The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am here to reportUser:Ron Karlos L. Castillo for disruptive editing. This editor keeps changing the status of a cast member of a Tv series, without providing a source.[1][2] While this edit contains a duplicate of a reference already posted in the article.[3] This user doesn't communicate, doesn't use their edit summary and doesn't respond through their talk page. I posted a level 4 warning in their talk page, since they were just blocked last March 2025. After the warning I posted in their talkpage, the editor continues to post unreferenced content.[4]Hotwiki (talk)13:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
The reported user still hasn't respond. This is written in their block log when they were blocked in March 2025 -"Disruptive editing Long term DE, especially adding unsourced claims despite multiple previous blocks and a wall of warnings. Virtually no communication. See ANI report. We are getting close to an indef."[5] The editor has been in Wikipedia for 10 years, to still not communicate and just ignore warnings and reports towards him.Hotwiki (talk)02:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I've indefinitely pblocked from articlespace due to the continual and very long-term addition of unsourced content and failure to communicate,which is not optional. Hopefully this will encourage them to respond to the concerns here, but given this editor's history it may be worth keeping an eye out forWP:LOUTSOCKING. -The BushrangerOne ping only02:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Back in March this user wasbrought to this page due to his disruptive editing via live updates on football matches. He claimed that he "didn't know there was a reason for not doing live updates, and was just tryna do it to be quick and save time." He was already warned twice by myself on such occasion (see his talk page) and he wasalready warned before that as well. Fast forward to today and he's done it again thrice (1,2 and3). Live updates have been prohibited for years in football articles to avoid mistakes and duplicate information. He just doesn't care about anything anyone says. It can't go unpunished.Gsfelipe94 (talk)21:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Gsfelipe94, administrators do not act with the intent to punish editors. We act to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Tumford14 from editing article space. They can still make edit requests on article talk pages.Cullen328 (talk)04:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
WP:ASPERSION
I'm going to BE BOLD and just close this discussion. I don't anything can come of this but experienced editors taking shots at each other and I'm sure there are more valuable uses of your time than causing or taking offense. You are both appreciated so, go off and do great things!LizRead!Talk!05:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm very tired of wasting time responding to baseless allegations by editors whose sole contributions are arguing about random culture war video game crap. My proposal was only "retaliatory" in the sense that it was a "retaliation" for the subjects' increasing breaches of policy (as outlined by my proposal). I have no idea in what world my editing can be described as "ideologically motivated". I FA'dDracula, and routinely deal with "Dracula is GAY NOW?" as a result of my work on theSexuality and gender sections, or removingthis crap because I wrote about Marxist and feminist analysis onThe Turn of the Screw (GA). I created and GA'dThe Blood of the Vampire, a Victorian Gothic novel about a mixed-race female vampire. Whether this most recent account is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of one of the others I've no idea. —ImaginesTigers (talk)19:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, if you are that offended by what Koriodon wrote, you should check out what you wrote -[6]. Equally as much of an aspersion to casually say people in the conversation are socking without evidence. I'd recommend reporting yourself, or more reasonably, withdrawing this battleground report.107.116.165.19 (talk)22:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Yes, I ballsed up the diff. Now adjusted to demonstrate that Koriodan called ImaginesTiger's editing retaliatory. Trout accepted for messing up the original diff. Mind you, the fact that I included a quote surely suggested where the problem lay. (By the way,{{checkuser needed}} regarding whether the IP that comments above is related to either the IPs involved in theForspoken edit war that led toits protection, or to any of the relevant parties.) Cheers,—Fortuna,imperatrix22:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
No, I'm unrelated, said every sock ever. Not to say you are one, but 'I'm not' isn't exactly the best proof otherwise, and suggesting someone could be a sockwhen there is reasonable suspicion of socking is not a personal attack. -The BushrangerOne ping only01:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
What is the cause of reasonable suspicion? Can you be specific? I'm not sure what you think the appropriate response to a spurious accusation of socking would be. I assume you'd probably be unhappy if I started implying you were Lourdes. You'd probably call it an aspersion and demand diffs. I'd rightly get blocked for NPA. I'm not saying that you are Lourdes, but "I'm just asking questions" isn't a reasonable defense of aspersions.107.116.165.19 (talk)01:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Funny how nobody said they were "just asking questions", isn't it? IP randomly appears and makes inflammatory comments with regard to a contentious discussion -> reasonable suspicion it's somebody logged out.Q.E.D. -The BushrangerOne ping only02:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Here is me editing here one year ago -[7]. Do you really think it is likely I have been editing here for years as an IP to prepare for someone to make a bad ANI report so that I could stick it to them over, let me check above, how many copies of a video game have sold in a country? Something has been demonstrated, but not that it's reasonable to think I'm a logged out gaming editor.107.116.165.19 (talk)03:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Based on data I have, it is entirely possible you are a logged out gaming editor. Blocked, and the rest of the range you've been haunting, for a while.Izno (talk)04:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this thread is just an extremely poorly considered move, and a waste of community energy. Frankly, the manner in whichWP:ASPERSION is being leveraged (indeed, I would not not consider it an exaggeration to say 'abused') on ANI of late is getting to be a real problem that might require some (extremely ironic) warnings or even sanctions to address.Fortuna, in the (sole) diff that you cite, Koriodan does not make a falsifiable accusation of a rules violation; they merelyspeculate that another party had biased reasons for making the proposal that they did. That iswell within the boundaries of the type of conjecture that community members have to be free to express in order for this project (and conduct-review spaces like ANI in particular) to have any hope of operating. It is certainly not within the vein of the kind of statement, presented as fact (but without supporting evidence) that WP:ASPERSION is meant to address. Now, did Koriodan make that observation entirely in good faith, and was their assessment a well-reasoned one? I honestly don't know: that thread is an absolute mess. I can tell you I am easily as skeptical as you and others in that thread in terms of looking at the account's immediate editorial history before joining the discussion. And if you were able to connect the dots to another account, I'd not only say you'd be justified in taking the matter to SPI, but indeed that you should be encouraged to. And I have a similar perspective towards the concern about the IP editor above as that expressed by others already. But none of that makes your course of action in opening this thread in any way meritorious. All you are accomplishing with this report is to make a mountain out of a molehill and create an outgrowth of the earlier discussion akin to a multiplying wart. It is not helpful to the business of this space, and I strongly encourage you to withdraw the matter in your own interest, and the community's.SnowRise let's rap12:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, a related point on overwrought rhetoric: when you use the word "slur" in particular as you did in this case, you are, imo, crossing a line from garden-variety exaggeration and into a truly problematic kind of hyperbole. On a project like this, weneed that term to stand for what it usually stands for in customary English parlance: an established pejorative used with bigoted orchauvinistic intent to intimidate, demonize, belittle, dehumanize, or marginalize individuals or groups based solely on their inclusion in some sort of classification scheme (race, gender, sexuality, nationality, ect. ect.) When you idly throw such a term around in a situation like this, that involves none of those factors, but is rather a tempest-in-a-teapot over one editor refusing to AGF, you debase the term's value--an honestly, make it harder for others to take your point seriously.SnowRise let's rap12:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. 'Slur' is a perfectly acceptable descriptor, and does not bear the undue superlation you bestow upon it. To cut to the chase, obviously, I considered carefully the merits of this report before publishing; I considered, and do consider, it necessary. As you say,that thread is an absolute mess; partially, at least, that is consequential to the personalized remarks, bad-faith assumptions and diffless allegations that certain parties have been free to make. By your logic, it would be reasonable, and not at all an aspersion! were I to suggest you were incapable of making a point in less than a 1000-word wall-of-text. But I suspect it would be an asperson, so I would not. If the accusations of supporting Gamergate now continue, it will be in spite, not because, of this thread. (BTW, AFK for the near future, so unable to respond to further opinions.) Cheers,—Fortuna,imperatrix13:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
'Slur' is a perfectly acceptable descriptor, and does not bear the undue superlation you bestow upon it.
Well, you might want to have a look atour article on the subject sometime. The word very much is associated with a very particular type of hateful invective in modern English; I'm not trying to steer you wrong. But that's not really the main issue here.
obviously, I considered carefully the merits of this report before publishing
Really? Because it seems like you rushed out this report immediately after Koriodan pushed back against your description, and so quickly that you initially got both the parties/specific facts and the diffs wrong.
I considered, and do consider, it necessary
Yes, I take that for granted. But that's precisely the problem. Not only was this not necessary, it's pointless. Did you really think the community was going to sanction someone for having an uncharitable take on another user's possible motivation at ANI?
partially, at least, that is consequential to the personalized remarks, bad-faith assumptions
Ok, so welcome to ANI. I'm not saying it's great or that comments can't cross the line into policy violations, but we can't just create a splinter thread for every little ABF comment...
and diffless allegations that certain parties have been free to make.
Diffing suppositions is not possible; deductive conclusions are, by definition, created in the absence of direct evidence. You're conflating two separate policies:WP:ASPERSION andWP:AGF. And while ABF can become an issue in extreme cases, do you really think Koriodan's one comment here truly constitutes such a case, necessitating an ANI thread? Because frankly, if you do, I think you need a break from this space.
By your logic, it would be reasonable, and not at all an aspersion! were I to suggest you were incapable of making a point in less than a 1000-word wall-of-text. But I suspect it would be an asperson, so I would not.
I mean, your sarcasm not withstanding, that's very clearly not anWP:ASPERSION, as the term is applied on this project, and your counterfactual actually makes me wonder when you last read the policy. Now, that said, the comment very obviously is a petty and spitefulWP:personal attack against a respondent who is merely trying to explain a policy distinction to you--which serves to emphasize just howWP:BATTLEGROUND your approach to this forum is becoming. But notice what I'm not going to do: I'm not going to run off a create a whole new thread on ANI to try to hold you to account for it, despite the clear intent. I'm not going to do that because it would be a histrionic response to the comment in question that would have zero chance of accomplishing anything beyond a timesink for the community.SnowRise let's rap20:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: Boomerang - Fortuna imperatrix mundi topic banned from notice boards broadly construed excluding cases where she may be reported by someone else
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support as nom for exhibiting a battle ground mentality and casting aspersions in retaliation related to another case above.216.114.163.13 (talk)02:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User repeatedly adds non-notable subjects to music articles, then vandalizes my userpage when I remove this info
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pomidor4ik2006(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been repeatedly re-adding information about non-notable music artists to a few articles (a couple of list articles, and the article foroutsider music). I reverted these edits when I noticed them late last month, roughly a week and a half before the edits were made. Today, I noticed that the user not only re-added said non-notable info [which they even said in one of their edit summaries "Just interesting marginal musician", implying non-notability to begin with], they edited my userpage withthis edit that says "syn prostitutki" - this translates to "son of a bitch". Previously, this user apparently repeatedly added this non-notable information in February and March, which were reverted then. I only noticed their May edits before this incident, but this user seems to be a repeat offender. Maybe they're just not aware of thenotability guidelines and how to prove notability, but on the other hand, they don't seem to want to learn said guidelines and instead just want to promote a musical artist or two that they like. The insulting edit to my user page [not even my talk page] leaves a sour taste in my mouth though, and I'm not sure that they will learn regardless of what they're told, or otherwise how to proceed. --GVOLTTHow's my editing?\My contribs02:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
I've posted an invitaton for them to join this discussion and also warned them about the personal attack. They are not a regular editor though so I'm not sure when they will be logged back in here on this platform.LizRead!Talk!05:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another user that refuses to add citations or look at their talk page
Wikireader69(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been with us for 3 years. In that time, they’ve only made 26 edits - but 18 of those have been reverted, mostly because of a lack of sourcing. Just those in May and June:[8],[9] and[10]. They’re now on their third level 4 warning on their talk page… is it possible to get them blocked from article space to force them to actually engage with editors that have concerns about their editing?Danners430 (talk)13:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that you should send them a message that is not a template, since you've never asked them to talk in any of those messages𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)13:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I can understand that… but how does that change the fact that they’ve been given umpteen warnings about the exact same thing, yet their behaviour doesn’t change?Danners430 (talk)14:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I have indefinitely p-blocked from article space until they communicate as they do not edit frequently enough for a time delineated block to work.StarMississippi18:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That is allowed.WP:DRAFT:Anyone, including users who are not logged in, can create and edit drafts. Pages in Article and Draft space are not yours (or anyone's), please readWP:OWN. If you wish to work on something by yourself, it's best to work on it in your sandbox, in Userspace. You can create subpages by adding a slash (/) and a name, e.g.User:The Red Archive/sandbox/Attack on Constantinople. You also should have made an attempt to talk to the editor before this report.TurboSuperA+(connect)15:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Jross2166 This is not an issue of misinterpretation of facts. This is a content dispute based oninterpretation of Wikipedia guidelines for whether the material belongs in the intro—which means, among other things, there is noWP:3RR exemption for continuing to revert, as you have done. —C.Fred (talk)23:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Peoplic (talk·contribs) has already been warned about theirclose paraphrasing,[13] and they're presently doubling down and spreading it across many articles, despite already having made a lot for us to clean up.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] I had a pre-existing dispute about their inappropriate use of sources, and this report isn't about that—but when they do hew to what reliable sources say, they do so far too closely.Remsense ‥ 论08:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
All of my paraphrasing and modifications to the text have been thorough, and I have made a concerted effort to contribute to Wikipedia. I have used reliable and modern sources, replacing words and altering the writing style as much as possible. Nevertheless, you are relentlessly undoing my work. The goal is to expand and improve Wikipedia.Peoplic (talk)08:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Plagiarism does not improve Wikipedia, it adds copyright-infringing material other editors have to spend a lot of time cleaning up. I'm not ruining your work, because this isn't your work. If you had bothered reading the linked page at any point, you would see examples of plagiarism via close paraphrasing clearly directly akin to what you are adding to these articles.Remsense ‥ 论08:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I invited you to discuss the topics page by pagehere, but you avoided the conversation and instead mass-reverted my contributions without proper engagement.Peoplic (talk)08:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Again, this is a separate issue of yours that you were given a final warning about before I even noticed your edits for the first time. There's no discussion to have here: I pointed your egregious plagiarism out again, and you went and tried to put it all back again. You need to be prevented from further damaging the encyclopedia.Remsense ‥ 论08:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I have basically two disputes with you, but you're trying to conflate them in order to deflect from your having done the one that no one familiar with site policies would ever doubt, and one that entails legal liability.Remsense ‥ 论08:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I have used reliable and modern sources,replacing words and altering the writing style as much as possible. This is the problem. You need to write contentin your own words, not by copying a source and then replacing words. I just randomly checked a single one of the diffs provided by Remsense (this one) and your text is way too close to that of the cited source.Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)15:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Have to say that that is hardly a "plain and simple guide". Wanting people to read rambles like "There's nothing wrong with selling GPL software. I could start burning DVDs with Audacity and GIMP and start flogging them for £20 each down the local market - computer savvy people would be unimpressed I was making money off somebody else's work, but provided anyone could get the original source code (which they can), it's not illegal." as part of a "plain and simple" explanation of what copyvio or close paraphrasing are and how Wikipedia deals with them is not helpful. Better to send editors to our actual policies and guidelines than to this page. Never mind that you seem to imply that it is only a copyright violation because Wikipedia uses a GFDL license, and putting the same text on a website with a different licence wouldn't be a copyright violation. That's just wrong.Fram (talk)10:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I think there's something to be said in the abstract about having a variety of different materials that may appeal or work best for those of different personalities or what have you. If there are other CLOP explainers in projectspace then the more the merrier?Remsense ‥ 论10:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The focus on GFDL specifically is weird because single-licensed GFDL text is not allowed to be pasted into the wiki (perWP:COMPLIC, which isn't linked in there despite the talk of compatible licenses). Also needs an update to say CC 4.0 instead of 3.0.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk10:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I unfortunately have to unarchive this, as Peoplic hasn't taken heed of what multiple editors here have tried to tell them regarding their obviousclose paraphrasing, as they've now reverted me again to restore their plagiarism to articles without meaningful changes – at most swapping out a few more synonyms or shuffling some sentences around – essentially the same shallow attempts to hide what they're doing as before.[21][22][23][24]Remsense ‥ 论06:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
"I no longer intend to continue the discussion. Although my reasons were clear, they were not accepted. My goal was to improve and advance Wikipedia, but unfortunately, my efforts ended in failure. You are free to make any changes you wish to my edits — I have no opinion and will not revert them. Thank you for your participation."Peoplic (talk)06:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
If you continue to add plagiarism to Wikipedia, you're going to be blocked from editing. Multiple editors (including admins) have provided explanations as to why your additions are clear plagiarism, because we'd much prefer if that block doesn't happen, but we have no choice if you refuse to acknowledge anything anyone else says.Remsense ‥ 论06:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
If you still think that what you're doing isn't plagiarism, but only what others "call plagiarism", then aWP:CIR block is needed, since you lack the skills to not plagiarize in the future.EEng03:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Peoplic, you need to respond here in a way that shows you understand what plagiarism is -- not just what others "call plagiarism".EEng15:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Strongly Support CIR block per the above. It seems they do not understand that their edits are plagiarism and create more work for other editors to clean up, considering they statedI have no opinion and will not revert them. andI no longer intend to continue the discussion. Although my reasons were clear, they were not accepted. — BE243 (about |talk)01:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive behavior by 216.228.182.154 at Daniel Seddiqui
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP Vandalism
The following IP addresses are continuously disrupting a series of articles related to Indian politics. It was also reported previously and those IPs were given 1 month block on Wikipedia. Now, they are back again with other different IPs with the same style of disruption with irrelevant and non good faith edits. I request taking appropriate action on the IP range and prevent continuous disruption.
@Migfab008:, I've asked@Liz: if I could move it back to mainspace.[27] I also brought this up to technical requests.[28] There's no respond to those requests yet. I am also waiting for Jaeklmn's response to this. I think its okay to move it back to its "title" and mainspace since Jaeklmn moved it without any explanation and discussion. The show was never called as "Asysysy" to begin with.Hotwiki (talk)12:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I've moved the article back to mainspace per your request atWP:RM/TR. I won't speculate as to motive, but that was certainly an improper draftification.Station1 (talk)14:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
[This] was the last time they posted on their talk page, seven years ago, and is not promising. An open admission of vandalism. This user needs to start communicating.173.22.12.194 (talk)19:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP174.45.210.109(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has, starting on 26 March this year but escalating yesterday, been taking actions that aren't allowed on articles and talk pages including those related togender issues. This includes deleting one of the official flags (the pride flag) from theMissoula, Montana page (diff), which was reverted a few hours later; leaving a talk page message on theFlag of Missoula, Montana page which seemingly criticises the subject of the page itself and calling it "political brainrot" (diff-adjacent); then deleting the entire Flag page (created by @MontanaMako) and replacing it with their version, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of which are directly plagiarised from the Montana Free Press article they cited (diff,news article); before doing what I think is their only constructive edit out of 6, simply just linking some names (diff). They also replied on the talk page forSmash Mouth "What the fuck does this mean" under a 9-month old comment bya now-blocked sockpuppet (diff). I haven't ever posted on AN/I so I don't know what the appropriate course of action should be, but I think a block is probably warranted in this case.Chorchapu (talk |edits)14:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user keeps vandalizingWP:RM/TR to try to get their pageUser:Ashishbarele909/sandbox approved. They remove every uncontroversial technical request and the instructions for adding uncontroversial technical requests, which they didn't follow, and replace it with a new section entirly about moving their own sandbox.WP:RM/TR isn't even the place for this,WP:AfC is.
Their sandbox autobiography has been tagged for speedy deletion so maybe this will stop any disruptive edits. They are a very new editor so I think they don't understand what the project pages are for rather than their edits being conscious vandalism. You might try talking to them next time before coming to ANI,Legend of 14. ANI is for intractible problems when other methods of dispute resolution have failed and I can't see that much communication beyond a template has been tried yet.LizRead!Talk!19:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Given that they've been indefinitelyblocked this issue is now moot. I will consider your advice about talking more to users more before heading to noticeboards. Thanks.Legend of 14 (talk)20:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP editor threatening to "off" themselves and asking about "revenge"
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure it is a genuine "thread of immediate physical harm" - but I'm happy to go that route if I'm being too laxidasical here!Danners430 (talk)20:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
When in doubt, err on the side of caution. T&S can sort things out--that's not your job (and I don't mean that in a bad way--in short, don't worry about whether you're making an unnecessary report, just do it). — rsjaffe🗣️21:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's pretty common for new editors to try writing autobiographies of themselves and to do several versions of them. It's not worth extra attention of ANI. These situations are usually handled by page patrollers or our AFC reviewers.LizRead!Talk!02:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fresh off a very recent block for edit-warring[31],ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk·contribs) has once again engaged in their idiosyncratic behavior of removing content they previously attempted to remove, this time atVertigo (film).[32][33][34] and now[35].Despite their previous brushes with ANI, they appear to be no closer to understandingWP:CONSENSUS and are continuing to act on their belief that if aconversation tapers off then that gives themcarte blanche to make their preferred edits.[36][37]I believe a more significant block is needed to prevent further disruption by this editor.DonIago (talk)23:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I did not revert back to my previous edit. I simply removed the Scorsese music part, because no one on the talk page had made a case for it being there. Therefore, it was not the same edit, and I did not expect to be reprimandedbecause it is not the same edit.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)00:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
My initial edit was to remove all of the Scorsese information. No one cared. So, therefore, I thought to maybe remove a section that I really felt the most unnecessary. I don't really understand how exactly that is vandalism. It's not like I didn't leave an edit summary either. If any other editor removed the information, would they be reported? Or is it simply because I previously tried to removeOTHER information on the page as well in the past? A little unfair if you ask me. It's almost as if I'd have to create a whole different account in order to be able to edit freely at this point-- as if every edit I've done in the past will be held against me for edits I do going forward in the future, with no going back.ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk)00:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attack. Looks like they haveWP:FLOUNCED /WP:VANISHED. Not good to vanish in the middle of misbehavior like that, but at least they're gone for now. I'm sorry you received that message but it's more about them than about you.— rsjaffe🗣️23:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Only users in good standing are allowed to vanish. Due to this behavior, the name change should be reversed and the account blocked indefinitely.50.75.177.210 (talk)23:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
That's a vast oversimplification, and in practice it's rather complicated. The guideline only says itmay not be granted. I don't see the need to get into the weeds on that right now or really do anything. The account is g-locked so it's not going to be used. If they resume their behavior on other accounts and there's sufficient benefit in making the linkage more explicit then there may be cause to revisit, but unless and until that happens there's no reason to spend any time on it.
