.

Also, exactly. Turkishness isn't ethnoreligious. There are even Pagan Turks. KarsVegas36 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Pardon? I'm beginning to worry that there is a language or CIR issue here. The Oxford source, as I've said above, is not verifiable because it is a work in progress and doesn't have page numbers. It perhaps would be useful for KarsVegas36 to quote the section that source the claims they've been adding. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

So we're adding pagan too? The article is about Turkish ethnicity, Turkish is an ethnicity. Who talks about "ethnoreligious". And ethnic groups have a certain religious tradition. So Muslim Tatars are also Russians (who are only Orthodox)? Where is the quote and page btw? Beshogur (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not adding Pagans. I am just contesting your view of Muslim-only Turkishness for the sake of this argument. Just stating the fact that Turks can be of any religion. KarsVegas36 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Any people can of any religion. But you still don't get the point here. Beshogur (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Beshogur, can you point to any RFC which stipulates that Turkish people is about ethnically Turkic people and not the people of Turkey? Excluding people who aren't ethnically Turkic (however that's defined) puts this article in contrast with some others such as British people, French people, or Americans (the redirect target of American people), while other articles embrace both ethnicity and nationality. NebY (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• the whole lede
• the infobox (numbers of Turks, not Kurds etc.)
• history
• traditional minority abroad
• genetics (Central Asia is taken as a reference always, and only ethnic Turks)

I know that Brits, French, Americans are not ethnic groups. But this article is generally focused on ethnicity. Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ten years ago, the article was broader and included a section on the genetic diversity of the people of Turkey. Was the switch to ethnicity a matter of talk-page consensus? NebY (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Cinnioğlu's work isn't seen as reliable anymore. It is obsolete and solely based on haplogroups and it wasn't even based on ethnic Turks. Recent genetic section is more reliable and based on recent studies. Beshogur (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili: can tell more maybe he's more busy with that. Beshogur (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we used to include material that "wasn't even based on ethnic Turks" because our Turkish people article wasn't only about "ethnic Turks". You're accusing an editor of POV pushing. Denying that Turkish citizens are Turkish people if they're not ethnic Turks is a prima facie breach of WP:NPOV. It's a particularly sensitive matter in the context of Turkey's history (e.g. Armenian genocide, Greek genocide) and present-day Turkey (e.g. Kurds in Turkey, Circassians in Turkey), as well as reminding us of nationalist efforts elsewhere to deny that people of the Turkish diaspora can be German or French people (e.g. Turks in Germany#Attacks against the Turkish community in Germany). Was switching the article to ethnicity a matter of talk-page consensus? NebY (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

How did we come to genocides from this? So we should return to poorly sourced revision of 10 years ago which mentions antropology! Beshogur (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, answer the question: Was switching the article to ethnicity a matter of talk-page consensus? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

? Talk page consensus of what? There was nothing like Turkish people article based on nationality. this is the revision he provided. Also 99% of the article aren't even my additions. Beshogur (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not all consistent: British people is unsurprising in that format, English people and Welsh people appears to be ethnicity-focused. There's probably a lot of discussion that could be had about how titular nation-state ethnicities should be covered, and how particular articles should be titled, and to what extent this should/could be standardised, but AN/I is a poor forum for this. The whole topic intersects with multiple WP:CTOPs, so the discussion should be moved somewhere where it might hopefully get a wide participation, and perhaps more admin eyes are needed on related articles. CMD (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Not an answer to you but no one considers Kurds, Circiassians, and other minorities as Turkish here. It would be absurd put them here in the same article (which was never the case) I don't know where did the Example text come from suddenly. Turkish people isn't supposed to mean a nationality here, but ethnicity. The OP who added Judaism and Christianity to the infobox can't still prove that traditionally Turkish Jews or Turkish Christians exists. If we look at Religion in Turkey, you see that Jews are generally Sephardic, Christians are Greek, Assyrian, etc. Even if we consider them Turkish people, which they aren't. The number would total like 100 and something thousands, not more. Beshogur (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "here", but whatever it's supposed to mean people use "Turkish" to denote nationality all the time. It's a very common usage, and also one that will likely be a common intuition for many English speakers. Neither is the tension between ethnic and national identity unique to Turkey, I might add. CMD (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not talking about ethnic tension, but rather ethnicities itself. I know that in biographies Kurd from Turkey is called Turkish, a Turk in Greece is called Greek, but this doesn't make both of them ethnic Turkish and Greek. OP claims there is no Turkish ethnicity that's based on common origin or genetics, everyone living in Turkey holding Turkish passport are Turks. Beshogur (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't checked if the OP is claiming that (aren't you the OP here?), but it's really unrelated to what I said. I'm surprised to get this sort of response to what I thought was a somewhat obvious linguistic point. CMD (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

They are, in fact, the OP here... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Whether the article Turkish people is about ethnicity or nationality—and I think it should be the latter, per COMMONNAME and the article's having apparently formerly had that focus—Wikipedians cannot simply decide to ignore the existence of non-Muslim Turks; Beshogur not only suggests their numbers are too small to merit mention in the article but states they are not Turks by the ethnic definition that Beshogur wants the article to use: putting the information of 100 thousand Christians and 20 thousand Jews, who aren't even of Turkish ethnicity rather Turkish citizens; The fact that Turkish Christians article doesn't exist, and talks about Christians in Turkey, not Turkish Christians. Same of History of the Jews in Turkey not Turkish Jews. Turkish citizen Jews are of Sephardic origin, not Turkic. This is straight up creating imaginary stuff. Both Beshogur and KarsVegas36 have been edit warring, but KarsVegas36 is on the side of the angels in pushing back against this exclusionary bias. However, KarsVegas36 should have edited the Religion section of the article, not just the infobox (and moved the existing sources from the infobox into the new paragraph(s) in that section; I'd also place the Oxford citations there, that is one ridiculously over-ref'd infobox). The infobox is supposed to be a quick tabular overview of the actual article. Black Kite, I disagree that that source is inadmissable. We reference ebooks all the time now, most of which don't have page numbers, and the individual chapters are being published online in advance of print publication; however, I do think references should be to specific chapters (and/or specifically to the online summary or the introduction). The POV-pushing is Beshogur's, from where I sit, but that section of article text, and possibly others, need urgent work even if the article remains about Turkish ethnicity. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir: Wikipedians cannot simply decide to ignore the existence of non-Muslim Turks I don't say non-Muslim Turks don't exist, I say, Turks are traditionally either Sunni or Alevi Muslims, like Greeks are being Orthodox Christian (there are also hundreds of thousand Greek Muslims of literal Hellenic origin). However, this user's claim is that Jewish and Christian citizens of Turkey are also Turks, but they are not. They are minority. "Minority". The user even confuses ethnic Azerbaijanis in Turkey (saying that Jafari Muslim Turks exist too), but that's not true again. Of course there may be convert to Christianity, etc. but the numbers might be counted with hand. There may be more English converts to Islam in England than there are minorities of Christian and Jewish origins in Turkey. So it is undue weight, and POV pushing. The Oxford citation has not even a page, and the user didn't reply regarding this. So that's shady as well. FYI the biggest numbers for Christians in Turkey is around 300,000 while ethnic Turks are around 60,000,000. Adding Kurdish to languages section makes more sense than adding Christianity or Judaism. Because Kurds are Turks too right and having at least 15 million population? Both doesn't makes sense. Beshogur (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  "this user's claim is that Jewish and Christian citizens of Turkey are also Turks, but they are not. They are minority. "Minority"." Shouldn't we topic ban Beshogur from anything to do with race, ethnicity, and religion by now? The constant repetition of the only true Turks are Muslims, if you aren't a Muslim you aren't a Turk ("Even if we consider them Turkish people, which they aren't.") is not the kind of editor we need on such topics. Fram (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean? Do you get this from what I say? I mean ethnic Turks. See Religion in Turkey. It is clear that Jewish citizens of Turkey are of Sephardic and Ashkenazi origins, Christians are of mainly Greek, Assyrian, Armenian origins. Am I too hard to understand? I get slammed not calling non-Turkish minority of Turkey as Turks. Of course they are citizens of Turkey. What? Beshogur (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• I believe the scope of Turkish people article should include both ethnic background and citizenship aspects, which needs to covered in the lead, body and the infobox. It should not be restricted to solely an ethnic background or solely a citizenship aspect. I am not sure ANI is the place for article content debate though. I also need to consult more sources how it is covered when I have time.
• I believe it is incorrect to say the article had a wider scope that was shifted. Looking at the ten years ago link provided above, the article also had a narrow scope. The easiest way to tell this is the numbers in the infobox. Under "Regions with significant populations" for Turkey, the number given for Turks probably corresponds to about 70 to 75% of the population of Turkey at the time. It's not an amount that is more than 95% of the population of Turkey, which would cover all Turkish citizens. For Turkish people article, under Turkey, I think the infobox should cover both "by ethnic background" and "by citizenship" numbers. But this is a debate that should be done at the talk page of the article. For example, when I tried to do a similar change in Turkey [161], this was reverted. This needs to be talked in the talk page.
• I also believe some people do not fully understand the debate here. For example, some Christians in Turkey are defined as "minority" under Treaty of Lausanne. The World Factbook and other sources also use wording such as "other minorities" [162]. In some cases, it might be problematic to deny how certain people identify themselves. For example, European Court of Human Rights ruled against Greece for not recognizing names such as "House of Turkish Youth in Xanthi" [163]. I believe there seems to be a language confusion above. Bogazicili (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Fram: wants to topic ban me because I don't deny their existence lol. It is supposed to be otherwise, right? The issue here is, I am trying to tell people that Jewish/Christian minority of Turkey are not of Turkish ethnicity. At least vast majority. Beshogur (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I understand there may be a language issue here. I am very surprised how quickly a topic ban proposal was suggested. Bogazicili (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Open discrimination often rapidly leads to topic bans. Fram (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry but you still don't get it. I recognize them not discriminate. I didn't say anything about Turkish citizenship. Saying that they're Turkish is supposed to be assimilationist. And trust me I don't care about anyone's religion. Just trying to give people here correct information. Beshogur (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Saying that they're Turkish is supposed to be assimilationist. "??? They were Turkish before their conversion. Denying them that ethnicity now because they e.g. converted to Christianity is forcibly removing them from a group they already belonged to. I don't make them assimilate in any way, they were already Turkish before. Fram (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Look, I mean the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek minorities, not converts. Why do you take everything wrong? Every nation has converts. Should we starting to put "minority: Muslim" straight to every ethnic group's infobox we find because it's probably the most growing religion right now? Beshogur (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  If there is evidence for it? Sure, why not? Fram (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Pretty sure there are hundreds of thousands Greek Muslims. And it is well documented. You can start with Greeks article. Good luck. Beshogur (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  At least for the 10,000+ Protestant Christians this is clearly not true[164]: "nearly 10,000 Protestants, almost all of whom have a Turkish Muslim background." This despite the severe discrimination Christians face in the country in general[165][166]. The number of Christians in Turkey has dwindled from 20% of the population to 0.2% of the population, but that doesn't mean that the remaining ones (or the new converts) aren't Turkish or that we should erase them completely here. Fram (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is a misunderstanding. You say it youself. Muslim background, which means conversion. The numbers are nothing compared to if we say there are 60 million Turks (I don't say they're all Muslim, non religious ones were traditionally Muslims, not Christian or Jewish, which is basically non existent). Adding "minority: Christianity/Judaism" is redunant. Beshogur (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  No, I understand you perfectly. That's why I want you topic banned. Fram (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Explain? Beshogur (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are constantly shifting the goalposts and dismissing any Indications about Christian ethnic Turkish people (I know less about the Jews, so I don't comment one way or the other). Above, you claimed e.g. "Of course there may be convert to Christianity, etc. but the numbers might be counted with hand." Here as well, you somehow dismiss my statement with "You say it youself. Muslim background, which means conversion. " So if you're a convert, you're no longer Turkish? Should we no longer consider Remco Evenepoel as a Fleming because he converted to Islam? Fram (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Look at my comment above. Jews in Turkey are Sephardic or Ashkenazi, not Turkic origin. That's what I mean. As I said, every ethnic groups has converts. Yet I don't see "minority: Islam" on Flemish people's infobox. That's the whole issue. Beshogur (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Like I said, shifting goalposts and giving evasive answers. I post about Protestant Christians, you dismiss them. I reply, stating explicitly that I'm not talking about the Jewish people in Turkey because I don't know enough to comment, and your reply is about the Jewish people. That's no way to have a serious discussion. Do you agree that e.g. the 10,000 or so Protestants who are converted Turkish Muslims are still ethnically Turkish, or not? Fram (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Evasive answer? Is this supposed to be a court? Yes they are and 10,000 isn't enough to put to the infobox. That's it. I don't get your goal here. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Evasiveness has nothing to do with being a court or not, no idea why you bring this up. I'm glad you are now finally moving away from your discriminatory comments like "Christian or Jewish "Turkish people"." (with the scare quotes), "Turkish "Jews/Christians" aren't ethnic Turkish.", "This is straight up creating imaginary stuff.", "Even if we consider them Turkish people, which they aren't." Fram (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I always use quoations. No particular reason. Again, I am talking about minorities inhabiting Turkey, not converts. Regarding This is straight up creating imaginary stuff it was about Jews being Turkish. Beshogur (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sadly there is no difference in English or Turkish about Turkish ethnicity and citizenship like "русский" and "российский". I don't know why you have such hard understanding on this topic. It is clear what I mean. And this is my last answer to you. Beshogur (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I am surprised that multiple long-standing editors have not pointed this out, but this is a content dispute, and ANI is not the place to discuss changes in articles or what editors think an article represents. Both sides have reverted 3 times, which should have been the focus here, but relevant discussions have already started, so I think there's no need to build up tension. Aintabli (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this edit linked above, I see multiple issues:

• No page numbers, chapters, or quotes provided.
• The infobox says: Turkey 60,000,000 to 65,000,000. This can be considered ethnic background number. The citizenship number should be close to 85 million.
• If the Oxford source talks about Christian and Jewish citizens in Turkey without mentioning their Turkish ethnic background, it is a WP:SYNTH (WP:NOR is a core policy) to use this source in the current format of infoxbox in Turkish people. As I mentioned above, we should discuss updating the infobox with both citizenship and ethnic background numbers first, before doing edits such as the one done by KarsVegas36. I can only speculate here since no quotes from The Oxford Handbook of Religion in Turkey were provided. Bogazicili (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to Aintabli, this is not a content dispute. Being a minority, even a small minority, does not mean non-existence. Having converted from Islam does not mean non-existence. Beshogur is not merely making an UNDUE argument, they are going beyond it to argue the article should not mention Christian or Jewish Turkish people at all because they are either not Turkic (in Beshogur's view) or converts: Jews in Turkey are Sephardic or Ashkenazi, not Turkic origin.; [...] Muslim background, which means conversion. The numbers are nothing compared to if we say there are 60 million Turks. (I don't say they're all Muslim, non religious ones were traditionally Muslims, not Christian or Jewish, which is basically non existent). Wikipedians don't get to decide whose religion is legitimate; and Wikipedia should follow sources in weighting its coverage of minorities. KarsVegas36 erred in not being BOLDer and writing the missing chunk of the Religion section; and yes, it would be advisable to put quotes from the Oxford source in the citations on minority religions, since getting access to the chapters requires some hoop-jumping. But the primary locus of the dispute is between following reliable scholarly sources and relying on an editor's own definition of membership in the Turkish people (and an apparent refusal to acknowledge the validity of conversion). That's behavioural. (And demanding discussion before the article may be changed smacks of OWN.) Beshogur has made some unacceptably biased assertions here. This needs to be a boomerang. (As a point of information, Beshogur, you're the O.P. It means "original poster" and you started the section.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

So I get the blame because other user can't prove its thing? How did you come to conclusion that I don't recognize conversions? I say there are converts of every nation of every religion. It's pretty much redundant on the infobox. That's it all about. Just googled According to the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR), Turkey is home to around 14,300 Jews. Majority of the Jewish population is of Sephardic origin. I am getting bashed because not calling them Turks. I don't talk about Turkish citizenship here. The Turkish people article is about ethnicity. Beshogur (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Having converted from Islam does not mean non-existence. I don’t think Beshogur denied conversions. The initial locus of the dispute was whether to include non-converts who are not of Turkish origin such as Armenians, Greeks, etc., at least that’s what I understood. Aintabli (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I actually meant there that the Turks today who turned non-religious didn't come from Judaism or Christianity, I mean they were traditionally either Sunni or Alevi Muslims, not Christian or Jewish. I didn't talk there about converts to Christianity from Islam. Except for Gagauz (since they're a different people), there were no Turkophone Christian group in Anatolia except Karamanlides, though Greeks dispute their origins. I am really getting bashed because I'm literally opposite of racist and against assimilation. Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the huge amount of WP:NOTFORUM violations on Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack

The page Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack is having an increasingly high amount of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTMEMORIAL violations from both IP and registered editors, which is just getting higher thanks to the requested move (which, in itself, should be speedily closed since it goes against both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV and is receiving massive pushback).

I have issued warnings to the worst offenders along with adding a NOTFORUM template at the top of the page, but there are far too many people turning it into a "Look, ___ was wrong" sort of forum; can someone start handing out more warnings or maybe further sanctions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I submitted a pending RFP hours ago. Unfortunately lots of well-meaning editors have instead dignified trolls with replies. Borgenland (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and protected the talk page for 30 days, let’s see what that does here. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Might it also be possible to apply the same duration to article? If I recall correctly the protection expires next week. Borgenland (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

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

---

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

Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

TPA revoked by User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe. QwertyForest (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

IP adding his 'expert opinion' to articles.