The fact that they saidI had more 6k edits years ago on my account ... in their message seems to be a clear indicator that User:FantasyElect was a sockpuppet account. — AP 499D25(talk)02:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Trolls aren't known for honesty, and even if true it's not automatically a violation ofWP:ILLEGIT if indeed they had simply lost access to an account used years in the past, though again not really a trustworthy source. Personally I'm inclined to think they'll be back around, and indeed are likely already a repeat customer, but we can deal with that as it arises.184.152.65.118 (talk)02:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CU followup
So I ended up checking the vanished account, suspecting it was actually a previously blocked editor-- it turned out to beUser:Theofunny, who I have no blocked; see their talk page for more background and rationale.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)16:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Almost wish this hadn't been posted here since it seems like almost all of their contributions should be revdel'd, if not OS'd. (@Rsjaffe.)Skynxnex (talk)23:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TAWikiEdit(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) edits almost exclusively on topics related to the Aga Khan family, their institutions, and affiliated organisations, indulges in profanity and uncivil remarks when confronted over adding highly promotional content sourced directly from the organisations associated with the Agas, appends frivolous royal prefixes to their name, and indulges in historical revisionism, distorting the credibility of the pages. Their editing pattern strongly suggests a purpose of reputational management rather than neutral encyclopedic contribution. Their edits consistently feature excessive honorifics, institutional glorification, and uncritical repetition of promotional materials, often sourced directly from the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) and its affiliates.
There is a clear absence of unrelated contributions, policy-based reasoning, or willingness to engage with the neutrality requirements central to Wikipedia. The account appears to function as a conduit for institutional messaging.
1. Undisclosed Advocacy and Apparent Conflict of Interest (WP:COI / WP:PAID)
"We request to all the editors please don't change or delete any full paragraphs or titles without any official permission from the AKDN, as this causes significant errors in google searches."
This statement implies both affiliation with the AKDN and an assertion of editorial control. There is no disclosure of paid or affiliated editing underWP:PAID, nor any acknowledgement of conflict of interest underWP:COI. The user edits only articles related to the Aga Khan family, their lineages, and institutions. This is a textbook example of a single-purpose account (SPA) with potential undisclosed institutional ties.
2. Incivility and Personal Commentary (WP:CIVIL)
When challenged, the user has responded with personal and inflammatory edit summaries, such as this one after removal of honorifics[39]:
"Are you greater than King Charles III ?? Who are You ?? why are you so jealous bcz you don't have Royal titles ???"
This suggests an emotional investment that interferes with neutral editorial conduct. The user is uncivil, resorting to derogatory and confrontational remarks when confronted, thereby clearly reflecting a lack of collaborative ethos that binds Wikipedia editors.
3. Non-Neutral Tone and Promotional Editing (WP:NPOV / WP:PROMOTION / WP:HONORIFIC)
The user’s edits repeatedly violate neutrality expectations. Common patterns include:
Use of ceremonial titles without contextual attribution: “His Highness,” “Prince,” “Spiritual Leader”
Insertion of institutional descriptors like “Global Official Visits” and “Founding Patronship”
Transformation of biographical content into reputational showcases
The following passage, added to Aga Khan V, is illustrative[40]:
Global Official Visits
Press release issued on 31st May 2025 from the Ismaili Imamat Secretariat that upon the invitation of the President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, His Highness the Aga Khan V will undertake an official visit to France from 11-13 July 2025, where he will meet with Government leaders and his Ismaili followers of Belgium, Switzerland and Ivory Coast under the jurisdiction of the Ismaili Council for France, on the start of his first Global Official Visits as the 50th hereditary Imam.
As per the release, His Highness has expressed his desire and intention that he will travel extensively in other parts of the world, to meet countries leaders and his followers as many as possible in person in the coming time.
This content derives directly from a press release, offers no third-party sourcing, and serves no clear encyclopedic function beyond ceremonial promotion, and consistently refers to Rahim as "His Highness".
4. Overreliance on Self-Published and Primary Sources (WP:RS / WP:PRIMARY)
There is little to no engagement with reliable, independent secondary sources. Assertions about religious authority, diplomatic stature, and hereditary titles are framed as settled fact, with no neutral attribution or counterbalance.
5. Recurrent Close Paraphrasing (WP:COPYVIO / WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE)
The user has been previously warned byUser:Diannaa[43] for indulging in copyright violations by closely paraphrasing institutional content. Nevertheless, they continue to add lightly reworded or direct segments from official sources into article space without proper quotation or editorial distancing.
6. Edit Warring and Resistance to Consensus (WP:3RR / WP:EDITWAR)
the user has repeatedly reverted neutralising edits, often without explanation or policy reference, and engaging in a persistent edit war. They were previously reported for this, but no decision was taken[48]. Their reverts almost always restore the prior, promotional version of content, sometimes within hours of it being altered.Furthermore, the edits are obscenely hagiographic and promotional in nature, with the user appending their names with noble prefixes such as His Highness or Prince/Princess.
7. Questionable Username (WP:USERNAME)
The username “TAWikiEdit” may imply group or institutional editing. While not a violation on its own, this, in conjunction with the usage of plural first-person pronouns (“we request”), institutional tone, and undisclosed affiliation, raises further questions about whether the account represents more than one individual or an organisation.
Given the cumulative pattern, undisclosed affiliation, promotional tone, edit warring, and incivility, I request that this account be indefinitely blocked. The behaviour is incompatible with Wikipedia’s purpose as a neutral, community-edited encyclopedia and instead reflects persistent attempts to use the platform as a reputational tool. Their attempts to stake custodianship over pages is baffling.
Did you create this account just to make this ANI report? There was an IP user (Special:Contributions/119.18.0.71) who got recently blocked and who was seemingly also having disagreements with TAWikiEdit regarding some of the pages mentioned above.
Note: I'm not familiar with the subject matter, so I didn't check whether the concerns you've raised have merit or not. I just randomly clicked on your contribs and that's how I noticed that your account is new.Nakonana (talk)18:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Was just about to say the same thing but hit an edit conflict; we've got obvious LLM socking and I think this needs to be hatted.Nathannah •📮18:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I would have preferred if they did re-write in their own words or post on their original account, so I do think the allegations have weight and should be looked at, and agree with that.Nathannah •📮19:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should shoot the messenger, as suspicious as they might be. If this evidence is accurate, this is a clear sign of editorial violations of COI and PAID. I'm not convinced by the diffs of lack of civility but I don't think we should throw out the complaint without looking into it first.LizRead!Talk!18:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of any flaws of the OP, TAWikiEdit is clearly a promotion-only account, and the weird edit summaries that the OP citeshere andhere clearly display aNOTHERE account. Note also the several copyvio warnings on their talkpage. I have blocked indefinitely.Bishonen |tålk21:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, following up on DataNomad's conduct (esp anti-Iraqi stuff) and the possibleWP:MEAT that is probably in place: So I came across theBarzani's jash campaign article, I've noticed that the article reads somewhat like its generated by an LLM and most of the sources in use have no citations and are inaccessible. I've moved the article into draft space based on those issues and left a note to DataNomad that I've done so and started writing up the reasons why I've done the draftification in the draft's talk. When I sent the message[49], they've already reverted the move to a different article name (Barzani`s jash campaign) and replied to my message with "Nice opinion". Seeing them do that, I've reverted them and had to retype the reason for the draftification since I didn't know what happened to the first message I wrote (Talk:Barzani`s jash campaign#issues, notice how the page moving broke the article links). Now after that, they, moved the draft toDraft:Barzani jash campaign and started vandalizing it, making edits like"7 trillion arabs killed",Entire arab population extinct, andadded Saddam Husain and Ali Hassan al Majid to the belligerents (I've brought up DataNomad's obsession with arab deaths on the previous ANI case). Now, out of nowhere, Average kurd comes in and continues DataNomad's work of reverting draftifications (Refer to the WP:MEAT stuff on the the previous ANI case), and all this happened in a really fast pace, it was too late when I noticed that I've brokenWP:DBLDRAFT and stopped reverting them.
I've checked one page in one reference. SeeSpecial:Diff/1294428476. In short, everything on that pagecontradicts what is written in the article. I guess I am involved, since I started talking about sources, so I'll leave this to another admin to handle. — rsjaffe🗣️17:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked DataNomad for disruptive editing such as the outlandish assertion that trillions of Arabs were killed in this conflict and Arab extinction. Creating hoax content about an ethnonationalist military conflict is unacceptable.Average kurd, consider yourself warned that disruptive editing in this topic area will not be tolerated in the slightest.Cullen328 (talk)18:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I have got one question, How should we deal with the articles that DataNomad created? Most of them are about war crimes by the way.R3YBOl(🌲)18:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Link for convenience:[52]. @Rsjaffe, would you mind checking a couple other sources for that same article to confirm that the same problems are article-wide and not just the one source? If we confirm that, then I think we can start presumptively PRODing the rest after checking only one source. Anyone nominating any affected articles for PROD should link this ANI thread in the rationale so it's clear to anyone looking that there's been other discussion. --asilvering (talk)18:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
OK. Note that I am not an expert in this area, so I'm just relating what I've learned. Most of the references are inaccessible to me. I've checked the following:
This makes clear that the majority of the fighting was between Kurds loyal to Mulla Mustafa and Kurds loyal to the government (as does the first line ofBarzani jash campaign). The reference states: "by July 1961 Barzani had put his tribal enemies to flight or reduced them to submission". Also note that "jash" as used in the article title is a perjorative assigned to Kurdish "traitors". Calling the result a Kurdish victory (this reference is used to substantiate that) is a serious oversimplification, as the fighting was primarily inter-tribal and resulted in the defeat of government loyalists among the Kurds.
This publication was used to substantiate: "many jash's fled to Iran and Turkey", "3,000 killed". I can only view page 50. It states that the NY Times reported that government casualties were '50 killed and 150 wounded'. I'll also note that again, the offensive is reported to have occurred in March 1962, not 1961 as stated in the article. I suspect that Barzani's claim of 3,000 casualties (not deaths) was on the next page, but it certainly was given undue weight, given the info that the New York Times reported.
3. # McDowall, David.A Modern History of the Kurds. I.B. Tauris, 2004, p. 69.Google Books
Used to substantiate: "By summer 1961, Barzani was working more closely with tribal rebels in the north while stepping up attacks on Jash forces loyal to Baghdad. In September, fighting intensified when an local tribe (the Arkou) attacked an Iraqi army column, prompting a direct response from the government. Qasim ordered airstrikes on Barzani’s positions, stopping his push near the border." The source stated that Barzani consolidated his hold by fighting his old enemies, two other tribes. (which partially contradicts the statement in the article: "working more closely" when it was really "rolling over his opposition"). The source does confirm the Arkou attack and describes indiscriminate (not focused on Barzani) bombing in reply.
Is that enough? I'd say there are significant NPOV and interpretation issues, some flat-out errors, and some correct information in the article. Again, I'm not an expert or even conversant in this field. — rsjaffe🗣️19:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that the best way to deal with all this is to prod it all and if a good faith editor decides to create those articles again then let it be𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)20:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Note that the first reference I reviewed (on the article talk page) had three serious problems. O'Ballance, Edgar (1973).The Kurdish revolt: 1961-1970. Internet Archive. [Hamden, Conn.] Archon Books. p. 81.ISBN978-0-208-01395-8.
I'm team "prod 'em all" in these circumstances. Nationalist misinfo can have pretty grim real-world consequences. --asilvering (talk)22:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They're now subject to aGlobal block which automatically removes local talk page access. Given proxy usage it's not likely to slow them down by much so I'd continue to monitor the relevant filter logs.184.152.65.118 (talk)00:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user's edits focus on the sanctionedWikipedia:ARBIPA topic space, I have alerted the user ofthis now. The edits though are not only disruptive, sometimes they flout consensus trying to sneak through contentious edits by passing of fake edit summaries. TakeHardeep Singh Nijjar, a contentious topic regarding international relations whose stable lead was achieved through consensus over much of the last year,here the user falsely claims to be only adding a note for apparent non-RS citations fromNews18 andNDTV [unanimously justified and not listed and not listed at RSP] but changes the entire lead with a certain POVPUSH and removes all citations from the lead, and only adds aMOS:LEADCITE notice [not for RS as claimed in the ES; the LEADCITE notice and removals are themselves dubious considering the entire topic and article are contentious]. Atseparatist movements of India, claims to be adding a historical movement but [with POV] partially removes info about theKhalistan movement.Here, atCanada–India relations, adds the false info that Canada and India "currently have no formal diplomatic relations".Here atJagjit Singh Chohan claims to be removing dead links and ELs but changes the entire lead [again with a certain POV], removing cites etc. These are only the egregious ones that stood out to me.
Either the user does not know how edit summaries work [I doubt it] or is deliberating purveying fake ESs to push certain POV edits undetected. Someone who can cite LEADCITE and other obscure enwiki policies, flags are raised for barely a month old user, should not be doing this.Gotitbro (talk)09:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't even think all of the changes are necessarily for the worse, but having reviewed the provided diffs, I agree there is a serious disconnect between the edit summaries and the actual textual changes.Lahndi Chokra, please be aware that misleading edit summaries can easily give rise the presumption that you are intending to introduce changes in a manner designed to evade community scrutiny and side-step existing consensus. Further, please be reserved in makingWP:BOLD edit inWP:CTOP articles, and take note that major changes to the lead of even normalWP:BLPs, let alone CTOP BLPs is likely to be considered overly bold, if notWP:Disruptive, absent prior discussion.SnowRise let's rap09:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've been going through this editor's edits... not sure what is going on but they're breaking large numbers of pages, resulting in infobox images being blown up way larger than can fit on my monitors. I've messaged them but need someone to mass revert their recent edits as it's too big a job for me to do manually.CatfishJim and the soapdish19:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Can you give me a diff where the infobox image is too big, because the ones that I've looked at seem OK to me on a desktop.Black Kite (talk)19:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
An example would be this...[53] which results in the image being blown up to a ridiculous degree... the right hand 1 cm portion of the infobox image on the previous edit covers the whole width of my 27 inch monitor.CatfishJim and the soapdish20:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, looking through their more recent edits - all reverted by the OP - none of them have broken infobox images. Now, I'm not sure their edits were especiallyconstructive - I don't believe we're supposed to use the formatseen here for images in the infobox, instead the image as seen on the left and additional |parameters= as required, which I suppose could be breaking things on mobile? - but on desktop at least with the current version of Firefox using MonoBook, they aren't breaking anything. -The BushrangerOne ping only19:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I've left them a message explaining the mistake that they're making. (The distortion seems to depend on the size of the image file,this one shows the article being larger than a large monitor, butallmany of the infobox images that they've added have made the infoboxes oversized.)Schazjmd(talk)20:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: On my system the infobox image in your link appears to be normal sized in the infobox, although judging by how long the page took to fullyload, it appears the full-size image was being loaded instead of the thumbnail. That's truly bizzare and yeah, not desirable. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Must be something about our different browser or site configurations. I see the before-and-after diffs, then below that, just blue filling up my screen (the top sky portion of the image).Schazjmd(talk)22:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm surprised you guys don't see what's going on here. My Adestroyers is trying to use the usual floated image syntax as parameter in an infobox. That's never going to work.EEng23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Was just about to post that :). What browser/device are you using as I've checked multiple configurations and they are fine.Atomdestroyers (talk)23:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with anyone's browser. You're not following the syntax in the example just linked -- you needframeless. (And I apologize -- I shouldn't have said "never" going to work -- I should have said "often" won't work, because many templates/infoboxes won't accept syntax such as given in the example.)EEng00:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Ok, so adding the frameless parameter will fix it. Can you confirm this for me? I still don't understand why people are seeing different results if you're saying it has nothing to do with different user's setups. Are you able to explain this for my understanding?Atomdestroyers (talk)00:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I can't explain the various things people are describing, but if you omitframeless the image will (generally) be presented at whatever full size is stored where the image is hosted. (I say "generally" but image syntax is complicated, and what you get depends on the interaction of a bunch of things.) I suggest you try your "fixed" change on one infobox, and the ask some of the people commenting here what they see. Good luck.EEng01:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has been going on all week with IPs from this area. They post their first message on a User talk page with a poorly written unblock request and plaster every CSD tag they can think of on it, too. If they are blocked, talk page access has to be removed, too.LizRead!Talk!19:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Vandals seem to have taken a turn for the bizzare lately. You have this, and you also have IPs who are posting lengthy "On this day..." stuff at the top of random articles all over Wikipedia. -The BushrangerOne ping only20:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chechen genocide vandalism and sockpuppetry immediately returned
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite two reports (one to ANI and one to request for page protection increase), a blocking of the IP sockUser: 212.95.5.25, and auto confirmed protection of the page, the vandalism (and almost certainly sockpuppetry) immediately returned to theChechen genocide page, with a user by the nameUser:Hurycane with only 55 edits making the exact same kind of edit to the infobox; vandalizing it by removing sourced material with no explanation. Any help would be highly appreciated.24.180.50.170 (talk)17:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User changing logos/information in articles to their personal thoughts/ideas/hopes
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user in question has lately been going around to numerous articles and changing either information in it, or the main logo used in the infobox, totheir own thoughts/ideas/hopes/wishes.
First, on theNickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, the user has been changing the rewards presented in the infobox to whattheywant to be given:
I had explained this is incorrect, as the award has been the orange blimpcontaining a kaleidoscope since the 1990 ceremony.Nathannah to edit,clarifying what I had said in edit summary that it's been a kaleidoscope incorporated with all design, but as a standalone for the 1987 ceremony. However, even after this clarification from Nathannah, Postmaster12 still went on to edit the infobox with the awardsthey want to be given:
It seems quite clear through these edits that the editor is intent on changing things to whatthey want, as opposed to the actual correct information.
The second issue is that the editor has been going around to various companies' articles, changing the logos to non-current logos that they want to be used, such as:1.Warner Bros.
The user has now also since gone toWikipedia talk:Administrators ([72]) andWikipedia talk:User groups ([73]) in the hopes of getting help reinstating their preferred logos into articles, but both have already been reverted as being irrelevant to the corresponding pages ([74] and[75]).