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

---

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

---

2600:1000:B186:D71B:651D:B9BC:C0D3:3552 (talk · contribs) IP keeps adding his 'expert opinion' to boxing articles. Tried taking to AIV, but as it's already partially blocked, the clean-up bot auto-deletes the request as closed. The whole range is full of vandalism (2600:1000:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs)). They've been warned, but short of calling him (yes he keeps posting his phone number, in articles), I can't see him replying. Nswix (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ran into this exact issue the other day as well. Reported an IP that already had an unrelated partial block, which made the bot revert my report over and over. 1st attempt to report 2nd attempt to report On the third attempt I had to deliberately make it improperly formatted so the bot wouldn't catch it. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 15:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I reported it to the bot's talk page, but I imagine it would be a complex thing to try to program it to differentiate. Nswix (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I oversighted the phone number, and blocked the /64 for a month. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

@PhilKnight: He IP hopped to 2600:1000:B19C:A409:664C:8725:1B26:2F41 (talk · contribs) to continue vandalizing. Nswix (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a month by Ad Orientem. PhilKnight (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Bashiiry + edit warring on Ughaz Roble I article

• Bashiiry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ughaz Roble I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The User:Bashiiry refuses to actively engage or resolve the dispute by providing sources which validate his statements. He blatantly edits the article with claims which aren't in the citations. For example, Ughaz Roble I is mentioned in many sources of being Issa origin, the aforementioned user changes the term Issa to Gadabuursi in-order to push a POV.[167]

Not a single source in the entire article labels him to be apart of the sub-clan they tries to insert. As Richard Burton identifies him as the chieftan of the Issa in.[168][169] Phillip Paulitschke also identifies him as the "Ougass of the Issas" while taking photos of the inhabitants of Abyssinia and describing them in his works (including Ughaz Roble Farah in pages 155-170).[170][171]

When asked to engage in the talk page and have discussions constructively, he insults fellow Wikipedians and calls them "sons of a whore" in the Somali language. The label I refer to is "ina dhiloy" which violates WP:CIV. [172]

This content dispute has been going on since December 2024 and I have raised the incident after warning the editor on various occasions on his talk page.[173][174] Replayerr (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• I note for the record that Bashiiry has been issued a CT notice for the Horn of Africa, and is therefore aware of the presence of discretionary sanctions for the Horn of Africa region. I also note that as of the time of this post, @Replayerr: has not issued the mandatory ANI notice to accompany this report on Bashiiry’s talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I apologise in advance for not issuing the mandatory ANI notice. Replayerr (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of Soviet cosmonaut-related articles, etc.

Myself and several other users have seen that over the last day or so a group of IPs has been spamming edits to pages (most of which are in Category:Soviet cosmonauts or otherwise related to Russia or the former USSR) with random text. Once an IP gets blocked for this, the user shifts to a different IP and continues their behavior. This has been going on for at least a day, and blocking the IPs is clearly not doing anything. I'm honestly at a loss for words as to what we can do to stop this person.

Here are some diffs of the edits this person has made: [175] [176] [177] [178]

Tagging some of the other people who were also involved in this as I want to hear their thoughts in particular: @Nahida @Serols @Pickersgill-Cunliffe @Randomdude121 and many more... Gommeh _(T/C) 17:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Concur. I've had to warn 27 different IPs multiple days in a row. Seems to be a repeating pattern at the same time of the day and the edits are arguably too fast for a human. Nahida 🌷 18:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Based on your description, seems like requesting page protection for the affected pages would be the best course of action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

We discussed that on WP:RPP — unfortunately protecting this many pages would take too much time as there are over a hundred of them in Category:Soviet cosmonauts alone. Gommeh _(T/C) 18:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s honestly not that much in the grand scheme of things. I can understand an admin declining the blanket request the way it was written, but if you identify the individual pages that have seen consistent disruption they should be protected. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to pre-emptively protect pages in that category so only confirmed users could edit them. I was told over Discord that this was not possible. Gommeh _(T/C) 18:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that won't be done. However, any page that has already seen persistent vandalism can be protected. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Page protection requests have been made and acted upon. But I'm starting to get annoyed at the sheer amount of edits this person has made that were absolutely reek of being WP:NOTHERE. Is there anything else we can do? I'd rather not have to wait this out, since this person is easily able to evade blocks. Gommeh (t/c) 17:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Evidently longer protection is needed from the get go since they return to the same pages as soon as the protection expires. See for example Yuri Gagarin and Talk:Yuri Gagarin. Mellk (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Delwar Hossain Sayeedi

• Delwar Hossain Sayeedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 80.43.19.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please take a look at the edit history of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi. An IP user keeps adding promotional or biased content despite me and other users (@JazzyRightdoer and Knollll:) reverting them. I’m concerned this is turning into an edit war, so I’ll stop reverting. Leaving a note here in case anyone wants to keep an eye on it and/or copyedit the article. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page. I do notice you did not notify the IP editor of this discussion, as is required; I have done so for you this time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear The Bushranger. My last edit is sourced and not that promotional in nature. While I agree I should've discussed with other users, আফতাবুজ্জামান repeatedly reverted it without giving reasons and himself too has actively engaged in an edit war. Didn't he? I would appreciate if someone could review my last edit and clarify which parts of my sourced edits are considered promotional (on one of the edits I've just mentioned about his pre-political career!). Please make amendments on my contribution, but removing the entire sourced information undermines neutrality. Thanks80.43.19.241 (talk)

Overly aggressive conduct in Canadian political topics

This evening I was reading the talk page threads of the 2025 Canadian federal election, one thread in particular caught my eye due to the overly aggressive language used-[179]. I did some digging into the user-[180] who made the comment and discovered that he has a history of making overly aggressive and personal comments in this topic area.

For example,

[181] Called a politician a "cretin" in an edit summary

[182] "There is a near-zero chance that it gets any lasting coverage to justify an article, and B) because it would be giving those clowns at the Rebel exactly what they want, which is attention." Self explanatory-unaccpetable comment regardless of what your beliefs are surrounding Rebel News.

[183] "I'm not sure if I have a firm opinion as to how much weight we should be giving this donation grift farce overall." Self explanatory again.

[184] "They should be listed similarly to how Arya and the anti-Abortion "human" are." While I am pro-choice through and through, it is unacceptable to insinuate that someone is not human or worthy of being considered a human because of their views on abortion on a public platform like Wikipedia.

[185] Another example is this deletion nomination he made on the Diana Fox Carney article, which was promptly closed as WP:SNOW. While the discussion was ongoing, there was some back and forth between a user called Moxy and GhostOfDanGurney where Moxy stated that the article's deletion would leave readers in the dark; while I didn't think Moxy's comments were offensive or out of line, GhostOfDanGurney responded in a very rude, overly dramatic fashion- [186], [187] accusing Moxy of stating that he was trying to keep readers in the dark. This was evidently not the case, Moxy was accurately saying how an unwarranted AfD would keep readers in the dark, he did not directly or explicitly attribute the consequences of the deletion to GhostOfDanGurney personally. I thought this was a particularly rude way to handle a disagreement.

I see that this user has been blocked before for personal attacks, I personally think that someone of this temperament and conduct should not be allowed to edit this topic area. Hiya2025 (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This account with 11 edits, created on 2025 April 20, seems to be upset that I made two comments about Rebel News (which is described by numerous RSs in the linked article as "far-right") coincidentally on April 20. Rebel "news" operates via asking readers for donations after pulling off publicity stunts such as the incident that was being discussed on the talk page. To call such actions a "donation grift farce" is not aggressive, it is accurate.

Regardless, none of my bolded comments are directed towards any users (I very clearly am referring to employees at the Rebel as "clowns"), and the disagreement with Moxy is 6 weeks old now and seems to be a reach in order to paint my perceived aggressive language as being towards other users in general.

My time on-wiki lately (which is limited due to my job) has been split between doing work reverting undiscussed moves at WikiProject:NASCAR and monitoring the Canadian election article for additions of unreliable sources (such as Rebel). Hopefully my response is adequate and this can be closed quickly. Seriously, the most recent complaint is 5 days old now. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 03:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to concur with Ghost of Dan Gurney that it does seem quite odd that an editor would create an account just to bring another editor to AN/I for some mildly spicy remarks about a known unreliable news source. I would note that this election has been a particularly well-attended one according to the news surrounding early-voting as Canadians have really seen it as a referendum on handling the United States but this increased democratic fervor at large has translated into a lot of new editors joining the discussion at article talk. While this has largely been a positive thing it has meant that veteran editors have had to spend a fair bit of time explaining things like source reliability, sometimes repeatedly, at article talk. This can lead to patience fraying slightly. This is to say that I don't think GoDG has been disruptive in any way despite operating in a more challenging than average environment for Canadian politics and I would encourage Hiya2025 to edit constructively and not worry about whether someone called a well-known disinformation vector "clowns". Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that as the election is underway there may be more spats and disagreements on Wikipedia, but calling people "cretins", "clowns", and insinuating that someone is not a human because of their political beliefs still seems way out of line. Hiya2025 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

What previous accounts have you edited under/what other accounts do you have? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

None- see my user page. Hiya2025 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

IP editor WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Despite warnings to not engage in incivility, unconstructive editing, and personal attacks, User:206.121.189.142 continues to disrupt the project (see, for example, here, here, and here) with abusive edits. I request a significant block to prevent further disruption. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That's ok this is my work IP. You have users making antagonizing comments like Chetsford, who then edit's his comments to appear civil. I'll be looking to join Guerrilla Skeptics from my home IP and learning the correct process to react to these bad actors. Thanks for the future ban. 206.121.189.142 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see now, you're part of Chetsford group with you anti ufology agenda. I got it, great game thanks. Anyone who is serious about flushing out unbiased editors should look into these folks actions. Once Susan Gerbic's group accepts me I hope to expose the lot of them. 206.121.189.142 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax and @Chetsford should be looked into for WP:BADFAITH

Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia

Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to use editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... when their words or actions indicate a longer-term motive inconsistent with "here to build an encyclopedia").

They may edit other articles but have a history of dismantling articles related to UFO figures and topics around UFOlogy using the system in place that has a learning curve to obfuscate edits by everyday individuals not heavily invested in this environment.

These tactics are taught to Guerrlia Skeptics by figures like Susan Gerbic. I'm only here out of concern seeing bad faith actors vandalize pages they disagree with and I do hope to join the editorial pool to combat militarized efforts to obfuscate a topic. That's my observation. Go ahead with the ban, this IP and device ID is unimportant and I will be back on my personal device once I cool down and I have armed myself with knowledge about the editing process. 206.121.189.142 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know you intend to evade your block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Note also this personal attack. Blatantly NOTHERE, blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The funny thing is that Sgerbic had absolutely nothing to do with this incident that got the conspiracy theorists all wound up. She is just their "bogeywoman". Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Claiming consensus when there are only two involved and personal attacks

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

---

• NacreousPuma855 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User User:NacreousPuma855 has been claiming consensus on List of programs broadcast by CBS even though though the conversation on the talk page has only involved two people so far https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS. (There has been also no broad discussion or agreement (yet?) on the issue on the TV project related talk pages where I brought it up yesterday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#c-Newsjunkie-20250423183500-Displaying_year_information_for_Television_shows_in_development/references. They have also made personal attacks on my user talk page like " 80% of your ideas ruin the pages. " " You coming up with ideas that just make the article even messier." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newsjunkie#c-NacreousPuma855-20250410020900-Newsjunkie-20250410014700 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsjunkie (talk • contribs) 03:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Newsjunkie has been violating multiple Wikipedia policies. Examples include WP:REFCLUTTER, WP:WAR, WP:OWN, WP:OVERCITE, WP:NOTLISTENING, WP:BLUDGEON, etc. Also, Newsjunkie was reported here before [188], for violating 3RR and edit warring policies. Newsjunkie has edited against consensus before, causing the Harry Potter page to be fully protected. I'm just trying to be the good guy and trying not to make a mess. What I was saying are not attacks, they are facts based on their previous editing history. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

On this particular issue so far the only people involved in the discussion on the talk page were the two of us, there had been no consensus either way on the talk page. I also tried to address some previous concerns about visual appearance/"mess" by adopting the list format that the other user had added for the other section. (rather than just restoring the original version) newsjunkie (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is evidence of Newsjunkie editing against consensus. [189] [190]. WP:POINT Also, there is a third person who disagrees with Newsjunkie's edits. [191] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

On the CBS page there was one recent BOLD edit (of a previous version) by another user which I undid. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS&oldid=1284131139 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS&oldid=1284132515 There was no further reversion/discussion involving any other users on that issue since then until yesterday/today, and my most recent edit took into consideration and adopted the new List redesign. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_CBS&oldid=1287135635 (And when I raised it on the TV Project Manual of Style talk page, so far the only comment has been whether including the entire list/section is appropriate at all) newsjunkie (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment: There needs to be a few points clarified here.