It seems all of these issues fall underWP:FORUM, specifically regarding, "...communicating original ideas...", and despite the various warnings they've received thus far, I'm not quite sure they understand the warnings/this is not the place to change things into their own personal thoughts/ideas.Magitroopa (talk)16:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I've invited them to come and participate in this discussion. But, Magitroopa, please ease up on the "final warning" templates. After a while, people stop taking them seriously if they are overused. Often, a personally written explanation of what the problem is, is much more effective that a User talk page full of impersonal templates.LizRead!Talk!19:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I wanted that throwback logo for Microsoft and Microsoft Gaming cause i just it’ll look more modern for current and gamersPostmaster12 (talk)20:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
On ChatGPT i tried to look for other sites that allows logo change but i do want to keep the orange blimp but bring back the kaleidoscope in 2026 for the kid’s choice awardsPostmaster12 (talk)21:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
"...but i do want to keep the orange blimp but bring back the kaleidoscope in 2026 for the kid’s choice awards"...? As already previously said, Wikipedia isnot the place for you to edit in your personal thoughts/ideas/wishes to occur. I'm sure there are other sites for that kind of thing, but this is definitely not one of them.Magitroopa (talk)21:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I did try to give Postmaster12 a benefit of the doubt on the KCA issue (and Liz, I also asked MT on their talk to extend more grace because there's a history of overzealousness when it comes to children's network related articles), so I'm once again disappointed that my trust in a new editor was ill-formed and there's CIR issues here.@Postmaster12:, there's absolutely no use for ChatGPT here and I kindly ask that you just not use it at all for Wikipedia-related issues, nor are we a place for creating alternate corporate histories.Nathannah •📮22:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Just to address regarding myself, mostly in response toNathannah andLiz- yes, I have seen what has been said, and I do apologize on my own issues in this matter. Yes, I will ease down on the warnings and explain the issue more thoroughly for future cases. And yes, Nathannah, thank you for better clarifying the award. I'd like to at least mention here that I was/am not certainly attempting toWP:OWN the article(s) or drive away other editors, my apologies if it looks like I am. However, I did have a sneaky suspicion of something more afterthis edit sounding like they wanted the award given out, and then I had also seen their "I want to bring back the logo" edit and similar discussion atTalk:Warner Bros.#Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2025. I did honestly think there could possibly be a CIR issue here, but especially after your (Nathannah's) comment(s) to me, I didn't think it would be wise to start off this ANI discussion by seeming to initially label this as CIR right off-the-bat.Magitroopa (talk)01:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate this, Magitroopa, and if I was a bit heated, I certainly apologize (should've cooled a bit down after reading the Bbb23 issue and frustrated that we've trimmed down the rope we give new editors from where it used to be); I wasn't even looking at the logo issues at all so to see all that happen leaves me severely disappointed that we ended with a CIR block and that we have yet another case of 'fantasy TV vandalism' we know all too well.Nathannah •📮02:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
logo on this article as it is a classic design and significant in the company’s brand history.It was used for over a decade and is often recognized in legacy materials and retro branding.If consensus agrees, this could also apply to related subbrands likeMicrosoft Gaming, unless there’s strong opposition.Example logo:File:Microsoft logo (1982).svg— Precedingunsigned comment added byPostmaster12 (talk •contribs)23:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Please readWP:LOGO, and understand that we usually use logos sparingly, and we certainly don't change infobox logos to older versions for aesthetics or because a company made a temporary change for a nostalgia play towards consumers. We're not Logopedia or assist companies with branding; this is meant as a neutral encylcopedia describing properly-sourced information.Nathannah •📮00:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone please doublecheck the recent actions of @CresiaBilli. I first came across them when they reverted maintenance tags atSuperwood with the edit summary "no need to bombarding of un-necessary tags if subject is notable" (while there was an ongoing AfD). Some addition of aggressive comments at the AfD. I also noticed just now, which is why I am posting this, that they are have recently reverted edits on 7 pages all with the justification "Removed text by a sock", with some more sock claims earlier. I see no evidence that any of these edits are by socks. They have also made a lot of recent AfD comments, some also a bit aggressive. It looks like they had an account some time ago, I do not know full history.Ldm1954 (talk)03:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Accusing someone of being a sock puppet with no evidence is a personal attack, and the editor should cease. On the other hand, they barely have 100 edits. Have you discussed this with them on their talk page? That is probably the best way to resolve their misunderstanding of IP editors.107.116.165.19 (talk)04:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Their edit counts suggest that they are a newbie, but their statements and useage of terms indicates that they are quite experienced. There is also a response to an AfD vote atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhalakathi Government High School by another editor of "@CresiaBilli: Welcome back to Wikipedia".
their statements and useage of terms indicates that they are quite experienced. Some people read the policies and guidelines.Welcome back to Wikipedia If you checkSpecial:Contributions/CresiaBilli you can see the editor took a hiatus between July 2024 and June 2025, which would explain the "welcome back".TurboSuperA+(connect)04:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
On February 17, 2023, there were five edits made in a single day, and on July 25, 2024, there were nine edits, after which the page was directly nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizwan Sajan (3rd nomination)). Prior to this, the user had made eight edits, none of which were significant, as all were on their user page.
TheAnisha Singh page, created by JamieStar21, is also linked to this sockpuppet case. The same user created a page titledSingh Anisha with the name reversed, and an SPI case is ongoing for this user in the same context. Additionally, this user has supported the AFD nomination for the same page.SachinSwami (talk)15:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The edits they reverted with the "sock" claim were not IPs, they had names. OneDurjan Singh Jadon looks like they are a sock. However, there is also @APM02 who they accused of being a sock without obvious evidence from what I can see.Ldm1954 (talk)04:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
HiLdm1954 So you have come here complaining about me without even talking to me. Well i have reverted only those edits which made by a sock namedUser:Durjan Singh Jadon, Likethis,this andthis. Please check carefully. For the past year, I have been studying Wikipedia's policies and constantly monitoring its Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions during my free time.CresiaBilli (talk)04:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Dear Ldm1954, However you seems more experienced than me but still i would like to suggest you to control your 'Marking pages for deletion'. Conduct aWP:BEFORE prior to marking any article for deletion. On Wikipedia, the time of every Wikipedian is valuable; marking a single notable article for deletion may necessitate many hours of discourse. Thank You.CresiaBilli (talk)04:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
It's okay to be irritated at these accusations but this last bit seems like passive-aggressive advice that every editor is aware of. Does your editing focus on deletion discussions?LizRead!Talk!07:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think asking the editor to perform a BEFORE is necessarily done in bad faith here. The tone is a bit off, but to call it aggressive seems a bit of a stretch, and based on a lot of what you've included in the report, this seems far more like a content dispute than anything else.EggRoll97(talk)07:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Ldm1954, we do ask for editors to actually communicate with their fellow editors before bringing them to ANI. And posting a template doesn't count as communication.LizRead!Talk!08:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The OP needs a trouting for nominating this to AFD. This clearly passes GNG. I suggest they remove those maintenance tags as this AFD is going to result in a keep.TarnishedPathtalk08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
One quick response: @TarnishedPath, of course I did aWP:BEFORE, I have been moderately active as aWP:NPP reviewer for some time. However, I definitely do not agree with your advocating thatchurnalism articles based on press releases representWP:SIGCOV.
User:CresiaBilli's Unsubstantiated Accusations of Enmity and Hatred in SPI
I filed a case in SPI on June 4 against CresiaBilli, which seemed suspicious to me, and provided evidence linking their sock accounts and page creator. Now, this user has commented in the SPI case(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity), accusing me of personal enmity and hatred.In the AfD, I withdrew my opinion and provided reasons for doing so. However, when someone agreed with my stance and asked how the sources I provided were valid, I advised them to use their own judgment.[78][79].The reason is that this user comments "Keep" in 8 AfDs[80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87]without properly analyzing sources or providing logical reasoning. However, Wikipedia's rules state that a user simply saying "Keep" without analysis or source backing violatesWP:JUSTAVOTE,WP:ARGUE,WP:DEL, andWP:NOTABILITY guidelines. AfD requires reasoning, evidence, and policy-based arguments. Users are expected to explain why sources are reliable and why the article is notable. I asked about the validity of the sources based on these rules, yet this person has falsely accused me.SachinSwami (talk)06:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
SachinSwami, so your complaint is that the editor just writes "Keep" in AFDs? Unjustified opinions are extremely common in AFDs. In fact, it's more unusual that an editor contributes a well thought-out response indicating that they evaluated the article sources. Leave it up to the AFD closer how much weight to give remarks like this, this is not an ANI issue. When I see editors participating like this in many AFDs, I often leave them a personal note asking them to take the process more seriously, so you might try that.
I'm also not clear what exactly you are looking for by bringing this complaint to ANI. I also don't see the "enmity and hatred".LizRead!Talk!07:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello,@Liz:. A person has accused me of creating enmity and hatred, as alleged in the SPI case. I assert that the accusations against me in the SPI are baseless, and I believe that person should provide evidence for their claims.SachinSwami (talk)07:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
As you can see, dear Sachin Swami hates me so much. When he was not satisfied even after filing a special case as SPI, he brought my complaint to ANI as well. And I don't think that his complaint against Ani is justified at all.CresiaBilli (talk)07:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Well,CresiaBilli, you can do your part by not feeding this feud. Keep your distance from the other editor. There are over 7 million articles to work on here that can occupy your attention.LizRead!Talk!07:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
HiLiz, Thank you for your attention into this. I am adding to Wikipedia from a neutral perspective; I am uncertain why just Sachin Swami has an issue with me. I still unable to comprehend my error with Sachin Swami. I respectfully want to ask, what i have done wrong with Sachin Swami? As per my understanding everyone has right to add their opinion/comment on any afd. And i never forget, Wikipedia's fundamental principle ofWikipedia:Assume good faith.CresiaBilli (talk)07:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, and sorry if this is not the right place.
2A00:23C4:ACA5:2101:A117:470D:BA13:874E(talk·contribs·WHOIS) has popped up today and is editingKelston toll road by continually adding tags such as{{failed verification}},{{citation needed}} etc. I have no problem with this, but I am slightly suspicious. Firstly, a random IP's knowledge of Wikipedia is a sign of block evasion by my knowledge, and the consistent targeting of a single page and failure to construct or improve the article is weird as well. For example, inthis diff, the IP added{{failed verification|reason=Source says that road was 7 m wide not 7 ft}}. Indeed, the IP is right about this. But why not just change the article? It's clearly a simple mistake on the author's part (me).
I am aware that the article has notactually been vandalised, but I would appreciate if someone could look into this. Once again, if this is the wrong place please direct me elsewhere. Thanks for your time,JacobTheRox(talk | contributions)20:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
As I said you are not accused of vandalism. However, weirdly experienced IP addresses can be a sign ofWikipedia:Block Evasion and therefore I think it ought to be checked as a standard procedure. At the same time, I would not entirely agree that your comments have been constructive because spam-tagging a page is not the same as commenting on the talk page, and tagging an issue is not the same as improving it.JacobTheRox(talk | contributions)20:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I have not been spam tagging the page and you have not accused me of vandalism. I have been raising legitimate issues, which you have promptly investigated and addressed. Again, there is no case to answer.2A00:23C4:ACA5:2101:A117:470D:BA13:874E (talk)20:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
JacobTheRox, you admit that this IP is not vandalizing. I'm not sure what you mean by "checking" the account or having someone "look into this". Can you be specific on what you are requesting? As far as I can see, there isn't a good reason for this complaint as all you have right now are suspicions, not any evidence.LizRead!Talk!05:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Arandom IP's knowledge of Wikipediacan be a sign of block evasion, but it is not automatically one. Some people enjoy learning the rules, and when they do, it should be encouraged. Also - as Liz points out - I'm not sure whatlook into this is supposed to mean; if they mean 'check to see if someone is evading', it should be noted that they would need to (a) report toWP:SPI and (b) have a suspect in mind who would be evading their block, or at least more than "this looks weird" as evidence asCheckUser is not forfishing. -The BushrangerOne ping only06:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
But why would you tag an article to fix a simple mistake (metres not feet) when you could just fix the mistake. It takes more time and does not improve the encyclopaedia. That's why I thought it was weird and wanted some advice. If you're not concerned then I'm not concerned.JacobTheRox(talk | contributions)10:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I think for many of us long-time editors, it just takes more questionable editing decisions to raise an alarm. Just editing in a different way, but is not causing vandalism or disruption, means that no sanctions are called for.LizRead!Talk!02:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I request Wiki to investigate my cases seriousely for of unfair reverts, content removal, and deletion of historically valid material.Tomoddajr (talk)06:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I even provided the page number: Some of My Favorite Problems (I): 8.6 The Steiner Ratio Problem (Page 134-136)Tomoddajr (talk)07:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. Now I start to respect your fact-seeking way. I don't care who is Ding-Zhu Du, but I care about the truth, especially from the great Ron Graham.Tomoddajr (talk)07:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I can't understand why you also removed the photo? I think the photo, slides and paper, all three together can provide a more reliable source for the readers. You see, you even got lost with only one source from the linked paper.Tomoddajr (talk)07:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Do you really know the concept of Steiner tree before you asked to remove the important historic information from the page of the Steiner tree? Are you the gatekeeper of truth or not?Tomoddajr (talk)06:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I attached both the publicly available slides and paper link of Ron Graham directly from his website, what's wrong with it?Tomoddajr (talk)06:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I worked very hard to follow David's advice. I even just copied your edited version exactly in later editing. Your claim is very unfair.Tomoddajr (talk)07:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Blocked Tomoddajr 24 hours for edit-warring on multiple pages. I don't have time (it being 4am here) to look into this to determine if an indef is appropriate but based just on their conduct here and at David Eppstein's talk page I don't think it looks promising. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Persistent Vandalism and Insertion of Biased/Unsourced Content on Malik ibn Nuwayra Article by 97.100.5.175
I would like to report this IP address (97.100.5.175) for repeated vandalism. The user has been persistently adding unsourced content to the Malik ibn Nuwayra article, as seen in the following diffs:
On some occasions, they have included a source, but it comes from an unreliable and unauthenticated website/book. It appears that their intent is to insert content that aligns with their personal beliefs or a particular biased perspective. As noted on the article’s talk page, [[92]] the page was in a poor state three months ago, but I have since worked to improve it. Despite this, the same user has repeatedly edited the article to reintroduce biased and unsourced content.
I have issued a warning on their talk page recently, but in response, they have accused me of being a "polemicist" and "biased".[[93]]
I sincerely hope this issue can be addressed appropriately. If such editing continues unchecked, it may be in the best interest of content quality and neutrality to consider deletion of the articleMalik ibn Nuwayra, as it risks reverting to an earlier state filled with poor and unsourced material.Selenne (talk)06:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Actual vandalism should be reported atWP:AIV. This doesnot appear to be vandalism, though, and thus should not be described as such - it's a content dispute. Have you attempted discussion on the article talk page, as opposed to 'warning' the user? If that doesn't work, there are other steps todispute resolution. The article will not be deletedin the best interest of content quality and neutrality, but if the IP editor is truly disruptive and does not stop after attempting dispute resolution,page protection is an option. -The BushrangerOne ping only06:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Selenne, before coming to ANI, you should try talking about your difference in views on the article talk page. ANI is where you come when other methods of dispute resolution haven't worked and it looks like you haven't started using any of them yet.LizRead!Talk!06:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, the first diff you posted is by another editor, 67.70.203.14, from February so I don't think it belongs in this discussion.LizRead!Talk!06:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I believe it's the same individual editing under different IP addresses, as the content they add is nearly identical. This is one of my main concerns. Despite IP being blocked, they can easily return using another address. If deletion of the article is not an option, as I initially suggested, then implementing page protection may be the only effective solution.Selenne (talk)07:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you both for the guidance. I now understand that this issue is more accurately classified as a content dispute rather than vandalism.
That said, the core problem here is not merely a difference in views, but the persistent addition of poorly sourced or unauthenticated material by 97.100.5.175. The sources they have used are unreliable. I’ve made efforts to improve the article based on reliable sources and have done my best to maintain neutrality, but their edits often appear intended to promote a particular belief rather than adhere to Wikipedia’s content policies.
I would have preferred to resolve this via talk page discussion, but the IP editor has repeatedly dismissed my concerns and instead accused me of being “biased” or “a polemicist” simply because I challenged the validity of their sources. This kind of personal accusation makes constructive discussion difficult. They have even suggested that I report them, stating: "I highly suggest you report me so your biased editorial comes to light." [[94]]Selenne (talk)07:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The last comment I see onTalk:Malik ibn Nuwayra was from February. I think you should make a recent attempt to talk this out. Article talk pages are preferable to User talk page because you want to draw in other editors who might be interested in this article. Disputes can be a no-win situation when it is "Me vs. You". You need more editors to weigh in here. You could even invite editors on a WikiProject to participate in a discussion. I'm not talking about an RFC, just an information discussion. Give it a try.
And as for those two IP addresses, if you look at them, they aren't even close, geographically-speaking so I wouldn't assume they are the same person.LizRead!Talk!08:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I understand the importance of talk page discussions and broader community involvement. While it’s true that the last comment on the article’s talk page was from February, I haven’t found discussion to be effective in this case, as the IP editor has been dismissive and accusatory when concerns are raised about source reliability. Still, I’m open to restarting a structured and policy-based discussion there, and I will try that route again as suggested. However, I do want to stress that this is not simply a matter of content disagreement. It’s about persistent attempts to add questionable material that lacks reliable sourcing. Repeated reinsertions of such content, make it difficult to maintain the integrity of the article.
As for the IP addresses, while I understand they may not match geographically, the patterns of editing and the type of content being added are extremely similar. Even if they are different individuals, the underlying issue remains the same: repeated insertion of content that does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.
If the same disruptive pattern continues despite further discussion, I may need to pursue other dispute resolution measures or request page protection, as preserving the article’s quality is my main concern.Selenne (talk)09:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
There's another point to be made: you repeatedly call these added sources "biased" and "unreliable." What's your evidence for considering them such, above and beyond that you don't care for their conclusions? That, too, is part of a content dispute. Ravenswing12:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I’d like to clarify why I raised concerns about the reliability of the sources used, particularly in the section created by the user titled "Defense of Malik by Umar ibn Al-Khattab." First, the user did not initially provide any credible source. And even if one had been included, it would have been unnecessary, because I had already added this information five months ago [[95]]. I summarized the relevant details in a sentence, using a reliable academic source and following Wikipedia’s content and sourcing guidelines. Other additional content 97.100.5.175 introduced appears to rely on interpretations that have been explicitly rejected by credible scholars due to "severe weakness in the chain of transmission," as noted in some of the books/websites I already cited on the page. While some fringe historians continue to cite these views, often due to bias, they typically fail to address the credibility or authenticity of the original sources. This lack of scrutiny introduces bias into the article.
Second, in this specific edit [[96]], the user cited Islamport.com, which is not considered a reliable source under Wikipedia standards. Moreover, the content in question appears to have been removed from the original site. I attempted to locate it recently and was unable to find it, which raises further concerns about its verifiability. The user is relying on an archived version, which limits transparency. Furthermore, the material is taken from "Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn", which is widely recognized by mainstream Islamic scholars as containing numerous weak or fabricated narrations. While this work may be cited in certain scholarly contexts, any such usage must be properly qualified and corroborated by stronger, more reliable sources. Citing material from it without this context risks misrepresenting the scholarly consensus and misleading readers.
Lastly, I want to make it clear that I did not indiscriminately remove all of the contributions made by 97.100.5.175. On the contrary, I preserved and revised portions of their material to ensure that only content supported by reliable, non-fabricated sources remained: [[97]][[98]] In contrast, 97.100.5.175 removed most of my contributions, despite those sections being supported by credible sources. [[99]] This pattern further supports my concern that they may be editing with bias rather than in good faith.
Therefore, my concern is not merely a disagreement over 97.100.5.175’s conclusions. My objection is based on their reliance on weak or questionable sources and contents, which undermines the page’s reliability.Selenne (talk)14:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
What's your actualevidence, beyond an airy "Islamic scholars don't approve?" Could you provide some quotes from some of these scholars? Ravenswing22:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I’ll answer your question directly. The narrator used here [[100]] by 97.100.5.175 is Ibn al-Humayd (full name: Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayd ibn Ḥayyān al-Rāzī). He is the main person who passed down this narration. Many famoushadith scholars didn’t trust him. These quotes are from the book "Rather Misguided – A Response to Tijani Samawi's Then I Was Guided" (page 356), which is helpful because it gathers many opinions from hadith experts with proper Islamic sources. Here are the quotes:
1. Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah al-Sadūsī says about him, “He transmits many anomalies.”
5.Al-Dhahabi says, “A group of them have accepted him, but (after investigation) his position is among those whose narrations are abandoned."
As forAl-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn, many scholars have said that it’s not fully reliable. EvenAl-Dhahabi, who reviewed the book, said that a lot of the hadiths in it don’t meet the rules of authenticity that the author (Al-Hakim) claimed. This is well known among both Islamic and academic scholars. You can read more about it in these research papers:[[101]][[102]]Selenne (talk)01:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I’ve used AI (ChatGPT) a "bit" but mainly just to help with some wordings and grammar so I can convey my points more clearly. But the research, sources, and points I’m making are fully mine. I’ve read through the material myself and care about getting it right, especially on topics like this. If there’s something wrong with the sources or the claims I made, I’m happy to talk about that. But whether I used a tool to write more clearly doesn’t change the facts I brought up.Selenne (talk)01:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Using an LLM on Wikipedia (for both article content and discussions on talk pages or noticeboards) reduces your credibility, as other editors are forced to figure out how much of your writing represents your actual thoughts and how much of it is LLM-generated. If you are only using an LLM for style adjustments in discussions, then I recommend not doing so, because grammatical errors and style considerations in comments are generally not viewed as a problem by other editors, whereas the presence of LLM-generated text throws the validity of your entire comment into question. Additionally, theWP:AITALK guideline allows LLM-generated content to be collapsed and excluded from evaluations ofconsensus.Please remember that, per the red notice near the top of this page, any editor you report on this noticeboard must be notified on their user talk page. I have notified97.100.5.175 (talk ·contribs) and67.70.203.14 (talk ·contribs) on their respective user talk pages, as they had not been made aware of this report. As for the dispute in question, I recommend starting a new discussion onTalk:Malik ibn Nuwayra that directly addresses the contested content, and inviting 97.100.5.175 to join the discussion by posting a new comment ontheir user talk page. — Newslingertalk12:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The IP editor edits articles of association football players playing in Serbia, updating them for moves to new clubs or for the players leaving their club upon the expiration of their contract. However, while many transfers are already being announced now, they won't come into effect until thetransfer window opens. In Serbia the transfer window opens on 30 June.[1][2] Similarly, in most countries contracts expire on 30 June.
Blocked /64 ipv6 range for 31 hours for unsourced editing. They are likely the same editor. ISP typically issues /64 block of IPv6 address to each subscriber. (I can't wait for temporary accounts feature to be live. It may be easy to reach such editors with temp accounts.) If it happens again fromSpecial:Contributions/2A06:63C0:F12:1400:0:0:0:0/64 after the block lapsed (first block hence the short duration), request atWP:AIV with reference to this report.– robertsky (talk)13:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several people noted thatMarkeste02 (talk·contribs) appears to use AI to generate article content. His suspicious edict accidentally popped in my watchlist. His talkpage is full of warnings which appear to be generated by AI as well. They reply "tank you, thank you" , but continue doing the same. I think it is time to block this account as untrustworthy and hence a disruption of Wikipedia, because I am tired to double-checking their false references and chopping off the texts. I suspect the user does not even bother to open the ext links in the footnotes. --Altenmann>talk06:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this here. I'm also concerned about Markeste02's rapid creation of new articles - much too quickly to be realistic to be written in an authentic way. I'd like to ask for other editors to help review this editor's recent work.Dreamyshade (talk)08:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi Altenmann, am always trying to make it better.