1. re: the suggestion that Newsjunkie has been violating multiple Wikipedia policies followed by a list of shortlinks. Not all of those are policies. WP:WAR and WP:OWN are the only things in that list that are "policy". WP:NOTLISTENING is part of a behavioral guideline. The rest is explanatory essay. The weight those things carry is based on what they actually are (policy first, then guidelines, and then, essays are explanatory, but are not universal nor inviolate, so keep that in mind).
2. There does appear to be a significant amount of bludgeoning of the discussion, from both sides of this. If you find yourself saying something you've already stated, there is no reason to state it again. There is no requirement that either party answer every comment. Often, it's better to not say anything at all - especially if you feel you have a strong case.
3. @Newsjunkie: if you're going to bring a case to AN/I, make sure you have a case. "Claiming consensus" isn't a policy violation (although edit warring is). You've claimed a violation of the civility policy, although I think you'd be hard pressed to support the two statements you've quoted as personal attacks. See WP:NPA#WHATIS for examples of how we as a community define "personal attacks". "Personal" attacks are attacks against you as a person. I don't see that here - his comments, jagged as they may be, appear to be specific to editing and content. If we didn't allow editors to address what they deem to be unhelpful edits and content, there would be no way to address what is deemed to be non-improving editing (I'm not saying your edits are or are not helpful or unhelpful - merely pointing out that addressing editing and content - even gruffly - is allowed).

ButlerBlog (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. To me the comment especially " 80% of your ideas ruin the pages." seemed to me like the example of "belittling" under the direct rudeness example of Civility, so maybe I should have said Civility instead. Wikipedia:Civility newsjunkie (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Both blocked from List of programs broadcast by CBS for 31 hours for edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

More of a non-responsive LTA (Apr 2025)

45.49.236.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the LTA previously described in these reports:

• Sep 2024
• Oct 2024
• Feb 2025
• Mar 2025

Their behavior is identical to that briefly summarized in the Feb 2025 report. The last several blocks have been performed by User:Star Mississippi, who I hope doesn't mind that I ping them immediately on each sighting now. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

They don't seem to stay away for long: 76.33.223.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also them from the beginning of this month. They exhibit a very frustrating insistence on wasting others' time. Remsense ‥ 论 05:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I blocked 45 for a week, 76 is stale as there haven't been any edits for two weeks. For everyone else, having looked at this history, this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU rather than a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I initially thought so too, but see: [192][193] Remsense ‥ 论 08:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

That just still screams WP:COMPETENCE more than anything else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Genuinely appreciate the pushback regarding the dynamic, which my perspective had hardened on. In any case, they are not available for me to communicate with unfortunately. Remsense ‥ 论 08:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This sequence of edits[194][195][196][197] shortly preceding this brow-raising "Fixed." edit[198] leads me to personally believe there may be something slightly more than cir. (Just want this on the record if this discussion is referred back to again in the future, no further action needed or requested at this time.) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned it in a report yet—I don't want the perception that I see their disruption as deliberate or bad-faith specifically because the bias expressed is transparently a rightist one. (I have diffs aplenty if others are skeptical.) That's not the case obviously, but I try to avoid arguing in those terms if I don't have to. Remsense ‥ 论 08:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much to go on there. By contrast, I am the fifth highest contributor to our article on Jacob Rees-Mogg, despite personally thinking the man is an odious reptile. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You've also not taken the time to superfluously capitalize the word "white" in "white supremacist" after having made such contributions. Not much to go on sure, but worth keeping an eye on. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My point is merely that, having looked at thousands of their edits, the ones that remove maintenance tags or material all seem totally arbitrary—it's not really my place to judge the character of what motivates those edits, all I care to see are that there are fairly rigid patterns concerning what is removed or retained. I couldn't care less, I just wish I had miraculous insight on how to even start getting mutual understanding established between myself and editors such as these. I often feel like I'm the problem (and sometimes I am, naturally). Remsense ‥ 论 10:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I never mind being pinged @Remsense, and thanks @Ritchie333 for handling while I was offline. Star Mississippi 14:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism / Spam

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

---

[199] by @Saritvik45. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Saritvik45 has been given a final warning by User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi, and hasn't added any further spam links since then. By the way, the best way to deal with spammers is to use the uw-spam1/2/3/4 series of templates and then report them to WP:AIV if they continue after several warnings or a final one. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

91.122.22.140

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

---

• 91.122.22.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Same editor as 78.37.216.35. Both have walls of warnings due to disruptive edits. Here and here they acknowledged the editing restriction due to WP:RUSUKR. I told them again that they cannot make any edits about the Russo-Ukraine war but they decided to feign ignorance and continue to make edits about the war immediately after this. See also edit warring. Mellk (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that "this page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Please elaborate, how my editing falls into that. I insist, that the IP, you are referring to, has nothing to do with me:it is not a due process to suggest it. If you find my editing inappropriate, just revert it. Thank you 91.122.22.140 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that you were told you were no longer allowed to edit about any articles related in any way to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, per the guidelines stated at WP:RUSUKR. You acknowledged this restriction twice but continued to edit articles directly related to the topic anyway. You have been provided more than enough chances to read up on the policies in my opinion. I would support a block. Gommeh (t/c) 19:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

No, you cannot suggest blocking before ensuring the mentioned IP has anything to do with me. Is there a due process? Please, provide an avenue to appeal. Thank you. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Gommeh here. It doesn't really matter whether you're the same as the other IP. You were told about the GS restriction under this IP so should have been abiding by them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I just posted the same edit to two articles about bilateral relations between countries, as suggested, by the way, by @Altenmann. It is too broad to consider it RuUkr topic. In my humble opinion. Thank you. 91.122.22.140 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You modified a section titled "Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine". And you must know this since you modified the header. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Diffs to the RUSUKR violations? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm on mobile but at a minimum [200] Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Renewed edit war

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

---

I hate to make another thread about Newsjunkie (talk · contribs), who has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on a separate page per above, but I just noticed that immediately after the Harry Potter page had its protection removed, they again reverted it to their preferred version of the page despite consensus against it and many walls of text about this on Talk:Harry Potter. See also the previous ANI report from Butlerblog (talk · contribs).

Personally I would suggest a TBAN but given their edit warring on other pages, something else might be more appropriate. wound theology◈ 19:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This version was not the same as before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&oldid=1287356754 with other changes to language and other sources to make it clearer and significantly tried to address the concerns and I was simply trying to get constructive feedback on the specific issues. I have not reverted again on that page today and would just like specific feedback on the talk page on the actual arguments being made or how anything I'm adding goes against any policies when everything is verified, there should be no Synth concern or and there is no full ban on primary sources. newsjunkie (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Newsjunkie The edit is on the same content as the previous edit war. That it is not exactly the same doesn't matter. The repeated editing on the same material to one's "preferred version" is the issue. please self revert EvergreenFir (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's already been reverted, and I haven't reverted it again today. I was making a new revised attempt in the spirit of making a BOLD edit. I am now again trying to get substantive feedback on the actual issues on the talk page: Talk:Harry Potter#Renewed attempt at revising Back to Hogwarts paragraph newsjunkie (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You say "I haven't reverted it again today". Don't revert it again tomorrow or any other day unless and until a consensus is established for your edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand that. I just would really like substantive, specific feedback on how anything in the latest proposed version is actually objectionable or goes against any of the policies previously cited(Synth/Primary Source policy) , when I have tried to address them in various ways and there is no verification concern. I am asking for the specific feedback so I can learn from it, and get an explanation for how exactly the content goes against any of the cited policies, if it does. newsjunkie (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You have been given the feedback you seek numerous times on the talk page. At this point, you are just WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. wound theology◈ 20:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm involved as the reverting editor. I don't think Newsjunkie understands WP:SATISFY, as they have had it explained to them multiple times on the talk page. The biggest policy being violated was WP:CON. They made a proposal here for a change included in their most recent edit, for which the only two !votes were oppose. I understanding wanting to know how to improve, but between the extensive WP:BLUDGEONing and WP:WALLOFTEXT, I have exhausted my patience with them, and expect others feel similarly. They were told to drop the stick, but as soon as the page protection expired, immediately went right back to it. I don't know if they're deliberately wearing others down or just don't get it, but it's become disruptive. Given the edit warring in the above ANI thread, I'm not sure a topic ban would be sufficient, but it'd certainly be a start. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I have tried to address all the concerns cited, and would just like feedback on how specifically the most recent suggestion goes against any of the cited policies, rather than just the citing the policy in question. newsjunkie (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I would understand the reversions better if I could understand what the specific thing is that is actually objectionable in what I have proposed in the most recent version in terms of policy and why. newsjunkie (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I have made several edits on that Harry Potter page and related Harry Potter pages that have had no objection whatsover, the issue has only been this one specific paragraph, the concerns of which were originally Overcite, which I think has been address, and Synth, which I think has also been fully addressed and primary sources, which have been reduced to two, compared to several before. Originally when this started only all the primary source references were removed, not the content itself. That only was removed once the issue of Synth came up, which I think has been fully addressed. (And if not, I would like to understand how it's still an issue.) I would just like to understand in what way specifically my most recent suggestion goes against what the original issues were, and if so how it could be fixed to address those issues. If the issue is primary sources, is the content acceptable without them or in what way are these two primary sources not appropriate in terms of policy? If the issue is still synth, what specific statement is synth and why? newsjunkie (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to discuss content disputes. It's been discussed already on the talk page ad nauseum anyway. In particular, these sections: 1, 2, 3, 4. I checked the page stats, and this shows that Newsjunkie has very much bludgeoned, as they do here: they have 118 edits (~70 kb) to the talk page. Of anyone who edited this year, I have the next highest at 21 (~ 14 kb). They have been advised of both WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT. They do not appear to be willing to change their behavior, and even in this thread continue to WP:BADGER. I'll bow out now to avoid bludgeoning this discussion, but will happily answer any questions from uninvolved parties. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The only reason I edited that much because felt as if nobody was actually explicitly explaining what the actual issue is versus or how to improve it specifically, rather than just citing policy. It's hard to learn or improve if after several attempts to address the original concerns if I can't even understand what is specifically still the issue or how it can be improved based on what the original concerns were. newsjunkie (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It may be helpful for you to review the WP:BLUDGEON and WP: BADGER links that were provided to you, as that will explain why you've been reported. We don't try to exhaust other editors into letting us have our way, we work on consensus. Repeatedly demanding to have the same explanations given over and over is not an example of working toward consensus. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

But I am honestly just really confused as to how the specific original policy as I have read/understood them are being applied and it felt to me that after making different good-faith attempts to address the concerns, policies like Synth were being cited without explaining what the actual Synth statement was, for example. newsjunkie (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend highly that you stop trying to reply to every comment - you are not helping your situation at all. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears clear that you have not reviewed those two links and intend to continue this behavior.

Now, I'm not an admin, but they will be reviewing your posts and the fact that you can't restrain yourself even while being investigated is not going to help with the outcome. Good luck. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion and its WP:WALLOFTEXT by @Newsjunkie is unfortunately, an example of a consisten pattern with them. I've gone back and forth in my opinion, but I do believe they are "HERE", but with difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms.

There are some significant problematic edits across multiple articles with patterns of overciting refbombs, and some other content issues, including consistent edit warring. When those are objected to, newsjunkie has a tendency to BLUDGEON the discussion. Whether that's intentional or unintentional does not matter (and in good faith, I believe it is unintentional). What matters is that it is exhausting other editors to the point where they simply tune out any further discussion from newsjunkie and their edits, wholesale. I can't blame them for that - some of these TP discussions are such a mess that it's impossible to glean the actual point. And therein lies the problem. At present, newsjunkie is disruptive and until they pull back and deal with the core issues of what other editors are objecting to, the problem is only going to get worse. Harry Potter is (at present) still at GA assessment. Causing editing instability to that page is inexcusable - regardless of faith assumptions. @EducatedRedneck suggested a TBAN. I don't know if I'd support that or not - I'd listen to discussion before committing. If that's the direction, it would need to be broadly construed as the editing history shows that the problematic edits are not tightly focused. Regardless, something has to change.