, I got your point. Maybe I was not perfect in editing, but I try my best. I will write manually from now. Other editors can help me fix grammar and improve. I no want to cause trouble or waste anyone time. Please give chance to improveMarkeste02 (talk)06:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
@Altenmann: I don't think you hold much moral ground to use this point, given that you also constantly removed numerous warnings from your own talkpage. Anyways, where can I talk to you? Kind regards.Luis7M (talk)18:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Despite all warnings the user keeps pumping new pages:Omkar Palav.Admins, please block this guy ASAP. It creates a huge burden on all of us. Also, IMO these pages must be nominated for deletion rather than draftified, because they were created by a persistent abuser.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAltenmann (talk •contribs)18:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
User has been confirmed a sock and blocked, articles created have been speedy-deleted, and most edits have been reverted other than a few innocuous ones. This is resolved from my perspective.Dreamyshade (talk)01:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An anon who edits mainly Catholic church-related articles2600:387:F:6911:0:0:0:8(talk·contribs·(/64)·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) was blocked byDiscospinster (talk·contribs) for 31 hours at 21:33, 8 June 2025. This anon geolocates to San Diego, CA. Similar edits were being made at the time by an LA, CA area IP. Very similar (DUCK) edits are now being made by IPs the LA, CA area. The anon changes IPs quite often, so it is difficult to track their editing or communicate. No ANI-notice was added to any of the anon's talk pages. The edits do not appear to be vandalism. Much is unsourced, no ES, and perhapswp:OWN. Some IPs:
The anon is adding unexplained, unsourced content to Catholic church-related articles. No communication. Given the rapid rate of IP changes, communication is difficult at best.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Repeated source and content removal to One Aviation related articles by anon
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An anon with a changing IP is removing sourced content from One Aviation-related articles. The content appears to be associated withOne Aviation undergoing Chapter 7 liquidation. The anon states that the content is "false info" but does not give any sources nor explanation to that effect. Anon appears to have changed IPs and communication attempts were unsuccessful. The anon reverted on Kestrel K-350 five times. There are a number of sources on One Aviation being liquidated. The editor's IP range appears to extend over /60:
That the anon's IP changes fairly rapidly, communication is difficult. I do not know where to leave the ANI-notice.Adakiko (talk)07:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion should be closed before someone talks themselves into a block. Bottom line, Megiddo1013, do not speculate about an individual's gender or sexual identity in articles or talk pages. It is gossip and not a legitimate subject of idle discussion. To pursue this question will not end well for you no matter how you spin it, so, as others have said, DROP IT.LizRead!Talk!05:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inthis comment (that I reverted), they labelled her as "most likely"intersex.
In theirsecond comment, they questioned her biological sex again and repeated the label (whether that be male, female, or intersex... We don't need to consider being intersex as being disordered).
I don't know about anyone else, but I am tired of seeingthis same article here over and over and over. Maybe it needs to be set to Admin Lock for a while to stop the nonsense?Bgsu98(Talk)20:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Those edits were on the talk page, so it wouldn't help.
We have put edit restrictions on talk pages before in order to stop persistent BS, especially when they're gross BLP violations.Bgsu98(Talk)21:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
This page has led to a week long debate about whether a dubious "leaked" medical report that some tabloids latched onto constitutes "medical evidence" sufficient to question a BLP's disclosed gender. The argument supporting this violatesWP:BLPGOSSIP,MOS:GENDERID andWP:MEDRS at minimum. The talk page was already EC locked but still the argument persists. IMO fully locking it for a while might be a good thing.Simonm223 (talk)00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I have always gendered Khalif correctly and I simply stated, on thetalk page, that she is likely intersex. This reflects what has been said in reliable sources. Here is one example fromBusiness Insider:Khelif’s biological profile presents a nuanced situation. Born female and identifying as a woman, she appears to have a condition known as differences of sex development (DSD). This condition would explain her XY chromosomes and higher testosterone levels — traits typically associated with male athletes. These elevated testosterone levels also led to her failing a gender eligibility test and getting disqualified at the 2023 World Boxing Championships. However, it's important to note that Imane has not publicly confirmed having a DSD.—Megiddo101304:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
We're getting a lot of "it's not misgendering to say she has a male karyotype" that is completely disregarding that a"leaked" medical report of unclear provenance is the basis for all claims of DSD and this is so far away fromWP:BLPRS,WP:MEDRS and, frankly, the assumption of medical privacy as to be wholly inappropriate even without the added spice of being a round-about way to misgender her.Simonm223 (talk)11:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The leaked report is not the only basis. Her trainer has said she has chromosome issues and that her testosterone levels are being addressed.
I have a question about the notion of misgendering that I would like the others here to weigh in on. Is consistently using she/her pronouns and referring to her as a woman but considering that she may be intersex misgendering? My view is that gender is separate from sex. Or is Wikipedia policy to consider gender and sex the same thing and thus if one identifies as a woman then it is forbidden to say that they areintersex/have a DSD (Disorder of Sex Development)? —Megiddo101312:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
For me the issue isn't so much misgendering, it's about inserting unverified claims about a person. Claims that could further fuel animosity towards that person,WP:ATTACK,WP:LIBEL. If information comes to light that passesWP:V then that information can be added to the article. Until then, Wikipedia articles are not a place for gossip,WP:NOTSCANDAL.TurboSuperA+(connect)12:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Despite my disagreement, I'll respect the BLP arguments made here and not reinstate my talk page comments. But I want to say that I appreciate this response as it is the only one that actually responded in any way to my question about misgendering. I was accused of misgendering at every step even thoughMOS:GENDERID clearly addresses gender and nowhere does it talk about sex. Some editors seem to want to bring out the misgendering culture war cudgel as an easy way to win fights online but then get evasive if you ask them to look at ifMOS:GENDERID applies to sex and not just gender. I think that talking past people and misrepresenting their positions like this is part of why the Khalif talk page arguments have gone on and on. —Megiddo101316:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
You really shouldWP:DROPTHESTICK. Yes, in Wikipedia we refer to someone by whatever gender they identify as, perMOS:GENDERID. We don't speculate about someone's medical status when the only "evidence" is tabloid journalism, a trainer (who is not a medical expert), or vague allegations of "chromosome issues" whichcould be anything, and interpreting it as being related to the tabloid is pureWP:SYNTH. I understand that you think this is a serious issue that merits attention, butWP:1AM I don't hear anyone agreeing with you.Wikipedia is a social club; if you keep pressing this point when the community has told you not to, then even if you're right, the club will just kick you out.EducatedRedneck (talk)12:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone please remove talk page access from this self-admitted sockpuppet. I tried to fix a formatting mistake in the unblock request, and an edit conflict of some sort messed things up. The user won't stop posting and it's making it pretty much impossible to fix. It looks like I denied the request, and then complained about it...somehow my signature was attached to 2 different editors edits. --Onorem (talk)18:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I didn't decline it.User:DMacks did. I was just trying to fix formatting and must have screwed something up with the tildes that put my signature in instead. --Onorem (talk)18:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. I was trying to fix it, but the constant edits after mine were making it impossible. Thanks for the help, all. --Onorem (talk)18:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
After making no constructive edits since the previous ANI in January, account has now begun making thesametypesof disruptive POV-pushing edits in articles such as suburbanOakland County, Michigan, which surrounds urbanMetro Detroit. Alsoeditsat thesuburb articleand at articleStrong Towns, an organization that is critical of suburban development. These are clearly the same type of edits related to urban/suburban/density/jobs/etc. issues in Kansas and Missouri, just shifted a few states over.
Hey, my understanding was that I was supposed to show I could do constructive edits outside the Kansas and Missouri topics. Can you explain what the issues are with the edits ?Kansascitt1225 (talk)19:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The edits about Kansas City on thesuburb page happened before I was topic banned and before I promised not to use multiple accounts and before I was instructed to stay away from the topic.Kansascitt1225 (talk)19:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
@Kansascitt1225: The issue is that you are indeed supposed to show you can do constructive edits outside the topic of Kansas and Missouri; but it wasn't explicitly specificed that "taking the exact same subject and transplanting it outside of Kansas and Missouri" was prohibited, becausethe reasonable Wikipedian didn't think that was a concern - and yet, you clearlyhave made it a concern. (Also your commenthere is a complete non sequitur and I'm not sure why you brought that up.) By thestrict letter of the sanction it isn't recidivism, but it's blatantlygaming the system - sospeaking plainly,these are not constructive edits, these aredisruptive editing.Support extending the topic ban to "urban planning and land use in urban areas, broadly construed". -The BushrangerOne ping only20:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
So are the edits themselves disruptive? They are referenced fairly well and reliably. Or is it because it’s a similar topic just in other areas of the country? The main issue I had on my initial blocking was removing the suburban from articles related to the KC area because I thought suburban meant less dense and less jobs. But now in the US some of these suburbs are more dense than the city and many suburban areas have more jobs. I noticed a similar pattern in other metro areas like in Kansas City. My understanding was that I couldn’t edit in Kansas or Missouri topics, genuinely wasn’t trying to game the system or anything.Kansascitt1225 (talk)21:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
This response is a good indication that you're still missing the fundamental problem with your edits. Even assuming that thereis an inconsistency in the classification of urban and suburban areas, on Wikipedia, it's not your place to notice this similar pattern or to highlight it. We only notice or highlight these types of things to the extent that they're noticed or highlighted by the reliable sources we cite. Many of the edits you've made upon returning to edit are clear-cut violations ofWP:SYNTH.
I'd much rather see you have an expanded topic ban rather than aWP:INDEF, but if you cannot see how these edits are inappropriate, I'm not sure you'll have success here inany topic at this time.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)02:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the edits themselves are disruptive. The referencing is irrelevant, it's the fact that you took what you were disrupting Kansas/Missouri articles with and directly transplanted it to Michigan articles, which - regardless of what you may have intended - can only beseen as "taking the same disruptive behavior elsewhere". Do not do this. I'd strongly suggest you avoid the "urban/suburban/density/jobs/etc. issues" topic in its entirely. -The BushrangerOne ping only
Why you would bring sunshine to these edits when you have a history of this, I have no idea, but remembering your past history with KCMO/KCK, this is definitely not much better and I sense a self-inflicted boomerang coming; there is absolutely no way Oakland County, Michigan can cut off contact with Detroit and Wayne County (which contains much of the area's commerce, media and points of interest, along with transport links), and subsist on its own as a metro area, and I've reverted those edits because we've been down this road before and it matches your KCMO/KCK patterns to the letter. Isupport an all-encompassing topic ban and suggest you take your suburban theories elsewhere and focus on other topic areas.Nathannah •📮01:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I never was suggesting that Oakland county could be its own metro area, I was just noting that it was the county with the most jobs and highest GDP in the Detroit metro area. They are in the same metro according to census bureau. I don’t think either county would cut off ties with each other. That’s not the message I was trying to send.Kansascitt1225 (talk)02:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
This requires some background.This thread from January goes through it. TLDR: they were very disruptive at Kansas City trying to disparage one city vis-a-vis promoting another, were blocked/banned for a long time, and when finally successfully unblocked went right back to it, ending in a topic ban andnearly being site-banned in that thread. Now they've (as we see here) gone to articles about Michigan cities and started making the exact same kind of edits. Theedits themselves may (at least appear) to not have any substantial issues, but it's more the history of conductaround that type of edit that's the problem. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I know the background. I unblocked KC and was part of the TBAN discussion. I don't see any issues with these particular edits warranting a sanction.voorts (talk/contributions)14:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
So are you saying if I had no edit history these edits would be fine? Im not sure if you live in the United States or not but most the medium sized rust belt cities have lost their wealth and jobs to the surrounding areas. This is due things like to urban renewal and white flight resulting in the inner cities having high crime and lower densities than they had in the 1940s. I don’t know why pointing out the fact that a city has high crime and some of the suburbs are wealthy and have more jobs is promoting one and disparaging the other. I feel like pretending that some of these cities aren’t statistically (verifiably) full of very high crime and very high homicide rates compared to the suburbs along with most midwestern cities having fewer jobs than their suburbs seems not to align well with reality. Central Cities in the Midwest are not like central cities in Europe. Me pointing this out immediately gets translated into me promoting one and disparaging the other especially when people look at my misbehavior years ago where I couldn’t communicate effectively.Kansascitt1225 (talk)09:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Again,you should not be pointing it out. Asource should becited that is directly pointing it out. Sources connect the dots here, not editors.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)09:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Did I not have sources for that ? As far as theOakland County, Michigan page, I think that was sourced fairly well. The source specifically said that Oakland county had the most jobs in the area and the GDP county tables specifically said that Oakland county had the highest GDP in the state of Michigan. There’s been sources for everything I’ve added since my unblockKansascitt1225 (talk)10:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
At least in Oakland County, your sources seem to be primarily the US census along with the Detroit Chamber of Commerce.[104] When you're trying to point things out becausebut most the medium sized rust belt cities have lost their wealth and jobs to the surrounding areas. This is due things like to urban renewal and white flight resulting in the inner cities having high crime and lower densities than they had in the 1940s. I don’t know why pointing out the fact that a city has high crime and some of the suburbs are wealthy and have more jobs these are highly questionable sources to use (although you at least avoided mentioning crime in those edits). It doesn't seem like anyone real secondary source cares about these allegedly important things, so there's no reason for our article to.Nil Einne (talk)10:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I never said those things in the article though, I simply said it has the most jobs and largest economy in the area. Those weren’t sources for white flight or urban decay in rust belt cities. I can get references for those things too if you want, but I never mentioned them in the article to begin with.Kansascitt1225 (talk)11:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Then why are you mentioning them now? And please learn to indent your posts properly.EEng11:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
hope this is indented better. I was just explaining why many American cities are like this incase anyone reading was unfamiliar. If you want I can get some references you can read through but it will be later in the day because I will be busy for a while.Kansascitt1225 (talk)11:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that your main goal is to push your point of view. You've spelled out your point of view here, and the edits you are making are for the purpose of establishing that point of view in the articles. It's not about whether the facts you include are true, or are sourced, but about the fact that you are doing it for the purpose of publishing your viewpoint. WP's intention, however, is to publish the viewpoint of the secondary sources. That is,what are journalists saying about the Detroit metro area, not what are the statistics saying about it?
I feel like you've made progress in learning WP's editorial standards and are making an effort to abide by them. But there are issues that you still haven't internalized, so your edits are still problematic, as we've been trying to describe. Isupport a broad TBAN on urban / suburban planning to give you a year or so to focus on topics where you don't have a personal agenda.Davemc0 (talk)18:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I’ve been reading over the wiki guidelines within three last months and that doesn’t really seem to be the case in Wikipedia as far asWP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and secondary sources can say things completely innacurate tooWP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD. I’ve been careful in the primary sources I use as perWP:PRIMARYCARE. This is data and not someone’s personal account of an event that happened but rather just facts that anyone can easily verify.Kansascitt1225 (talk)19:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Im not quite sure why I would have a non neutral POV In Detroit though as I have never even been to Michigan. I thought I was doing good edits and with no warnings at all and only 1 revert that eventually reached consensus it turned into another incident report on the ANI page again.Kansascitt1225 (talk)19:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello! Hope you are doing well. Well I had to report a user named Media Mender who has deleted all the roadies pages and merged them all into a single one, claiming the info that was in those pages were unnecessary whilst the info provided were about the show and the twists that it brought with it. The pages were edited in a same style of Survivor and Big Brother and there were no reason as to deleting those pages and erasing all the info related to it, considering for some seasons, you can't even know who competed on them cause there are no contestant lists or anything. This has made the page so useless at this point because what's the use of having a single page where NO useful info is being provided to the reader for more comprehension about the show. And it is to be noted that the show had about 20 seasons and all of them have been merged together which is so messy according to me because each individual pages were much better and had appropriate information on how the show transpired and had normal things such as The Voting History just like we have on Big Brother and Survivor pages. Could you please give me some advice on this because those pages took AGES to edit and maintain and now all have been deleted so it feels like all the hardwork into maintaining those pages have been wasted and overlooked and I have to say im very irritated about this. The same has been done for Splitsvilla pagesNikita Bhamidipati (talk)04:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Nikita Bhamidipati, you've gone on a long diatribe but haven't presented any diffs/edits indicating disruptive edits that editors can evaluate. You haven't even provided a link to the other editor's user page or to the articles you are referring to! Without presenting concrete evidence, beyond your confusing narrative, there is not much that anyone can do for you here. And I hope you posted the mandatory notification at the other editor's User talk page.LizRead!Talk!04:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
If you are not clear on the expectations for ANI, just look at other complaints on this page and how they are designed. The successful ones provide a lot more information than your comment did.LizRead!Talk!04:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
This appears to be one point of contention, but asMedia Mendermentioned this was a result of anAfd. It's hard to find other examples since you didn't give any, but this definitely seems like a content dispute that should be handled elsewhere. And edits likethese don't look good on you. Please seeWP:POINTYcloshund/talk/06:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing about being POINTY.Nikita Bhamidipati, please don't go around and delete content from other reality shows because you are upset, this could be seen as disruptive behavior.Isaidnoway(talk)06:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The above user has been active for quite a few years but I've noticed a lack of communication and a lot of edit warring, which is beginning to be a problem. They have had many warnings but I can't see that they have ever responded and they only very, very rarely use an edit summary. Recently, they have created three articles on the same person:Saw Shalom Haythaw,Saw Shalom Haythaw (footballer) andSaw Shalom - I have tried my best to redirect these to just one article and then sent that article to AfD, due to failingWP:GNG but this user has continually removed the AfD and/or changed it to a redirect to a club, which makes little sense as the footballer has played for 19 different clubs, and redirecting to a club that he last played for in 2018 makes zero sense. I gave them a final warning earlier today as they have ignored the last 5 warnings to stop but they don't seem to have changed their behaviour at all. As far as I know, this user understands English, so I don't know why they are choosing to behave in this way.Spiderone(Talk to Spider)16:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for any inconvenience.
We can proceed on to merge them into one page with the sole page put as redirect again which was done 7 years ago in 2017 which has been stable all along.
Aye, could someone please block them from article space until they start communicating (I'm not doing that here because I've been involved with them on some articles, though to be honest I could probably justify it). Their inability to stop making errors and never communicating is getting wearying. 29 of their last 50 edits have been reverted.
A couple of examples (out of many)
atElland Road I updated a statistic and added two sources, one primary and one secondary[105]. Dukeoxus removed the primary source[106]. I restored it, saying that primary sources are sometimes OK ... so Dukeoxus then removed theother source instead![107].
atLeeds United F.C. they removed a nickname for the club which was unsourced (fair enough). I restored it, and sourced it[108]. Dukeoxus simply removed it again[109].
It was at this point that I started warning them, 3 times in all (and other editors have as well) including a bolded warning to start using edit summaries, especially when reverting other editors. They simply removed that from their page as well, and carried on editing (often badly) still without using a single edit-summary. In 425 edits they have used Talk once, for a 1-word comment[110], and have never used their own usertalk except to blank warnings five times. They do occasionally make good edits; it's just that very many are either pointless or actively disruptive.Black Kite (talk)19:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They have ignored that advice and continued to make edits while leaving no summaries. I will provide diffs of the edits to articles without summaries (or just a default summary) since the second warning:
You can see the edits by using the diff function on the history page. The majority of edits have summaries, and it is not really necessary to have a summary for every edit. Especially forProtector of Slaves where I am the main and only substantial contributor. You talk about "Consensus Through editing" - I'm not sure what we don't have consensus about in these articles.
Legend of 14, at the top of the page, it statesThis page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.. Do you think omitting a few edit summaries, which are optional, meets this requirement? I value edit summaries greatly and post reminders to editors who don't regularly use them but it doesn't seem like this is an urgent problem especially given Rich's years of editing experience (1.7M+ edits) on the project.LizRead!Talk!22:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think this small incident called for ANI as it is not an urgent, intractible problem. I think you can put in a request for protection forChannel 12 (Israel) for 12 hours or so. And Adibou has only 3 edits to their account and they haven't edited in over 4 hours.LizRead!Talk!04:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
@Liz I am concerned that the link Adibou has introduced is potentially a pirated TV channel streaming site, even if the channels are free to air. Many of these channels may not have distribution rights across geographic borders for some or all of their programming they telecast. If there are no objections, I will be adding the domain toSpecial:BlockedExternalDomains given that there is at least one other instance of the site being linked,Special:Permalink/1235572630Special:Permalink/1286429600.– robertsky (talk)04:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good,– robertsky, I didn't look closely at the link they were posting, just their overall editing history. It's strange, I think they created their account over a decade ago but only recently edited with it.LizRead!Talk!04:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I have no idea what they're going on about in those filter log entries. Anyway, as it's an IP, blocked for a month. If they come back and do it again we can make it longer.Black Kite (talk)19:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The IP editor appears to have being trying to post on User:discospinster's user page, which appeared to be tripping an edit filter - it is unclear what they were trying to post there and whether they were deliberately posting there or were confusing it with thye user talk page - what sort of message does tripping that edit filter give?Nigel Ish (talk)19:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
If you look through their filter log, you can see the messages they were trying to post. Lots of paranoia about having their messages recorded. I'm not sure why they targeted Discospinster or why they feel that Wikipedia is involved in surveiling them.LizRead!Talk!02:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Scrolling down the edit filter details, the attempted edit summary includedmade the administrators aware that this handle (Discospinster) is not me andpretending to be me so apparently they use - or think they use, or claim to use - that username elsewhere on the Internet. -The BushrangerOne ping only03:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Unconstructive IP editing at Provincial Electricity Authority
Is it appropriate for anAdmin editor to create an article just to put Nazi ancestral claims into a BLP?
NO CONSENSUS TO TOPIC BAN
I am, as I wroteon the 24th of May, technicallyinvolved in this discussionoverall, as I commented in the initial section here and in the proposal of a topic ban for Chetsford. But I haven't opined, beyond requesting a "no consensus" closure of the topic ban proposal on that date, in the topic ban discussion for Very Polite Person. If another admin believes this is an inappropriate closure, they may by all means revert it promptly. But since it seems nobody else is willing to take a bite at the apple, and this has just been going on and on andon, I am going to attempt to close it:there is no consensus for topic-banningVery Polite Person from UFO topics. There was clearly no consensus when I made that post on 24 May, and since then while therehas been a slight numerical advantage to "support" vs "oppose" in !votes made since, this isWP:NOTAVOTE, and the "supports" since don't make compelling arguments, while the "opposes" make more grounded arguments. Thus, there is still no consenus overall, and thus no topic ban is imposed. That said. Very Polite Person is advised that there are many eyes on their editing after this, and they should careful to be - pardon the expression - very polite in that editing, as if this were to come around for another round in the future, it's more likely there will be a consensus. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He is the grandson of Matthew Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American. Matthew Mellon taught American Studies at the University of Freiburg in Freiburg, Germany throughout the 1930s. According to Princeton Alumni Weekly editor Datus Smith, Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast", though he personally disavowed being "a Nazi nor a Nazi agent". In 1934, Harvard University rejected Mellon's offer to fund a scholarship for a Harvard student "for privileges of study in the New Germany". The following year, Mellon expressed "admiration for the accomplishments of the Hitler regime" and celebrated "that Germany is again rearming".
This has to do with you seemingly creating an article specifically to work familial Nazi allegations into aWP:BLP article against policy, as an Administrator. It's also the exact sequence of events. Your apparent ongoing war with the Internet is irrelevant, and between yourself and the Internet. This is about theWP:BLP article atChristopher Mellon that you sent to AfD (and won), the remade article I made that passed AFC, your sudden creation ofMatthew T. Mellon, and thisedit of yours to insert the word Nazi repeatedly and six total pro-Nazi citations about aWP:BLP subject's long dead possibly non-notable ancestor. --Very Polite Person (talk)04:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
This appears to be a question forWP:ANI. Or take grandpa toWP:AFD. I'm not sure your concern belongs at BLPN. But since you're here, I don't see anyWP:UNDUE for a grandfather's mere mention.JFHJr (㊟)04:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
does blp apply for this article?WP:BDP stipulates anyone born after 1910 is covered and this mellon that chetsford created was born in 1896 and died more than 30 years ago.Bluethricecreamman (talk)14:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
YoBluethricecreamman, it's the article on the younger Mellon to which BLP is being claimed, as although his da died over 30 years ago (and was a Nazi sympathizer), his son is still with us, and to be fair, not a Nazi (of course, the article doesn't suggest that he is).Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi15:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
"born after 1910": That's a misreading ofWP:BDP. That section addresses cases where the subject has not been confirmed dead, in which case there is a safe assumption that if the person would be over 115 years old, they can be assumed to be dead unless there exists recent (within 2 years) evidence that they are alive. Where a subject has been confirmed dead, BLP stops applying within 2 years after death--the period it applies after death is indenterminate but roughly bounded by the two-year limit. — rsjaffe🗣️16:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Jesus, this is pathetic. Make the article, sure. Shoehorn negative information about a subject'sgrandfather, using sources from the 1930s, into a BLP that you AfD'd? The most gentle, sweet, charitable reading here is that Chetsford has a dangerously poor understanding ofWP:SYNTH, and should probably be given some sort of topic ban to prevent other BLPs from having such content introduced to them.꧁Zanahary꧂07:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Chetsford has begun a RFC on theWP:BLP page to include details of the BLP's dead ancestor's pro-Nazi views. See here:
That's not an RfC. It's just a run-of-the-mill discussion. You reverted an edit I made, so I opened a discussion about it. That's how things usually work here on Wikipedia. You can read more about the Bold, Revert, Discusscycle here.Chetsford (talk)04:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not an RfC, but it's damn close to one. And it's structured in such a way that if you get the result that you want you can make the edits that you want, and if you don't you can quietly ignore it. I'd drop this if I were you, it's not going to end anywhere good.misunderstood post and thought the discussion had been opened at BLP noticeboardBoynamedsue (talk)05:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
"it's structured in such a way that if you get the result that you want you can make the edits that you want" Um, yes, I guess? Sorry, I'm not sure where the scandal is here.Chetsford (talk)05:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
So, we return to the question, why are you investing a massive amount of time and effort into getting the word "nazi" into the article of a not-nazi?.--Boynamedsue (talk)05:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
"a massive amount of time and effort" Are you referring to the one edit I made? It wasn't much time or effort at all!Chetsford (talk)05:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Why are editors expanding articles on a platform in which that is generally encouraged? Is that the extent of your question?TarnishedPathtalk04:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
BTW, it is extremely unedifying to see an admin create an article, based on two 1930s newspaper stories, with the sole intention of getting the word "nazi" into the article of someone who appears not to have made any far right utterances in their life.--Boynamedsue (talk)05:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
We can't see intent, we can only see the edits. FWIW, I don't think someone's grandfather being a German man in the 1930s who liked the Nazi party really qualifies as "a sensational ancestral claim" does it? There's nothing sensational about it, unfortunately. I assume it's pretty common, so that element of the arguments against inclusion doesn't strike me as useful.Sean.hoyland (talk)05:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
There look to be only two Reliable Sources giving definiteWP:SIGCOV on the page, both newspaper articles from the 1930s. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article (also from the 1930s) is borderline. The rest of them are either passing mentions or not RS themselves. Why on earth did you make this article?Boynamedsue (talk)05:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Because I saw it 15 minutes ago, and the 15 minutes it would take to nominate for AfD is more time than I wish to spend on a dead nazi-sympathiser of no historical note. Now, can you answer my question, why did you spend several hours writing and (nearly) sourcing an article on this individual?Boynamedsue (talk)05:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
"why did you spend several hours writing and (nearly) sourcing an article" You're asking why I'm a Wikipedian?Chetsford (talk)05:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
No, I am not. As you well know, I am asking why, of all the possible articles you could choose to create, you created one which is based on 90-year-old newspaper articles and allows you to add the word "nazi" to a BLP of a person you really don't like. Do you want to try answering?--Boynamedsue (talk)05:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
"I am asking why, of all the possible articles you could choose to create, you created one which is based on 90-year-old newspaper articles" One possibility is that I extensively contribute BLPs about early 20th century academics from Pennsylaniva, such asHenry Lamar Crosby,Herman Vandenburg Ames,John Musser,John Nevin Schaeffer, etc., etc., andMatthew T. Mellon is yet another early 20th century academic from Pennsylvania. I suppose, another possibility is that my years of content creation on this topic is all part of an ingenious, years-long conspiracy I've concocted that culminated today as part of a diabolical plot I've been jealously harboring. So I guess one of those two?Chetsford (talk)06:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
So just to clarify, as that is not exactly a straight answer, you maintain that the fact you recently tried to have the Matthew T. Mellon's grandson's page deleted, then created a page for Matthew T. Mellon, then added the word "nazi" to the grandson's page are three completely unrelated facts?--Boynamedsue (talk)06:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Speaking of conspiracies, maybe it's time for @Chetsford to step back, self topic ban, whatever, from conspiracy/fringe topics. Fighting their promotion should not include seemingly illegitimate means.JFHJr (㊟)06:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm still waiting to hear what the "illegitimate means" are! So far the working theory seems to be: Chetsford has created articles on early 20th century Pennsylvania academics for the last five years; he nominated Christopher Mellon for deletion and it was deleted at AfD; then more than a month later he created an article on an early 20th century Pennsylvania academicMatthew T. Mellon and it's not notable but, despite its clear and obvious non-notability, for some reason no one can nominate it for deletion. Also, we thought he started an RfC -- and somehow that's bad -- but then we realized that he didn't actually open an RfC so had to strike that.[124] I was honestly less confused about the previous theory where I was supposedly the former CIA director[125] secretly editing Wikipedia! LOL. Anyway, this has been fun, as always.Chetsford (talk)07:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my using the TB word planted a seed that grew into... below. My comment was informal and I didn't mean to be vaguely accusatory. So here: it looks like a revenge addition to me and others, and some editors would prefer you try to be a little more dispassionate aboutWP:UNDUE content, when a wink (wl) suffices as more than enough of a middle finger. The self TB suggestion was not my idea of a community invitation to discuss it. Sorry. It was just for you to consider. Cheers.JFHJr (㊟)04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I remember this case from the article onJames B. Conant. Accepting scholarships from Germany was a big issue at the time, because Harvard's governing Corporation did not want it made an issue, but the student body was increasingly anti-fascist.Hawkeye7(discuss)05:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I have no idea why the word "admin" is in the section header, since their status appears to be irrelevant here. In the end, I think this is simply a content dispute.Black Kite (talk)12:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely a content dispute, their adminship is entirely irrelevant here. Also seems like it doesn't belong at ANI and contains a good amount of bad faith assumptions and aspersions.Hey man im josh (talk)13:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
contains a good amount of bad faith assumptions and aspersions (immediately above). That's for sure. ANI is inappropriate for a content dispute(s), and comments by the OP and some others are far too personal. I suggest that this beClosed with no action before the attacks against Chetsford get people blocked.JoJo Anthrax (talk)14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:ADMINCOND is a thing. Also we expect admins to uphold policy, not violate it. Don't kid yourself into thinking that because it doesn't involve admin tools, adminship is irrelevant. It's very relevant. Admins are held to a higher standard, and rightfully so.Levivich (talk)19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
There is a straightforward way to adjudicate this complaint, but I'm not going to take the time to do the research to figure it out; perhaps VPP or Chetsford will do the research to bolster their claims/defense:
Either the RSes about Christopher Mellon mention that his grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer, in which case that detail would be anWP:ASPECT that should be included in the Wikipedia article, or the RSesabout Christopher Mellon (not about his grandfather) don't mention the grandfather, in which case the editspecial:Diff/1290142756 adding that information to Christopher Mellon's article is a major violation of WP:ASPECT (and thus NPOV), as well asWP:SYNTH (part of OR), and since it's undue negative material about a living person, it's a serious violation of BLP.
I'm not sure what the RS say about it, but if RS cover it then Chet was correct to include it and VPP's accusations are false. If the RS don't cover it, then Chet has some explaining to do as to why they're SYNTHing BLPvios, because ORing BLPvios is a red line.Levivich (talk)17:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Either the RSes about Christopher Mellon mention that his grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer,
I've never seen any such source, have you@Chetsford:? The onlyChristopher Mellon mentioning source I've seen that gets into his grandparents is a reference by name to his maternal grandfather from a different family name. I have seen not one source that gets into "Christopher Mellon" plus Matthew T. Mellon plus Nazis. All ofUser:Chetsford's Matthew T. Mellon Nazi-sources areabout Matthew T. Mellon--not Christopher Mellon. --Very Polite Person (talk)18:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I generally agree with Levivich's anaylsis, with one exception:even if RS's about CM discuss MM's Nazi sympathies, that paragraph was a pretty big UNDUE problem. It looks like there's consensus on the article talk page to remove/reduce it, but I don't think it's crazy to bring this here; adding that paragraph was a dick move. I realize Chetford has been attacked by UFU loons off-wiki (and maybe on-wiki, I'm not up to speed), and he's been generally on the right side of anti-loonness, but this paragraph was deeply uncool. I think it's worth warning Chetsford to be much more careful with BLPs.Floquenbeam (talk)18:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank youLevivich—the sources on C. Mellon indeed do not mention this aspect of his grandfather, so it is a very clear SYNTHing, and I would be interested in reading Chetsford’s response to this matter, without deflecting to more easily answered questions, like whether MTM is notable (which is not the substance of this ANI posting).꧁Zanahary꧂07:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
As someone who has not been following this dispute, and whose only interest in the topic is Christopher Mellon's role as an early founder ofUSSOCOM, I don't see the issue here and am very confused as to why there's a dispute. Christopher Mellon himself is clearly notable. His role in creating the legislative and legal framework for the modern U.S. special operations establishment is not in dispute here at all, and would justify an article even if he had no relationship whatsoever to UFOs or his family's lineage. He's also the scion of a one of the most prominent families in the U.S. (on the level of a Carnegie, or an Astor, or a Prescott/Bush -- families whose connections with Nazi Germany are certainly explored on the relevant articles as well). There appears to be no serious dispute aboutMatthew T. Mellon's Nazi support, the claims of which were prominently covered by reliable sources contemporaneously at the time as well as continued into modern day. So I'm baffled as to what the supposed issue is here.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Your comment was posted while I was drafting my response; timestamps are hard, I know...⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah, that is indeed my mistake, the indenting implies you're responding to me, but that's not your fault. The way the "reply to" tool handled that led me astray.Floquenbeam (talk)18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(actually, the timestamps would indicated that I'm right, but as you say, they're hard. and I'll accept the possibility that you hadn't actually read my comment.)Floquenbeam (talk)18:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, my comment was edit-conflicted, so I just refreshed and reposted (without having seen your response) and did not remove the outdent (I've always interpreted an outdent template as "Let me step back from this threaded discussion and approach this from some different angle" rather than as a reply to someone).⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
There appears to be no serious dispute about Matthew T. Mellon's Nazi support, the claims of which were prominently covered by reliable sources contemporaneously at the time as well as continued into modern day. So I'm baffled as to what the supposed issue is here.
I think you would have much stronger case ifMatthew T. Mellon weren't objectively notable... Peopleare allowed toimprove the encyclopedia out of spite and in the context there where the subject is arguably only important because of the family he was born into then a good deal more family history than we normally include is relevant. I also fail to see what Chetsford being an admin has anything to do with it... And I would point out that if they just wanted to shoehorn that info into the BLP they didn't need to make an article for Matthew T. Mellon.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
the context there where the subject is arguably only important because of the family he was born into
However you want to cut it Matthew T. Mellon is in fact notable. Christopher's career appears to be largely dependent on his last name, without it he doesn't get any of those cushy positions. He isn't for example qualified in any way other than his last name to serve on the board of theCarnegie Museum of Natural History. Without those family contributions he has no career in the senate, he had no expert qualifications... He was a "expert" senate staffer because of his last name. Matthew and Christopher are bothnepo babies.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
No offense, but nothing you wrote is relevant to whether it isappropriate to put an entire paragraph into a livingWP:BLP article, 100% sourced from articlesnot about the actualWP:BLP subject (who has notone single source that is about/SIGCOV the BLP subject that gets into allegations of Nazi support by one of his ancestors) into that BLP's article. In what way is itWP:BLP compliant to drop a paragraph into a given BLP's article about how his meemaw was a Big Nazi Fan, when meemaw being a Big Nazi Fan hasnothing to do with the notability of the BLP themselves, and no RS even touch the BLP's meemaw being a Nazi fan, that are about the BLP? --Very Polite Person (talk)19:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
You said "he's not notable because of his family, but for his careers, works" but I see nothing in his career or works which is seperate from his family, he only has those roles because of his last name. Yes it appearsWP:BLP andWP:DUE compliant. Whether or not its ideal is an entirely different question and I would have written it very differently, but that doesn't mean that anything besides my way is wrong.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
"Nepo baby" discussions are an off-topic tangent; arguably aWP:BLP violation themselves.
It hasnothing to do with the question of whether or notthis edit and attempts to put data thatChristopher Mellon's grandfather supported Nazis in the 1930s, before Christopher Mellon wasborn, 100% sourced from articlesnot about theWP:BLP, are a rules violation. Your or my view on the people involved or their merit is utterly irrelevant. --Very Polite Person (talk)19:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Its certainly common to use sources about a subject's family that do not mention that subject for background. It is not a bright line rules violation, which is why you find yourself having to argue that multiple things which are not violations are together a violation... And I can see it that way, but I can also see it the other way and I'm just not seeing any really good reasons to go against WP:AGF on this one... As I said before if Matthew wasn't actually notable and Christopher's biography wasn't dependent on his family name you would have a strong case here... As it is I suggest you drop the stick and see what you can work out content wise.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Your views thatChristopher Mellon is only notable by his name or through his 30-year career because of his name is yourpersonal opinion and has literally zeroWP:RS that is able toWP:BLP compliant source this in any actionable way. There is no value in your continuing to bring it up.
The question is literally: is it aWP:BLP violation to drop an entire paragraph intoyourWP:BLP, if it turned out your great-grandfather was a Nazi soldier, and it was all about how he was a Nazi soldier, withall the relevant pro-Nazi sources predating your birth by decades? Do we do that for otherWP:BLPs, whose ancestors were Nazis? --Very Polite Person (talk)19:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
This is, as mentioned, a content dispute. The "admin" bit is simply brought in as a cudgel in an attempt to scare people with. ANI does not adjuciate content disputes. This should be closed and discussion continued on the article talk pages, and if that does doesn't resolve it, other forms ofWP:DR should be attempted. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Agree that this is not a simple content dispute. Should any editor - let alone an admin - add detailed and negative content about somebody's relative to that person's BLP article? The answer to me is no. Saying thatWoody Harrelson's father was a hitman who was in prison is fine but sufficient. What Chetsford added here is entirely inappropriate and concerning.GiantSnowman19:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Actually I wonder if there really is a policy ambiguity (or more like, a "gap") here onWP:BLP and I'd be curious if I've either simply missed the relevant line, or if it doesn't exist. So, the top ofWP:BLP unambiguously states"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." and cites to footnote B, which quotes relevant portions of the Rachel Marsden case and the Manning case. The Marsden quote saysWikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry." The Manning quote says"The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.". Between these three statements (which as best as I can tell are the only ones that cover the applicability in scenarios where the article subject is not the person about whom the claim is being made) there appears to be a gap -- all three apply to statements made about "living people", even if not the subject of the article. But in this case, Matthew T. Mellon is not a living person, he died in 1992. The statement in question is about Matthew T. Mellon. So what we have is a statement made *on* a BLP, that is not about a living person, but whose existence carries an unspoken implication *about* that living person. As written, it would seem like this is not actually covered by the BLP policy and probably needs to be made explicit.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!19:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
As written, it would seem like this is not actually covered by the BLP policy and probably needs to be made explicit.
Do you mean the scenario of putting negative information about dead ancestors into a living BLP, where it can cause inference the BLP is somehow tied to their ancestors acts/beliefs, is a problem that somehow escapedWP:BLP all this time? --Very Polite Person (talk)19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
If the information makes absolutely no direct reference to the living person, it seems like yes that may be the case. As strictly written, the policy appears to only cover statements that mention living people, material about living people, or that are references to living people.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!19:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
If the information makes absolutely no direct reference to the living person, it seems like yes that may be the case
In my opinion, a bright-line reading ofWP:BLP would say no. It might be a poorly written paragraph, aWP:COATRACK for sure, but "He is the grandson of Matthew Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American." does not violate BLP; and the subsequent sentences are all exclusively about Matthew T. Mellon, who is long dead. Regardless, they all appear to reflect what their attributed sources say, rather than what you're presenting as a conclusion of ""Chris Mellon's grandpa liked Nazis in the 1930s". If you think that's contrary to the intent of the BLP policy, I'd refer back to my suggestion that perhaps it needs to be made explicit whether the policy covers *implications* about living people that can be inferred from statements about long-dead people.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!20:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
perhaps it needs to be made explicit whether the policy covers *implications* about living people that can be inferred from statements about long-dead people. Which opens the can of worms ofWP:SYNTH... -The BushrangerOne ping only22:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Based onUser:Swatjester's remarks here, I have raised this there for discussion as well:
A new front has been openedat the WP:RSN. A Polite Person... isn't. They are weaponizing these processes. This, plus the continued aspersions against Chetsford, demonstrate a battleground approach that is unlikely to change without sanctions.Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi21:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
That was opened at the suggestion ofUser:Swatjester. I'm here to build articles, as I have been. This entireWP:BLP headache has been a disruptive headache from that. Apparently my crime is building a thoroughly rigorously sourced article that I'm trying to push to GA and FA, amongst all the other articles I've been working on? What exactly would be I sanctioned for? Being more efficient at rules-compliant sourcing than some other editors? --Very Polite Person (talk)21:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I suggested that the point about ambiguity in the scope of coverage regarding statements exclusively about dead people on an article about living people, should be brought there for clarification. I was not suggesting anything about *this* particular dispute needed to be brought there. This is a completely generalizable issue; this dispute is simply an example case.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if we've reached the point of protective actions as yourWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior seems peculiarized to me for now (e.g."accept... the rejection of your position"[126],"admit you lost"[127],"Do you agree to my terms?"[128],"You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity"[129],"you and certain other familiar faces basically come at me like a pack of organized raptors", etc.) I assume that's because I'm the only person active at these niche articles and your ire will be turned against anyone else who joins, but I can't say that for certain, of course.Chetsford (talk)03:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Why didn't you link that last one withyou and certain other familiar faces basically come at me like a pack of organized raptors, where I actuallypraised you, told you you're a better writer than I am, and asked you very openly to explain why these sorts of things keep happening, and my basic point of view, and to try and understand why you and other people have managed to spectacularly confuse not just me, but other people as well?