@Newsjunkie: You could do yourself a world of good by pulling back from specific articles AND making a concerted effort to understand that we do not need a dozen references to every article under the sun to verify a single sentence. And when someone disagrees with you, take heed of their reasons. For now, it would be highly beneficial for you to self-enforce a WP:1RR as well as commit to limiting the scope of your TP discussions (you should be open to discussion, but make a very real effort to not restate and restate what you've already said - and don't insist on having the last word - it's not working for you). ButlerBlog (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I would love to be open to discussion and take heed of their reason, and I feel I did that in many respects, that is why I was trying ask questions specifically about how the policy applies in this particular case, that is all. The edit in this question no longer has any dozens of references, for example. newsjunkie (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read what is bolded above. Further to that point, ANI is about editor behavior, not content discussions. The reason you are here right now is about how you've approached things (article content, talk page discussion), not the actual content or validity of edits that were objected to. Right now, every time you respond here as you have above, you reinforce the evidence against you. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Due to Newsjunkie's consistent pattern of disruptive editing as discussed above, I have pageblocked the editor from Harry Potter and Talk: Harry Potter for a period of one year. The editor has been advised to be aware that if this behavior pattern occurs on other articles or pages, they may be subject to a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Mma1902

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

---

Mma1902 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Spam account, please block. Thanks. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

At Talk:Vanniyar#Legal proceedings and official notices will be initiated shortly against all responsible individuals., new user MIB-India (talk · contribs) has left a legal threat. Knitsey (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't subtle. Blocked. However, please, whoever knows the topic, please review the article for the issues raised. See WP:DOLT. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

81.18.239.108

Hi, Please note user 81.18.239.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a death treat on my talkpage, I don't know why. Lobo151 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve blocked them. You should report this threat to Trust and Safety https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability/Trust_and_Safety . — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Note that the IP is located in the Faroe Islands, so pretty remote to you unless you also live there. But it’s still best to report and see what T&S has to say. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Rsjaffe: is a month long block appropriate here? Their only purpose seems to be vandalism; their editors are entirely nonsense. Seems like cause for INDEF to me (but I'm not an admin nor particularly knowledgeable about blocking procedures.) wound theology◈ 07:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses are all but never indef'd, because they vary. A month is actually a pretty long block for an IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

User repeatedly uploading copyrighted images.

User:ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & has been repeatedly re-adding copyrighted images to the article Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri, despite being warned and the images being deleted at commons. The images are from a book; a scan of the book on the internet archive shows that it is "All rights reserved" but they seem convinced that as they own a copy of the book it's okay.

Diff of images being added CoconutOctopus talk 11:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

User is continuing to upload copyrighted images see diff, even after being notified about this ANI thread. CoconutOctopus talk CoconutOctopus talk 12:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Might need a report on commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Nakonana (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The copyright violations are occurring on Commons so administrative action needs to take place there. I am aware of their activity on Commons and have been reporting the copyright violations there. -' Whpq (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

User blocked for 31 hours for copyvio/WP:3RR. Note that CoconutOctopus' removal of the images is covered under WP:3RRNO #5. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Massive wave of LLM spam by Yasin1747

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

---

Accidentally published this into the 'void' tag. Oops. Basically, Yasin1747 is pumping out what appears to be several articles per minute. Obviously generated by LLMs due to their poor sourcing, lack of appropriate context for the reader, and rigid, repetitive prose despite how they're technically sound. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE: It should be obvious that these articles were created by an LLM, but here's irrefutable proof: Battle of Herat (1720) has sources which have malformatted links to Wikipedia that end with the URL parameter ?utm_source=chatgpt.com. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

He also seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Jaspreetsingh6, see the archived discussions and the current discussion about Yasin1747. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 15:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

All of Jaspreet’s previous socks used AI to create the same Persian history articles. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 15:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

LLM-generated hoax by M Waleed

The user M Waleed recently added an unconfirmed claim with an inaccessible source to the 2025 India–Pakistan diplomatic crisis article. The extra sentence at the bottom "This version directly attributes the cause of the flooding to India's actions. Let me know if you need further assistance!" does not indicate good faith or any compliance with WP:NPOV. The user has had a track record of warnings over hoaxes and vandalism, though they removed it from their talk page. Juxlos (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• The diff about the suspicious edit: [201] Koshuri ^(グ) 17:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I've fixed all language and I'm sorry if I did anything, I copied the source from Portal: Current events and it described the event as being attributed to India, I would try my absolute best to ensure nothing like this happens 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 16:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

See Portal: Current events where "Severe flooding is reported along the Jhelum River in Azad Kashmir after Indian authorities release a large amount of water without prior warning. The incident comes following the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty by the Indian government. (24 News HD)" is given, I took it from there and wrote in my edit summary, again I assure that nothing like this would happen and as for the removal, it was a regular cleanup 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 16:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@M Waleed, why did you add "This version directly attributes the cause of the flooding to India's actions. Let me know if you need further assistance!" to the article? Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes because I used AI and it originally created a paragraph showcasing that floods happened, when the article attributed it to India, I vow never to use AI again 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 18:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Also additional sources from both India and Pakistan to back my claims [202][203] [204] [205] 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 16:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I would request all of you to look at my previous contributions and that I haven't used AI, I was unaware and just accidentally added that bit, I assure you and even swear nothing like this will ever ever happen and if anything like this happens, I'll be totally liable and would accept any punishment 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 18:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Adamhock making repeated COI edits

Adamhock (talk · contribs) has been making multiple edits in violation of WP:COI to Adam Hock, even after I warned them several times on their talk page not to do so. They have not made a COI edit request on Talk:Adam Hock. Diffs: [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212]

Evidence of me warning them on their talk page: [213]

Not sure how else to proceed here. Gommeh (t/c) 17:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Adamhock is currently softblocked because of the account name, so they won't be able to reply here until they deal with that. Schazjmd (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah- wasn't sure if I should post the ANI template because of that. Figured if they are already blocked it wasn't going to make much of a difference Gommeh (t/c) 18:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

They might still read it. I'll post it shortly. Adam, on the assumption that you are Adam Hock, please edit this article in the future by posting edit requests at Talk:Adam Hock rather than directly and, most importantly, please talk to the people who can help you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Lowendwarrior showing signs of WP:OWN

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

Lowendwarrior has been adding a cover version to Silent Running (On Dangerous Ground) (hist). I have twice pointed out to them that they have not established the cover's notability, and according to the page history, it appears that Doctorhawkes has also warned them about WP:COVERSONG, to no avail. On their last reversion, Lowendwarrior left this edit summary: Any changes to this will be reported to admins as malicious and inappropriate changes to factual information. This comes off as a bit OWN-y to me. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This message is in regards to the fact that you have removed factual information acting as an OWNer, yourself. This information I am adding is factual and backed up with citations. Lowendwarrior (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)