Honestly, this situation is very nuanced with regard to the implicated policies, and I don't know if there are any strong policy violations, let alone one justifying community action or sanction, but at the very least (and beyond the merest shadow of a doubt) this is a very bad look,Chetsford. Given the timing and nature of your involvement in the younger Mellon's article, and how you characterized it during your deletion efforts, it is pretty hard to swallow that your creation of the elder Mellon's article is utterly unrelated. And your extended zig-zagging and evasive back-and-forth withBoynamedsue above comes off as so disingenuous, passive-aggressive, and gamesmanship-like, that I have a hard time characterizing it as anything other than an attempt to gaslight. Not for one second do I genuinely believe that your involvement in the earlier article and the editorial disputes concerning it had no impact or involvement in your decision to create the article on the grandfather and then leverage his Nazi affiliation back into the article on the grandson. I believe in AGF, but what you are asking from us there would require something closer to willful suspension of disbelief.So, did you violate policy in any of this? Probably not: I think you are likely safe in a policy grey zone here. But this behaviour is more than a little attackpage-adjacent, and this sort of thing could easily lead to people perceiving you as capable of making editorial decisions for very petty reasons. Honestly, as at least one other editor here has suggested, I'd seriously consider taking a step back from the conspiracy-theory subject matter for a hot minute, as we sometimes see this kind burn-out over-reaction from editors working to fight misinformation in that area. And look, I get it. If this really is related to the recent cluster of disputes over UFO "whistelblowers", know that I looked in on those matters last month and was blown away by the ultra high density nonsense that was being peddled. But if this is the kind of tactic you are going to bring to bear against the "True Believers" in those disputes, you are currently not in the right mindset for that kind of editorial work and will be more of a hindrance than a help to the process of pushing back against the crankery.SnowRise let's rap02:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
"to create the article on the Nazi grandfather and then leverage his Nazi affiliation back into the article on the grandson" That never happened. For your edification, I explain the correct sequence of events here[130], in one of the numerous other noticeboard board and Talk page accusations with which the OP is tying me down (as did his now-departed predecessors in this campaign). But, though your comment is factually incorrect, it does underscore that the tactic of flooding the zone with creatively ginned-up noticeboard filings — as a kind ofheckler's veto — is effective to the extent that it occupies editors time on noticeboards, and keeps them away from policing the insertion of hoax flying saucer content into our encyclopedia (e.g. Chris Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency"[131]).Chetsford (talk)02:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The exact chronology of when you created the moments-apart article on the older Mellon and when you introduced his Nazi links into his grandson's article is entirely incidental, as I think you very much know. The point is that you undertook both actions about a month after being thwarted in deleting the article on the grandson, as part of the broader fight on the UFO content. As with your responses to other inquiries above about the timing of your actions and their apparent motive, this feels like a willful attempt at muddying the waters and is very much not helping your case. It feels like you think if you throw up enough corrections on minor, irrelevant points and pedantic wikilawyering defenses, you can run out the clock. But it's extremely obvious what you did here, and why. So just don't do it again? Nobody is suggesting sanctions against you, so these rhetorical ploys are pointless, and the more you treat us like idiots and try to exhaust scrutiny, the more people are going to remember you for this episode--and less because the original activity was super egregious (though it did obviously demonstrate poor judgment) and more because of the cageyness.SnowRise let's rap03:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
"the more you treat us like idiots and try to exhaust scrutiny" Whoa. Is that necessary?"a month after being thwarted in deleting the article on the grandson" You continue to play very fast and loose with the facts of this case, and I'm sorry to call you out on these errors but since they're false accusations you're making against me I feel an indulgence to do so. No, I was not"thwarted". The article on the grandson was, in fact, actually deleted by decision of the community at AfD[132]. VPP then undertook significant research and determined he could resurrect it. He contacted me to ask my input and I stated I had no objection to him recreating it[133]. So, no, no one was"thwarted".Chetsford (talk)06:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of those facts as the OP laid them out very clearly in the first few lines of their complaint. But choice of wording aside, you surely understand why you are getting pushback on the fact that you have tried here to frame your actions regarding the article and content concerning the grandfather as purely coincidental and unrelated to the earlier disputes, when there's just so much context and clear indication that is not the case?SnowRise let's rap06:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, I for one am not convinced it isn't notable. In fact, when I looked at it, my take was that it was an edge case, but may very well pass GNG. That's not the concern for me. The concern is the backdrop for your decision to make that article and the injection of the Nazi element into another article where it didn't belong, in apparent furtherance of a contest of wills that you were having over that article and related subject matter. You truly don't understand why so many community members see that as a little shady, or at best a poor exercise of judgment?SnowRise let's rap07:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I would strongly agree that Chetsford needs to step back from woo-adjacent topics. To argue thatChristopher Mellon (sourceable from the Guardian + NYC alone) does not getWP:SIGCOV in RS, yet then to createMatthew T. Mellon based on 3 century old news reports is a worrying example of doublethink. An editor who pretends not to understand questions then finally throws around accusations of conspiracism to those who suggest three of their actions are linked, is becoming a time sink.--Boynamedsue (talk)06:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Chetsford can still be useful. I don't think they deserve a topic ban, but of course restrictions can be made about their edits, i.e. you have to clearly spell out the rules they have to abide by.tgeorgescu (talk)06:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Chetsford's handling of the situation makes me uncomfortable. Take a contrary example.Henry Thynne, 6th Marquess of Bath was, among other things, famous for his collection of paintings by Adolf Hitler. This is well-known and undisputed. We don't mention this fact inAlexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath, probably because no source has identified any relevant connection between the father's beliefs and the son's biography, to say nothing of any of the grandsons, including thecurrent marquess. If I'm being uncharitable, it looks like an attempt to poison the well. At best, it's undue.Mackensen(talk)03:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
"Chetsford's handling of the situation makes me uncomfortable."Mackensen -- can I ask you to elaborate a bit on what, specifically, makes you uncomfortable? I inserted five sentences of content into a 2,000 word article (three sentences of which, involving Matthew Mellon's scholarly work, doesn't even seem to have scandalized anyone). Twenty-four minutes later that edit was reverted. A Talk page discussion ensued. If you can be more specific about which part of that creates discomfort for you I can try to be more attentive to errors moving forward.Chetsford (talk)03:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
This is an unserious reply that makes me question your judgement further. You should consider stepping away from this topic altogether.Mackensen(talk)03:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@Chetsford: I've always been a fan of your RfC closes and have appreciated you often being a voice of reason in discussions where many other users were being less reasonable. Here, though, I have to agree with Mackensen that your judgment is clouded. I understand that you're in a shitty situation with this whole UFO debacle, but I would expect any admin or otherwise experienced user to understand why the content you added is problematic. More importantly, I'd expectyou to understand it, because I've never had any association of you as someone who doesn't know up from down when it comes to BLPs. Comments like the above don't change that overall impression, but do make me think you're getting too deep into this controversy. At the risk of stating the obvious, BLPsare a contentious topic area, and you're currently on a trajectory where that would come into play, I think. So I join Mackensen in encouraging you to step back from UFO-related BLPs. Whatever edits you want to make here, if they're worth making, someone else will make them sooner or later. If no one else makes them, maybe they weren't worth making. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)05:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Obviously I'll abide by any sense of the community, and I appreciate you laying out this case so well. I am deeply uncomfortable, however, with WP succumbing to a heckler's veto, which is what has occurred. There have been wave after wave of IP and freshly minted editors who have very overtly coordinated off WP with the stated intent of getting "Chetsford banned" because they have been led to believe by their leaders that I am uniquely trying to suppress the truth about flying saucers. This is the seventh noticeboard or Talk page discussion in two weeks that have been opened about me. It started when I attempted to police the insertion of unsourced flying saucer fancruft into our encyclopedia (and which continues to be firehosed into it; see my aforementioned example of just yesterday in which the OP inserted the claim that Christopher Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency"[134]). While I am happy to respond to good faith noticeboard discussions, by any good faith reading this one was ginned-up from the simplest of content disputes: two sentences of a BLP edge case that was reverted by another editor and then immediately moved to Talk page discussion. Bold-Revert-Discuss cycles like this happen by their dozens daily on WP and no reasonable editor would ever deign to bring it to ANI. The flying saucer community is, frankly, less organized than other cultic groups. Seeing how this played out makes me deeply concerned for our editors working in adjacent areas if simply using a bevy of IP and battleground editors to create enough noise and sparks is all it takes to sideline the lucid and open fringe areas to guru-directed content.Chetsford (talk)05:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Chetsford, I trust much of your characterization of the situation you have been dealing with, and indeed have myself seen a recent glut in misinformation and conspiracy theory content pushing concerning UFOs myself, even though I don't actively edit or concern myself with this area. So genuinely, I'm sorry you're having to deal with that, and thank you for your work in trying to keep some of the more concerning of this content out of article space. But the issue in the present moment is that the immediate concern is not 'ginned-up'; you really did do a problematic thing, and it involves content that is only tangentially related to the UFO area, which underscores just how much these bad-faith actors have gotten under your skin with their campaign, thereby compromising your approach. You're not presently talking to those SPAs, but rather your fellowWP:HERE community members, and there's a clear consensus that a backdoor assault on a BLP subject is not the right way to try to counterbalance the efforts of a bunch of credulous nits to lionize that same subject. Indeed, the conspiracy theory prone minds feed on and recruit off of that sort of thing.SnowRise let's rap06:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Even within this very thread there is disagreement about whether biographical information about a relative is permitted in a BLP. There was no brightline BLP violation, no 3RR, not even a 1RR. It was the most mild and routine of content disagreements being reasonably discussed at a Talk page. In no circumstance would this ever be brought to ANI - particularly from an OP with a documented history of battleground behavior[135]. So we have an extremely unusual ANI filing set against the backdrop of an off-WP campaign to create as much sparks as possible for the explicitly stated purpose of having editors who are policing the insertion of hoax content "banned". Frankly, the very existence of this thread transgresses the UCC.Chetsford (talk)07:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, personally I have been at pains to be clear that there isn't a brightline violation here. But you're an experienced community member and an admin: you know as well as anyone that these issues are not always as cut and dry as whether someone can make a case for you violating 3RR or a specific piece of verbiage from WP:BLP. The absence of those things does not mean that important principles are mot at stake. IMO, these people have you so twisted up from their harassment that they are now effectively weaponizing you against yourself. And I think you'll see that once you have some distance from this situation. I'm going to leave it at that, because clearly I am not convincing you of anything, so I'll have to hope someone else does.SnowRise let's rap08:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Re including the sins of the grandfather, a point missed above is that a reliable source would have to describe how that stain influenced the life of the article subject. The grandfather has an article, so pile the muck on him in that article. Do not use another article to list the grandfather's problems (WP:COATRACK).Johnuniq (talk)03:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
There are number of different things going on here, and I'll try and summarise:
Is Chetsford being hassled by UFO-supporting editors? Unquestionably.
Has Chetsford handled himself okay with disputes from this group? Yes, although his level of humour and sarcasm might not be to everyone's taste.
Is the content dispute at question (the locus of which isthis edit) a serious policy violation? Probably not, though it's not necessarily a good idea. I could go toPrince Harry and write "Harry's great-great uncle,Edward VIII, was a Nazi sympathizer[1][2]" and then argue it doesn't meet the letter ofWP:BLP because 1. The sources (just about) link Harry, Edward and Hitler, 2. Edward and Hitler aren't living people and 3. Harry isn't really the sort of "low profile" person BLP was specifically designed to protect. However,it's a bit of a dick move and common sense says I probably shouldn't do it, regardless of how many policies I can throw at the argument. So to summarise, I think Chetsford ought to have expected blowback and disruption from making those edits, no matter how on the merits he might have felt on making them, asbeing right isn't enough.
Should admins be held to higher standards when editing?Absolutely. As an admin, not only do you have to be fair, you have to beseen to be fair, and admins making possible dick moves isn't a good idea.
Yeah, I saw you add that to a discussion between the two editors involved. You are aware that when someone is upset about another editor, it rarely helps when a fellow admin comes along to post a joke "official" closure which doesn't seem to take the upset editor serious at all? It feels like closing ranks among admins, and mocking the other editor. It really is not the type of behaviour an admin should demonstrate.Fram (talk)11:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Proposal to topic-ban Chetsford from Christopher Mellon
While pretty much everyone, including Chetsford, agrees that Chetsford's actions were less than ideal, there is a clear consensus against a topic ban or page block at this time. There was mention of potential sanctions for VPP, comments were leaning against but there wasn't enough discussion for there to be a consensus either way.Thryduulf (talk)10:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is clear from the above comments by Chetsford that they will not admit to having done something wrong in attempting to insert negative information about someone’s grandfather on their BLP, using sources completely unrelated to the BLP subject—a BLP that Chetsford previously nominated for deletion. A literal reading of this discussion would suggest that Chetsford doesn’t understand Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and biographies of living people, but I believe that Chetsford actually totally understands these policies and is not being honest about it in this discussion. That’s too bad, but absent any evidence of Chetsford messing with other biographies besides Christopher Mellon's, I think that a topic-ban from that article should be enough to avoid further disruption. If other editors believe that a topic ban from BLPs is necessary, I am not opposed.꧁Zanahary꧂07:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I think that Chetsford needs to have clearly spelled out "rules of engagement". Ioppose a topic ban from that article, since a six-month page block would do the job. They may be blocked from its talk page as well.tgeorgescu (talk)08:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose sanctions per Ritchie333's 0847. Support one-way Iban for VPP per their recidivism in returning to pretty much the behavior that earned them aone-week block a few months ago—from the record as "Bludgeoning, edit warring, POV pushing, WP:IDHT behavior"—although perhaps this time with addedsealioning (responses usually involve swathes of text verging on the bludgeoning:[136],[137] (which includes gems such as ""Consider youself warned" (!!!)), and not forgettingwhat started it, along withlying about Swatjester's "suggestion" that was never made.Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi09:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose both TBAN and pblock. it does, looking at this, look like the insertion was problematic, admins absolutely need to be as squeaky-clean as possible, and I do agree with Snow Rise that Chetsford needs to be careful about "FRINGE burnout". That said, it doesn't appear to be a repeated/recurring thing...and this wasabsolutely escalated to ANI as part of the coordinated harassment campaign against Chetsford, making itfruit of the poisonous tree. -The BushrangerOne ping only09:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose any sanction for either Chetsford or VPP. While the actions of the two editors were not beyond reproach, neither of them have done anything to warrant a block/ban. There's also no indication that VPP is going to hound or otherwise harrass Chetsford, making the IBAN unnecessary.TurboSuperA+(connect)09:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Not certain if this is the right solution or not, so not !voting for the moment, but it seems to me that his replies to VPP and to the situation are often deliberately disingenious, with e.g. the false dilemma and unfair comparison from this post from today[138], where he is basically equating describing someone's current employer as "far right" (a logical description, where someone works and what type of company that is is relevant to the person) to describing someone's grandfather as a nazi supporter (even though there is no reason to have this background in the article for the grandson, it isn't relevant for that article), and declaring that "It seems we either need to generally accept the use of appositive descriptors and restrictive clauses or have a guideline against them." If that is their takeway, after the serious pusback they got at the Mellon article, then that is seriously questionable behaviour, which seems to be intended to rile up VPP or to get their own way no matter what.Fram (talk)11:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - A single edit which was reverted and then a talk discussion started to gauge consensus is a very long way away from the sort of behaviour which requires a topic ban.TarnishedPathtalk11:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose but... I think it's very clear that this UFOlogy dispute is reaching a boiling point. I don't think a topic ban of one editor from one article is likely to make this better. Rather I think it's about time that this issue be referred to arbitration. I don't think either Chetsford or VPP have particularly clean hands here. I think there's something a bit awful about creating an article about a man's nazi grandpa and then transcluding that information into that man's article when, according to the reliable sources, he is not carrying on his grandfather's awful ideological legacy; he's just a bit of a UFO crank. But at the same time I think that there's been quite a lot of effort recently to increase the prominence of UFOlogy figures and to treat them as less fringe than they are. I don't think replacing a BLP problem with a FRINGE neutrality problem is a good solution to this. Arbitration is supposed to be the venue for long term, multi-editor, disruptive disputes. UFOlogy has become a long term, multi-editor, very disruptive dispute. Let's put the ball in that court.Simonm223 (talk)11:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with much of this, particularly the ARBCOM-time part. The WP/UFO-problem includes, I think, a fairly big off-WP part, directed at editors like for example Chetsford.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)12:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you and sorry in advance for the interjection. I just want to correct one minor point ("creating an article about a man's nazi grandpa and then transcluding that information into that man's article") since it's central to this matter, was falsely presented at the outset, and has now become true by process of repetition. I'm self-collapsing it, though, as I don't want to inappropriately influence this discussion. ↓Chetsford (talk)13:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
"creating an article about a man's nazi grandpa and then transcluding that information into that man's article"I did not create the article about Matthew Mellon and then transclude that information into the Christopher Mellon article.I initially added a paragraph to the Family section of the Christopher Mellon article that included a couple sentences of information on his grandfather, Matthew, as Matthew did not have any existing article; that he was a professor of literature, a trustee of Colby College, and a Nazi. This was reverted and we proceeded to a brief Talk discussion. After discussion, I came to agree the revert was appropriate and my edit veered too close to a BLP issue which is why I didn't reinsert it.During the process of discussion, it became clear that Matthew was unambiguously notable in his own right. It was only at that point I created the Matthew article (as I am wont to do anytime I see a notable person without an article, evidenced by the 400 articles I've created). Nothing was ever transcluded into the Christopher article from the Matthew article in relation to the content in the OP as the Matthew article didn't exist when this occurred.(In retrospect, I should probably have drafted the Matthew article and waited a few weeks to introduce it to mainspace so as to avoid the potential for misunderstanding among those for whom this is a very central topic.)Chetsford (talk)13:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure we've hit the threshold where the committee would yet take this up, but it is probably inevitable. The surge of interest in this topic, like many related conspiracy theories, seems to be broader than our corner of the web and seems unlikely to abet any time soon. I just can't imagine what might be the source of all of this trend towards misinformation, skepticism of government and deep state conspiracy theory crankery... That said, this leaves the perennial issue in such cases of who actually has a motivation to open a case request--because honestly, I don't see either of the two main parties here doing it.SnowRise let's rap23:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Opposeper much of the above. I further note that the proposer of this sanction wrote[Chetsford] is not being honest about it in this discussion, which is a clear, unambiguous aspersion.JoJo Anthrax (talk)12:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm still struggling to parse through everything that is happening here. It seems clear that Chetsford has long been doing admirable work fighting in the trenches against the fringe lunatic crowd. And I'm well aware that editors who fight the fringe lunatic crowd often have a target on their backs. What is less clear is whether the OP of this thread is part of that crowd; if so, we should do something about that. (Also, my above rebuke to Fortuna notwithstanding, naming yourself 'Very Polite Person' is just asking for trouble.) But regardless of the fringe lunatic stuff, it is troubling to see an admin lob a 'guilt-by-association' grenade at a BLP subject. Yes, it was one edit. Yes, it was reverted. Yes, Chetsford is not pursuing it further. Still, the evasive responses and the evident failure to grasp why the edit was a BLP no-no would be concerning coming from any veteran editor, let alone an admin.LEPRICAVARK (talk)13:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd really like you to edit out the terms "fringe lunatic" and particularly the suggestion that Very Polite Person might be a "fringe lunatic". I don't believe English is your native language, and so I am happy to assume that you don't quite appreciate the weight of those words. However, suggesting somebody belongs to a lunatic fringe without exceptionally strong evidence (and perhaps even with it) would constitute a personal attack.--Boynamedsue (talk)22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, that's the first time anyone has ever suggested that English isn't my first language. If you scroll up, you'll see that it was Chetsford who described one of VPP's edits asthe insertion of unsourced flying saucer fancruft into our encyclopedia. In my prior comment, I was not saying that I do or not believe VPP is part of the fringe lunatic crowd. I was acknowledging that Chetsford said it. As I've said before, it has become incredibly difficult to parse what exactly is going on here with all the finger-pointing back and forth. I don't think you are helping matters, either.LEPRICAVARK (talk)23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't know but, to spare Lepricavark from having to sludge through a million diffs, I can affirm I said there had generally been issues with the insertion of unsourced content. In a separate sentence I then noted your insertion of the claim"[Mellon] oversaw the National Security Agency"[139] based on what you said[140] was a source that reported he once "examined the books" of the NSA. So, technically, it was probably aWP:FAKE source ("[a source that]does not support the content") and not a non-source. Apologies for any imprecision in terminology.Chetsford (talk)06:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Support as they still can't get the facts straight, and this false narrative influences oppose votes like the one from Lepricavark right above ("yes, it was one edit"). Chetsford above (in the collapsed section) and elsewhere tells us that he added the info once, got reverted, then created the article about the grandfather, and that's about it. Not only glosses this over hisWP:BLUDGEONing of the talk page discussion until the overwhelming number of opposers forced him to admit that it shouldn't be included, and the ongoing discussion on the BLP talk page (see my link in my previous post) where he is using very dubious debating tactics to get support for his by now thoroughly rejected position; it also ignores completely that he reinserted the nazi claim into the Christopher Mellon article.
To present this "After discussion, I came to agree the revert was appropriate and my edit veered too close to a BLP issue which is why I didn't reinsert it. During the process of discussion, however, it became clear that Matthew Mellon was unambiguously notable in his own right. It was at that point I created the Matthew article. Nothing was ever transcluded into the Christopher article from the Matthew article in relation to the content in the OP as the Matthew article didn't exist when this occurred." is clearly false, and I can't trust them to edit this or any related articles.Fram (talk)13:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. My comment above was in relation to the content the OP quoted. There was a separate discussion on the Talk page related to the use of appositive descriptors to which I believe you're referring. Newslinger itemized it in their comment, noting my concession to the consensus in that discussion (Special:Diff/1290317702). If I didn't reply in a way that communicated that I was referring specifically to the content quoted by the OP, I'm sorry and will endeavor to be more clear in the future.Chetsford (talk)13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Claiming "my edit veered too close to a BLP issue which is why I didn't reinsert it." when you actually reinserted the actual BLP issue just an hour later, is not being unclear. You have been pushing this "one edit" canard right from the start (""a massive amount of time and effort" Are you referring to the one edit I made?", "Within minutes of the content being introduced, VPP removed it. It was not reinserted as, by this point, the Matthew T. Mellon article was live and the extended description was, in my opinion, no longer necessary. " (which is a second falsehood, as you have argued and continue to argue that the extended description is, in fact, necessary.) "I inserted five sentences of content into a 2,000 word article (three sentences of which, involving Matthew Mellon's scholarly work, doesn't even seem to have scandalized anyone). Twenty-four minutes later that edit was reverted. A Talk page discussion ensued." "two sentences of a BLP edge case that was reverted by another editor and then immediately moved to Talk page discussion. Bold-Revert-Discuss cycles like this happen by their dozens daily on WP and no reasonable editor would ever deign to bring it to ANI." "There was no brightline BLP violation, no 3RR, not even a 1RR. It was the most mild and routine of content disagreements being reasonably discussed at a Talk page.") Every single one of these is you claiming that all that happened was insertion-reversion-discussion. This is not a one-off "unclear" statement, this is a continued attempt to create a narrative in your favour by making false claims.Fram (talk)14:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I thought I'd been clear that I was referring to the content quoted by the OP in each of my comments by repeatedly saying"in relation to the content in the OP" and similar, and not any separate discussions on the article's Talk related to the applicability ofMOS:NOFORCELINK. Moreover, the timestamps simply don't support the claim that I created the Matthew Mellon article first[144] and then inserted the content in the OP into the article[145] and I don't feel I've done anything wrong in correcting that assertion when it's been made. Like I said, though, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.Chetsford (talk)14:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
But Chetsford....those edits are about a half an hour apart. Litteraly nobody here except for you yourself thinks that the precise order of these two edits is dispositive of any the issues or concerns raised. It's an incredibly minor, pedantic point which doesn't imapact the overall worries that the community clearly has about your actions here. So your bringing it up over, and over, and over again feels like a huge deflection. I'd call it a smoke screen, but at this point I honestly don't know whether you are trying to convince us that this exculpates you from any blame here or convince yourselfSo please, just stop bringing this up. We are all aware of this detail: you've said it a half dozen times in this thread. The concerns of the community are not tied to the fact of the technicality of whether you added the Nazi reference to Christopher Mellon's article first, or whether you created the Mathew Mellon article first. The concerns are that you did formerat all, particularly given your recent history with that article and related subject matter. So, once and for all,the record notes that you created the Mathew Mellon article after adding the Nazi-related content concerning Mathew Mellon into the Christopher Mellon article. But our concerns remain, and are not in any significant way eased by the precise chronology of these two basically contemporaneous edits. Whatever the order, this was a seriously questionable set of choices on your part. I mean, you are at serious risk of talking yourself into a sanction here with yourWP:IDHT. This discussion would have been 1/3 its current size if you'd just been able to say "Ok, I get it, this looks bad." Now people are talking about opening an ArbCom case. And my friend, despite some hard advice from some of us, you are seriously benefiting from the Trusted Community Member ANI Discount here. Historically, ArbCom is much less laissez-faire about this kind of thing. Seriously, read the room and cut your losses.SnowRise let's rap00:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
And you may not believe this, but I am 100% telling you this because I don't want to lose the value of your engagement with this area longterm just because Team Woo Boost dogpiled you into some very poor thinkingshort term. But the community also can't completely turn a blind eye to the issues raised here. Please try to understand and help us help you!SnowRise let's rap00:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say he reinserted the text, he reinserted the disputed BLP issue in different words, in the first (longer) edit "Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast"", in the second edit "Nazi Party supporter".Fram (talk)16:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The first edit was "According toPrinceton Alumni Weekly editor Datus Smith, Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast" though he personally disavowed being "a Nazi nor a Nazi agent". In 1934,Harvard University rejected Mellon's offer to fund a scholarship for a Harvard student "for privileges of study in the New Germany". The following year, Mellon expressed "admiration for the accomplishments of the Hitler regime" and celebrated "that Germany is again rearming"." and the second was "Nazi Party supporter." The major difference I see is that in the first one its an attributed quote and in the second its in wikivoice... But its really not the same content.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The problematic guilt-by-association connection between Christopher Mellon and his pro-Nazi grandpa is present in both edits. That's the issue.LEPRICAVARK (talk)00:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Saying that someone's relative was a Nazi is a textbook example of guilt by association. While I'm here,oppose sanctions, as the two edits constitute a one-time mistake (AFAIK) and everyone makes mistakes.Levivich (talk)02:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think any sanction is necessary at the moment. Chetsford has stepped back from their confrontational position at the talkpage of Christopher Mellon, so I wouldn't class it as an ongoing issue. I would, however, suggest that Chetsford reflect on the way they behave on UFO-proximate threads. It's pretty baffling that someone can seemingly believe that Christopher Melon has not receivedWP:SIGCOV whereas his no-mark grandad did, and this smacks of editing with very strong biases that are negatively affecting their contributions. I would recommend a few weeks' voluntary break from this kind of thing for Chetsford's own good, and then a return to editing on it with a less partisan mindset. But yeah, at the minute the negative behaviour has only been mildly disruptive.Boynamedsue (talk)16:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
It's pretty baffling that someone can seemingly believe that Christopher Melon has not received WP:SIGCOV whereas his no-mark grandad did Note that the original Christopher Mellon articlewas deleted at AfD and theno-markMatthew T. Mellon has not been nominated for deletion.JoJo Anthrax (talk)16:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
It's exceptionally baffling that AfD voted that way. Google "Christopher Mellon+Guardian" and "Christopher Mellon+NYT" and you get sigcov. Kind of illustrative of the blindspots of wikipedia.Boynamedsue (talk)17:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Both that AfD and theHarald Malmgren one, that latter even drawing outUser:Jimbo Wales about theWP:BLP issues, were baffling. Many userstrivially sourced Malmgren during the AfD, and it was ultimatelytrivial to sourceChristopher Mellon, asUser:Chetsfordthemselves demonstrated by digging out decades old Newspaper.com sources about Mellon after I meticulously rebuilt the article from zero content. I have no idea how he didn't catch any of these on the statedWP:BEFORE. It seems unlikely. --Very Polite Person (talk)17:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I can't deny thats a bit puzzling... Perhaps Chetsford does need to better police their own biases if they want to avoid any sanctions in the future. I would note though that they are not the only one with an apparent blind spot, all the editors who claimed that the elder Mellon was not notable but the younger was have also brought their bias into question.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
From the AfD nom:This is legitimized through extensive REFBOMBing in which a dozen RS (e.g. Vice, The Guardian, etc.) are crammed into the article. However, on close inspection, each of these simply contain one sentence quotes from Mellon; no biographical detail or detail of any kind.
And this is yet another reason why (in addition to the off-wiki coordination we all know is going on and the entrenchment between certain skeptical editors and certain true believers all of whom seem to want to right great wrongs) I think this would be better tabled as a basis for a referral to Arbitration regarding UFOlogy.Simonm223 (talk)18:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I do think the structure of a case would be a big improvement over all the shit-flinging. Right now if I bring up VPP'sbattlegroundediting it's just more feces in the wind, kicking it to ArbCom is kind of a reset button on that.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk20:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Precisely. Frankly it's the venue intended for long-term, multi-party, disruptive disputes. And that's what this UFOlogy business is. And, while I have my own personal skepticism of saucer people stories, I can't help but notice that there's an entrenched battleground mentality between the two parties here that I cannot ignore notwithstanding my personal sympathies. I would suspect this ends up another CTOP.Simonm223 (talk)20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that the sigcov linked to the article for the older Mellon amounts to a couple of 90-year-old newspaper articles behind a pay wall. That's it. I don't feel newspaper articles from the 1930s amount to reliable sources for the purpose of notability in this or any other case. I would class them as historical documents requiring the interpretation of modern authors for us to assess their weight. I would also say that I am certain sceptics and ufo-enthusaists organise off-wiki. I hope one day proof of this emerges, linked to the users concerned, and both sides are banned forever.Boynamedsue (talk)20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, in terms of paywalled sources, they have not as yet been checked by anyone, so whether they actually do provide sigcov can be questioned until the relevant details are provided. As for the ninety-year-old sources,WP:AGEMATTERS is surely relevant, and I would suggest defunct newspapers, and even newspapers that are now reliable may not have been at the time. As the RS guideline states:, a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source.. I would suggest these newspapers articles became primary sources long before the advent of wikipedia, and so no notability has ever been established andWP:NTEMP is not valid. If 90 year-old newspaper articles can give notability today, where do we draw the line? The first edition of the Times in 1821? John Harris's lexicon of 1704? The Nuremberg Chronicle? Suetonius? Herodotus?Boynamedsue (talk)22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source Whut...how is that even supposed towork?not the venue, I know, but...my mind boggles! -The BushrangerOne ping only23:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
That sentence you quote starts withSimilarly for breaking news, obviously that doesn't apply here, 1930s news has never been "breaking" in a Wikipedia context, because it happened 70 years before the site was founded.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
To swerve back on to topic, this really isn't proving out the allegation that Chetsford has "very strong biases" in finding SIGCOV for Mellon Sr. Your own frustrations with the guidelines are irrelevant to that.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk22:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Seems like a bit of a red herring... In addition to sigcov from the 1920s and 1930s there is also sigcov from 1950, 1951, 1967, 1968, 1978, 1983, etc... But in general the line seems to be about a hundred years depending on the context.Horse Eye's Back (talk)22:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@REAL MOUSE IRL:So what would you say is the cutoff date for newspaper articles that provide sigcov to establish notability?
HEB, I don't think the later sources provide sigcov. Though I would agree, if they do there is a much stronger case to retain the article.--Boynamedsue (talk)22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Among the later sources I would single out Koskoff's 1978 book, Koskoff even interviews him (the latest most recent interview I can locate).Horse Eye's Back (talk)22:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Right, having looked at that book, you are totally right. I missed that one. It would have perhaps helped if, instead of spending an hour or so being evasive about the sourcing when I asked him, Chetsford had said "actually Koskoff provides sigcov".--Boynamedsue (talk)04:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose We should instead indef block every singe FRINGE UFOlogy pusher active on any of these articles. They're the problem in this topic area.SilverserenC01:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I don't think anyone is opposed to blocking theWP:NOTHERE elements, in principle. The issue is making all of those determinations and blocks, particularly as you are dealing with an ever-revolving cast of meatpuppets. I've dealt with scenarios like Chetsford is trying to tamp down presently (which is why I was unlikely to ever support a sanction even though I think they are somewhat missing the forest for the tries on this one particular article) and the issue is that you are looking at huge (sometimes vast) numbers of low-commitment IP editors and new SPAs who will flood articles and talk pages and each make very minimal contributions, but collectively make the same policy-ignorant, emotive, and/or conspiracy theory-laden arguments arguments and EW edits again and again.These SPAs get recruited en masse from the most credulous corners of YouTube comments sections or Twitter threads and hurled at articles with no understanding of this project's principles or intent to engage with it beyond their immediate objective to try to enforce their preferred outcome through sheer numbers, and they often believe we are a part of (or the clueless tools of) some cabal or another. So ultimately page protection ends up being the only real means of stemming the flood of disruption, and blocks, even when you can get them, are not super effective.SnowRise let's rap06:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Support - Chetsford should have known better, and for me, that is the real issue, and from their comments here, it's not clear to me that they understand that. I think a forced break of 3 to 6 months is reasonable.Isaidnoway(talk)08:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Both parties are partially correct and partially wrong. Blocking Chetsford from the article would only make sense if that would prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, and Chetsford does not cause damage to the encyclopedia.Support trouting everyone including you, the reader.Polygnotus (talk)09:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Digging up the past of someone's grandfather and adding it in the way that Chetford did was very sub par, but they have accepted that. Given VPP has also opposed the proposal I really think this isn't necessary at this point. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Christopher_Mellon#Leslie_Kean_labeled_UFO_enthusiast_on_Christopher_Mellon_by_User:ජපස wherein I get into a protracted dispute with the user in question over whether mentioning Leslie Kean's connections to ufology is a BLP violation worthy of severe opprobrium. Implication being it is an unsourced, contentious accusation, an implication which I call out explicitly but which is continually sidestepped by the user in favor of what I think is essentiallyWP:CRYBLPWP:SEALIONing. I guess the conflict is now over, but I fear we may have more because ongoing is:
Well, on the first you edited aWP:BLP to put unsourced content about adifferentWP:BLP into that article withthis edit.
On the second, there was a polite impasse on the article talk page whether a certain article from an otherwise soundWP:RS was a validWP:RS at all. So, I asked for extra independent opinions on RSN, and promptly got dog piled for asking.
In both cases I strictly followed correct protocol: try to get the unsourcedWP:BLP content sourced, and get extra eyes on an unusual protractedWP:RS dispute. Was I not supposed to try and fix aWP:BLP policy violation--which I graciously tried to let you explain--or to try and figure out if thatWP:RS was OK? I am starting to feel like betweenChristopher Mellon andLuis Elizondo that people are getting increasingly mad at me for being effective at finding sources. --Very Polite Person (talk)21:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
VPPs initial post at WP:RSN[147] was, in my opinion, utterly dishonest, in that it attempted to present the source in isolation, without the slightest concession towards the possibility that it might be contradicted by other sources, as they were fully aware. Add that to their later absurd claim that this had nothing to do with UFOs[148], along with all the other tedious time-wasting wall-of-text repetition in that thread, and I'd saywe have sufficient grounds for a topic ban from 'UFOs broadly construed' at minimum. This nonsense has gone on far too long.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
You've gotta be kidding me. TheLuis Elizondo article was a totalWP:BLP trainwreck until I fixed it.Christopher Mellon was a complete from zero rewrite by me that is a perfectly sound article. All I've tried to do since is make sure both are honest onWP:BLP terms. I took the challenge to unsuccesfully, it appears, add sources toThe Sol Foundation. That's it. That's (as far as I'm aware) my entire spectrum of "UFO stuff". I keep all the pages I regularly bother with right on my user page -- go look. If I had any confidenceLuis Elizondo wouldn't devolve into anotherWP:BLP nightmare I'd take it off my watchlist right now. I don't think there's anyone who hasremoved more content from that than anyone else. Go look at the edit history.
All I know is that the moment I make the slightest move on either of those articles, no matter how trivial, I suddenly have half a dozen people calling for my blood/sanctions, and they get upset that I don't... I don't know, just roll over onWP:BLP? I'm not even a "UFO editor". I found three messed up articles and tried to fix them.
Yes, how often exactly am I even touching any of those, with some over a year old amd only a handful of articles, basically all touched as branches of my initialLuis Elizondo involvement? I added a bit of content here and there, fixed up a few BLP issues, and moved on. Sol Foundation was followed off my researching the Mellon article to source it for his extensive government history--my wheelhouse naturally. Go look at the AFC drafts--I even made two versions of the Mellon article, with and without UFOs to make sure he was notable WITHOUT UFOs (he was, trivially). Whatever all of you guys have going with these articles, I honestlydon't give a shit. I did what I wanted with Mellon--sourced and wrote it. The BLP stuff is done on Elizondo.
Banning seems kind of pointless as I don't even really edit those spaces, I wander into them here and there (rarely) outside those two nexus articles (Elizondo and now Mellon). Both are stable/done. If my presence and effectiveness at sourcing content is so upsetting to theWP:FRINGE enthusiasts, I'm more than happy to just focus on my own science/law articles. I just wanted to get Mellon to GA because of his incredibly deep government history in the Senate and DOD. --Very Polite Person (talk)22:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The Luis Elizondo article was a total WP:BLP trainwreck until I fixed it. Not only is that absolutely false, it is a clearaspersion against the multiple good-faith editors who edited that article and did not, in fact, violate any WP policies.JoJo Anthrax (talk)22:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Compare to now:Luis Elizondo, and the state I've left it in for others to maintain.
It is impossible to say I did not improve it. There's a thread somewhere here or BPLN where uninvolved people seemed horrified at it's state when I reported it. --Very Polite Person (talk)22:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
VPP omits some important details here. Starting on or about 2024-08-25, VPP certainly made a great many edits to theLuis Elizondo page. Their final edit to the page during that epoch wasthis, on 2024-09-19, which included in the edit summary the false claim that an editorrestored a WP:BLP violation. Less than ten minutes later VPP wasblocked for one-week for, among other things, POV-pushing in this topic area. Shortly afterward, as evidenced onthe page's history, several editors began actively editing the article, resulting in a significant amount of newly addedWP:PROMO andWP:UNDUE content being removed.JoJo Anthrax (talk)02:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@ජපස: I am deeply concerned that the discussion on whether Leslie Kane (BLP) can be described as a "UFO-enthusiast" has been given as evidence of some kind of problem in VPP's editing. It is entirely appropriate to request for sourcing for a BLP. JPS seemed to be arguing for a while that their descriptor of a BLP subject did not require sourcing as it was common knowledge, and then asking VPP to provide them with a source for their own edit![150] When a source appeared, YPP immediately accepted it. I can't fathom what JPS is doing here, all they needed to do was add a source to the page and yet instead they chose to argue for an hour and only then source the claim they wished to see in the article.[151] Come on JPS, you know that when someone challenges an edit, especially when it is with a cn tag, the first thing you do is source it.--Boynamedsue (talk)06:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Are you "deeply" concerned? Perhaps you can explain what is so deep about that concern? I never argued that the descriptordid not require sourcing as it was common knowledge. I argued that it was already sourced with the sources already present both in the article in question and in the linked article. The CN tag went up quite a bit after the talkpage discussion was started. Check the timestamps.jps (talk)19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The talkpage discussion started with a discussion between Chetsford and VPP, after which VPP added a citation needed tag at 01:59 on the 15th of May[152]. Chetsford had proposed some sources that he thought might support your edit, and VPP was not entirely sure whether they were enough to support the claim. This is absolutely fine from both users as it's not up to VPP to support your edits for you. Chetsford and VPP then talked some more, but no source supporting the quote was added. You joined the discussion at 18:13 on the 15th and made 8 more very argumentative posts before adding the source that justified your edit. In one of those edits you accused VPP of lying, because he did not accept thatWP:5P was a justification for adding the word "UFO enthusiast" to a BLP (it isn't).[153]. Your debating with him looked confrontational and was certainly did nothing to reduce the amount of time spent on the debate. If it had been me, I would have added the source, put the direct quote on the talkpage and simply said "it's what the source says, we follow the sources." To me that discussion looks like a failure on the part of two users to discuss in a constructive way, though only one was aggressive and it was not the one who might have the excuse of inexperience.Boynamedsue (talk)20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
In my estimation, you are free to argue thatWP:5P it not justification, but I also think that in this pluralistic community of Wikipedians, you are also tasked to accept that I am also a member of the community and am allowed to hold the alternate opinion wherein I like to quoteWP:5P. I'm fine that you would have taken a different approach in the conversation, but I don't think that making a moral judgement and implying deep consternation with my approach (which I see as basically being like, "Hey, this is best for the reader, doncha think?") is somehow inimical toWP:ENC or whatever.jps (talk)21:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Support the proposed topic ban as one of the people who had to waste their time correcting VPP's extremely misleading statements in the RSN thread. -MrOllie (talk)
It's an article about a proposed law, that I helped make and prune, and didn't even make a fuss when it got redirected away. I'm incredibly open about what I do--look at my user page. I write articles about topics related to national security, science, classification of data and related doctrines, and laws related to the same. Like I said, the weird hostility I get is just... weird. For adding source and insisting on people sticking tightly toWP:BLP?
Is thereany issue with my editing onChristopher Mellon; if so--what? Or that law article? Or is this all down to my not letting people steamroll theLuis Elizondo page onWP:BLP terms? The drones one was a hot article at the time, like the stupidDOGE one for government, and I helped on both--again, both in my natural interests. I don't list either on my page because I dipped in for a few weeks and dipped back out. --Very Polite Person (talk)21:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Support. Hopefully with reassurance that "broadly construed" includes the current RSN thread, lest the same argument come up again.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk22:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Just the note I did "look into" the situation before pressing the post button. This isn't about the rights or wrong of the topic area I would hope editors wouldn't confuse the two, but the concerns I have coming from the RSN discussion. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Whatever curious hang ups some of you have about all thisWP:FRINGE stuff, I think I'm done with the walled garden some of you want to curate, to whatever ends. I don't care. You guys are way too intense for no obvious reason. Both Mellon, Elizondo and RSN are off my watch list. I'll be busy building science/law/some history articles mainly.Field propulsion andAbigail Becker andBorn secret andJoint Geological and Geophysical Research Station hopefully to GA soon. If anyone wants to help, I've got a list of articles I'm focusing on, on my user page. --Very Polite Person (talk)22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - I admire VPP’s passion for the subjects his detractors are so determined to silence him on, and find it fascinating how determined they are. I’ve been around a long time on Wikipedia, and have seen a shift in the last 8 years on the subject in the worldwide media, and in the U.S. Congress. This shift appears to have a serious effect. It’s my feeling that VPP provides a welcome balance here at the ‘pedia, and I hope others casting !votes here will look a bit into the history before they hit their publish button. Please note that although I created theAdvanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program article way back in 2017 using mainstream reliable sources, and put some effort into the Elizondo article’s BLP issues, I consider myself a neutralist on the subject, have many other interests on the Wiki, and find reverting vandals much more rewarding than getting into the weeds on this topic. If VPP has had enough, we should take them at their word and close this with no action, as I see it. Cheers and best wishes to all!Jusdafax (talk)22:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to silence VPP. If they wanted this to go better, especially on RSN, they could have chosen to be more honest in describing the dispute. It would also be helpful for them to use some of that "determination" to follow the guidelines about trying to find honest consensus instead of throwing out constant references to policies along with walls of text to bludgeon other editors.MilesVorkosigan (talk)22:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
'Refer to ArbCom Let ArbCom (whose members I assume are neither pro nor anti-UFOs) analyse the situation from a non-partisan POV.Some1 (talk)23:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Support the proposed topic ban - VPP's obviousWP:OWNership andWP:TENDENTIOUS behavior is wasting the time of experienced editors. Talk aboutintense, look through the history atChristopher Mellon with their barrage of edits featuring needlessly aggressive edit summaries and relentless Talk page argumentation that is classicWP:CRYBLP. And this same behavior continues atLuis Elizondo,The Sol Foundation, etc. I think TBAN guardrails would help relieve what has become an ongoing problem.- LuckyLouie (talk)
I would not have supported a topic ban prior to the situation atWP:RS/N today where it seemed like VPP was rather intentionally leaving out important information in order to get the response they wanted. This UFO silliness is becoming a real time suck and VPP's tendency to elide even that it is UFO silliness is honestly making it worse. As suchreluctant support for a topic ban.Simonm223 (talk)23:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose based on further reading of the expanded discussionNeutralWeak OpposeReluctant Support withpreference for a Threshold Banbased on comment by JoJoAnthrax, I am again modifying my !vote, this time to Neutral.As someone else pointed out, VPP said they intend to approach these articles with a lighter touch. Therefore, I change my opinion here to oppose. Any ban is unnecessary based on their commitment to proceed with greater caution and prohibiting them from this (or any) topic is no longer necessary in light of that statement. No editor should be banned from anywhere except in the most drastic circumstances which this does not seem to be. (The OP's move for a TBAN was well-presented and done in GF as it was made prior to this new information from VPP.) (the threshold being completion of all challenges in theWP:ADVENTURE at which time the ban will automatically rescind with no further action required by VPP), notingJusdafax's comment that VPP brings both an apparent awareness of sources on this topic, as well as a fresh perspective we should welcome. That said, aside from the issues identified in the OP, there have been instances of insertion of rather fanciful claims into UFO articles that -- generously -- ride the edge of beingWP:FAKE sourcing (sources that do not support the content inserted). At a surface level, these may appear to be nitpicking over wording. However, there is a chronic issue with UFO editors who sometimes unintentionally aggrandize UFO articles to align them with the stories of celebrity UFO mythmakers through subtle shifts in phrasing. A couple non-exhaustive examples:
VPP inserted into theChristopher Mellon article the claim that Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency".[154] When I asked him for a source for this extraordinary claim, he pointed[155] to a source that said Mellon once "examined the books" of the NSA.
After the Mellon article was deleted at AfD he did yeoman's work in rebuilding it, and even kindly asked me (as AfD nom) if I objected to its recreation; I said I did not[156]. But some wording advanced more phrases aligned with the UFO mythos than reality (e.g. Mellon's "tenure in the Senate" -- Mellon was never in the Senate -- which I corrected here[157] / This was sourced to this[158] which never referred to his "tenure in the Senate" a phrase logically reserved for senators, and not employees of senators).
Underno circumstance should these warrant a ban, as they can each be resolved through Talk discussion. The problem that arises is that, when editors engage in discussion threads with VPP, they are sometimes met with a broadside ofWP:BATTLEGROUND responses which disinclines such discussion, to wit:"accept... the rejection of your position"[159],""admit you lost""[160],""You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity"[161],"Do you agree to my terms?"[162], etc. These all come a few weeks after a block[163] over behavioral issues. A threshold ban is the least onerous ban possible and provides a non-punitive opportunity for an editor to enhance the impact of his contributions, without meaningfully restricting his access to the project (which is something we should avoid in all but the most dire situations).Chetsford (talk)02:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC); edited 04:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC); edited 15:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC); edited 07:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Support TBAN from UFOs broadly construed. Enough is enough. VPP's numerous behavioral issues in this topic area, as presented by several editors above and which do not seem to be recognized by VPP (even after their week-long block for the same issues), have become far too disruptive.JoJo Anthrax (talk)03:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'll AGF and take their word that they are walking away from this shitshow. I certainly would. Seems like to me this is punitive, rather than preventive.Isaidnoway(talk)06:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per my above, specifically: their recidivism in returning to pretty much the behavior that earned them a one-week block a few months ago—from the record as "Bludgeoning, edit warring, POV pushing, WP:IDHT behavior"—although with added faux-civility and sealioning (responses usually involve swathes of text verging on the bludgeoning: [153], [154] (which includes gems such as ""Consider youself warned" (!!!)), and not forgetting what started it, along with lying about Swatjester's "suggestion" that was never made. They're a classic example ofWikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Also noting that they have now been notified that they're editing a C-TOP.Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi08:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose JPS added unsourced content to a BLP, a discussion occurred about the content, JPS added a source and YPP accepted it. No revert was made. Why on earth is this here?Boynamedsue (talk)06:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
How did you determine it was not clearly identifiable? Did you try to identify the source yourself? Do you have a diff where I refused to identify a source?jps (talk)21:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. There are some issues here, but I'm more than a little worried that this is being blown out of proportion by the larger context of this thread. I would have a hard time justifying that, on the basis of behaviour that is roughly equivalent in terms of overall questionability, almost all of us were unwilling to sanction an established user to even the extent of a temporary page ban, but we will nevertheless give the OP an indefinite topic ban from the entire area. And looking atone of the discussions that jps references, I have to say that I am nearly as unimpressed with their approach as I am VPP's. CitingWP:5P in response to a request for relevant policy justification for inclusion of a piece of content feels frankly lazy and obstructive, considering that namespace contains no policy language itself but is rather just a listing of the pillars.On the other handVery Polite Person, I also can see why jps didn't exactly feel like bending over backwards to accommodate a heavy conversation with you on the merits. First off, there was no need to cite their name in thread title and come at them so hot in that discussion. That is never the right way to set the tone for resolving editorial differences of opinion. And, more to the core issues here, that you needed any explanation for why Kean's status as someone who is largely notable for her connection to the topic of UFOs when discussing her involvement with matters pertaining to UFOs feels willfully obtuse and is indeed an indication that you are capable of bringing disruption to this area. For the record, the two most relevant policies that come to my mind in answer to your query of jps areWP:WEIGHT and, not altogether unironically,WP:OBVIOUS. But there must be a dozen other policy pages or sections that might have been cited there. I also think there is something to the concerns that have been raised here about how you frame your level of engagement with this topic. Considering your time on the project, you have pretty substantial contributions to this area. You may not perceive it as a core interest that brought you to editing on Wikipedia, but I think you are being disingenuous when you claim that you don't understand why your interest in the subject matter is being framed as it is. If you're planning on moving away from these articles as you say, I think that will be helpful in establishing your bona fides as an editor with broader interests, but as it stands, I don't think anyone erred in how they described your contributions. That said, I don't see enough in terms issues here to justify topic banning you at present. But it wouldn't take many more situations like that Kean discussion for me to reconsider that. And that is worth bearing in mind when you consider I am one of a minority opposing the TBAN as it stands.SnowRise let's rap11:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
CitingWP:5P in response to a request for relevant policy justification for inclusion of a piece of content feels frankly lazy and obstructive, considering that namespace contains no policy language itself but is rather just a listing of the pillars. That is apersonal attack, as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you could strike it. Calling my actions "lazy and obstructive" is a pretty low blow. The five pillars enjoys along history of being referred to as rationale for what we do when we try to improve the encyclopedia. If you don't want the five pillars referred to in discussions that ask people to justify their actions with policy, feel free to gather consensus for such a position at thevillage pump. But we are tasked with tolerating differences here without trying to label these differences with these kinds of bad faith assumptions.jps (talk)19:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I won't be striking anything, and bluntly, your propensity to attach the allegation of "WP:personal attack" or "WP:aspersion" to any observation that your own conduct in this dispute was suboptimal or problematic, even when it comes from a respondent community member uninvolved in the underlying dispute, is now getting into outrightWP:BATTLEGROUND territory. Nor have you engaged with the point being raised for you in good faith:Of course the five pillars as individual policies have vast amounts of longstanding community support. That is not in dispute by anyone here, nor does your response address the actual substance of the point I very clearly detailed: citingWP:5Pthe namespace to an editor you are in a content/sourcing dispute with is absolutely useless, as that space is merely a collection of links to the pillars and contains no policy language itself. How was VPP to possibly know which of theliterally hundreds of very important policy principles found within those five collectively massive policies you were asserting against them?I'm sorry, but your argument on this point is absolutely ludicrous, and if you honestly are trying to assert that citing 5P was a sufficient argument to support your point in that (or any) detailed content dispute, I am forced to judge only one of two things can be going on here: 1) you are being deeply disingenuous (and yes, obstructive) about knowing how lackluster that response was, or 2) there are seriouscompetency issues in how you approach citing policy and community consensus in editorial disputes.SnowRise let's rap23:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
How did you determine that I was in a content or sourcing dispute? I thought it was clear in the conversation that we had a consensus point that Leslie Kean was involved with UFO discourse. The question came back: "What policy supports your position?" My interpretation. You are free to have another. But what you are basically claiming is that this interpretation I am offering right now is so incorrect that it does not deserve agood faith acceptance for it. Instead, I am "lazy and obstructive".Civil discourse is in the eye of the beholder and I, frankly, took offense to your characterization of my actions. Like it or lump it, that's how I see it.jps (talk)12:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. But I do think you are taking the criticism harder than you should. For starters, just because I describe a particular decision or action in a certain way should not be taken as a criticism of your character or fitness as an editor generally. There's a reason why I spent much more time criticizing VPP and why I expressly indicated that I could easily see myself changing my position and supporting a TBAN for them if they continue down their current path on this topic--and had no inclination to say anything similar about you. In fact, I went out of my way to speculate that it was actions on VPP's part that got you in a posture to be terse to begin with. Nothing I said was meant to imply that you are the source of the issues in this dispute.But I still do have to judge VPP's conduct, and whether it justifies community response, in the light of the broader context. And if I think that another party's approach to the situation even partially explains or ameliorates how VPP, as the party being brought here for oversight, approached that situation, it's necessary to say how. And in my opinion, while VPP set the stage for that locking of horns, there is some blame to spread around in terms of the poor communication.SnowRise let's rap22:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I apologize if my taking this as a criticism of my character went against your intentions. I guess I was feeling frustrated generally and felt that not only was it confounding to deal with the conflict when it happened but now I was being told that I handled the whole thing poorly made me feel a bit like I was in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't sort of scenario. This is not an unfamiliar space for me to be in at Wikipedia and I find that if I just ignore it, sometimes I miss an opportunity to learn. I will say that I have learned from our interaction even if I am not sure I could quite see the way to interact the way you and Boynamedsue seem to be recommending I interact. I will keep trying, though!jps (talk)13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you jps: for what it's worth, I get where you are coming from--and specifically, having dealt with similar situations where conspiracy theory credulous meatpuppets, mobilized on an external social media platform, have been flooding a topic area, I get how that situation wears down one's patience for going all in on being pro forma and dotting every 'i'. To be clear, I'm not saying I have any reason to believe that VPP is a part of that coordinated campaign, but the impacts on process and editor patience/time for the niceties always eventually seeps out into the broader discussion, when that kind of mass bombardment is taking place. I do think that, as this thread as a whole demonstrates, it's necessary to be on guard against letting our own individual communications be degraded as we attempt to keep up with the amount of response necessitated by such a game of whack-a-mole. The unfortunate reality is that working in restraining policy-noncompliant woo boosterism often requires an extraordinary level of patience and forbearance. There's an old saying: kill them with kindness. I think we can adapt that idiom for anti-fringe work on this project: kill them with competence. Meaning, the more the bad faith actors swarm and put us under pressure to deal with their numbers, obstinacy, and lack of understanding of this project's rules and methods, the more meticulous we should be in citing and following those same rules, as this will (eventually, and not without considerable effort, I recognize) undercut their efforts, and maybe even genuinely educate a few of them. But I understand that is sometimes easier said than done--especially when the saying is done after the fact, by someone looking at the issue with the benefit of hindsight and not exhausted by recent interactions with the SPAs and gamesmanship. In any event, I'm glad for the opportunity to clarify that I didn't mean to come off as stridently critical of you personally, and I appreciate you taking my reassurances as to that in the spirit they were intended.SnowRise let's rap20:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment With respect toVPP said they intend to approach these articles with a lighter touch (from@Chetsford:,above) andIf you're planning on moving away from these articles as you (VPP) say (from@Snow Rise:,above), perhapsthis comment by VPP following their September 2024 block is worth a read. The point being that similar promises were previously made by VPP (specifically,can I ask now again for unblock if I stay off from editing the page in question and just discuss on talk?), and yet here we are because VPP has repeatedly displayed thesame disruptive behaviors in thesame topic area that led to their block.JoJo Anthrax (talk)14:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment: have people participating in the discussion read the sources in the article? VPP rewrote it and so they presumably have, and also JPS cites the sources, but I feel like some folks have read only the discussion.
Above,Boynamedsue says "JPS added unsourced content",Zanahary opposes sanctions on the same grounds, andSnow Rise comments on "request for relevant policy justification for inclusion of a piece of content".
In the talk page discussion, VPP writes: "I encourage someone to properly source the claim lest any editor can immediately remove it with the full authority of WP:BLP behind them." They repeatedly bring up the idea that it was"unsourced" to described Kean as a "UFO enthusiast" or "UFO proponent". Since VPP has almost certainly read the sources cited at the end of the sentence as the article's primary author, then they know how those sources describe Kean:
After the mid-sentence citation was added, VPP writes, "No editor is authorized to put unsourced content into a WP:BLP. That's it. I was being deferential and gracious to you and allowed you to explain the edit. You had no need to launch this entire ambiguous debate. Good day. I will consider further engagement on this settled matter to be disruptive."
BUT VPP continues, "Sure. Never insert unsourced data into a WP:BLP again, please, as well."
They have never given (that I see) any kind of clear answer on why they made some minor disagreement on wording into this very personalized dispute. I'm not asking for a topic ban right now because I think most editors find ANI scrutiny so aversive that being reported itself feels like punishment, and the editor has seemed to move away from the problem area, but that entire discussion feels bizarre and disingenuous,Rjjiii (talk)17:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
VPP was polite and did not personalise the dispute, JPS, less so[164]. JPS could have done what you have above, and indicated a source or sources. Or they could have added a source when challenged instead of arguing the toss. Let's not forget, VPP had not deleted the claim, they had added a citation needed tag. You don't get to just ignore a request for sourcing on a talkpage.Boynamedsue (talk)17:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Right. There is an element ofWP:ONUS here; it is not on VPP to prove that the sourcing does or does not support a given claim added without a source.That's not the order of operations here. If someone disputes an addition on a straighforwardWP:V basis on aWP:BLP, it is unambiguously on the proponent to demonstrate that the sourcing burden is met. Now, where we get into more of a grey area is where VPP then concedes that sourcing has been met to verify the fact, but insists on having a policy explanation for why it is due in the description of Kean in the Mellon article. It's here where other parties might start to become justified in feeling that lines are starting to be pushed. Because, to be sure, in form, this is just a typical part of the discussion process. But this is such an obvious call once theWP:V issue is resolved that I can understand if the other parties felt like they were dealing with either a stonewalling or a competency issue. I AGF that this just reflects the lack of experience of this editor, and I would say that jps' response may have been too dismissive of the policy inquiry even for these circumstances, but yeah, in the final analysis I think there is a point where VPP crossed the line into IDHT. I also had previously missed the last two comments Rjjiii quotes immediately above. There are definitely notes of an air of authority and self-presumed position to unilaterally reject edits that present hints of anWP:OWN attitude there. I mean, VPP is correct on the policy consideration that was being discussed there as a technical matter--and Rjjiii kind of selectively quotes them and strips away meaningful context that supports their position (i.e. the fact that they are essentially saying "Now that a source has been provided, I am not opposing this, but at the time that it was added, there was no source.")--but VPP's tone was still so presumptuous and imperious at that point as to send up red flags. Particularly given that other aspects of that discussion demonstrate that they are still coming to grips with some basic relevant policy burdens. So I stand by my assessment: nobody looks good here, and it would not take a whole lot of extra behaviour in this vein for myself (and I presume others) to change our minds about whether VPP can be a net positive in this area. But at the present time, I think a TBAN is not supported by the way this situation played out, particularly given VPP is not the only party to the dispute who could have handled it better.SnowRise let's rap22:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
When someone else tells you that the sourcing is there (it was there), it is the height of arrogance to claim it was not there. I don't think the citation I added was necessary, but out of a courtesy, I added it.
Wikipedia is a shitty enough place without this kind of nonsensical officiousness. This was what I was complaining about. If you don't think nonsensical officiousness is a problem, that's cool. We can have different opinions about what the best way to interact at this website should be.
As to the self-important, domineering attitude, I get it. That's why I made a big point of noting above that the tone of some of VPP's comments go a long way to explaining why you were giving short shrift to your responses to them. Even before you made a point of mentioning that as a factor, it was obvious to me. And a reasonable and predictable response--to a point. But it's one thing to be curt or minimally responsive. There comes a point where you can't cut any more corners if you want to contribute meaningfully to the discussion/editorial reslolution without exacerbating any existing issues. Until you can be bothered to provide a cite for a given statement, they are entitled to insist the unsupported content stays out until someone does. 99 times out of 100, that's just the name of the game here. Do I get why you think they came in hot on you? Yes, absolutely: 100%. Is that the end of the analysis as to why this tempest in a teapot needlessly escalated? No.SnowRise let's rap04:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
"Until you can be bothered to provide a cite for a given statement," sure, but there weretwo citations at the end of the sentence.Rjjiii (talk)05:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Right, but I don't believe that VPP was contesting theWP:V issue by that point. The description in question was unsourced for a short time, which is when the argument got under way--and way too intense, way too fast.SnowRise let's rap07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@BoynamedsueJPS could have done what you have above, and indicated a source or sources. Or they could have added a source when challenged instead of arguing the toss. Please stop casting aspersions. The sources werealready in the article, other sources were listed in the discussion, and I addedyet another source immediately after the CN tag was placed in the articlespace. I would appreciate that you stop impugning my actions and motivations as it seems you have not clearly read through the discussion.jps (talk)20:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Sources being in the article is not good enough, it needs to be clear which source is supporting the claim. It is not anybody else's responsibility to read through all the sources on the page to find if one is relevant. There was a citation needed tag which you chose not to resolve, instead preferring to bicker aimlessly for an hour. This is a really basic failing which, for me, is utterly baffling. --Boynamedsue (talk)20:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
it needs to be clear which source is supporting the claim On what are you basing this imperative?jps (talk)20:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Right, so to clarify you are sustaining, even when a claim in an article has been challenged, it is not necessary to be able to identify the source which supports that statement?Boynamedsue (talk)21:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't tell if that is an answer to my question. If it is, I guess you are either saying
That a claim was clearly challenged. To be clear, I still don't understand what exactly is contentious about Kean's connection to UFO literature, but perhaps you see it more clearly than I and can explain it... or...
that I was unable to identify the source which supports the statement. But I am stating that a totally acceptable source is right there at the end of the sentence.
In either case, I remain flummoxed and while I don't expect you to champion the cause of another user, you are impugning my motives here and aggressively accusing me of acting inappropriately at least, so it would be nice to get to the bottom of what exactly you find so objectionable about trying to add some clarity to the explanation of who exactly Leslie Kean is and why the reader should care.jps (talk)21:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
There was a citation needed tag which you chose not to resolve, instead preferring to bicker aimlessly for an hour If you check the timestamps, you will see that I made two comments about the sourcing madeone minute and three minutes immediately after the citation needed tag was added. I hope you will indulge me that I was replying on the talkpage and not checking the articlespace for recent diffs for those first two. But I will cop to having made two statements after the citation needed tag was added, but before I replaced the tag with another citation:[165]. As such, I object to the characterization of my actions as "preferring to bicker aimlessly for an hour" when, in fact, it was less than 30 minutes from the tag being added to my insertion of a (pointless, in my estimation) cite immediately following the phrase and these diffs is the sum total of the conversation that I was contributing in the meantime.jps (talk)21:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I see that the time was shorter than an hour, which does make things less problematic as I can agree you might not have understood that they were requesting direct evidence to support the claim. But I hope you can reflect on that discussion. You did not enter it constructively, throwing downWP:5, without even a quote, when asked for justification for inclusion is simply unhelpful. Then making accusations ofWP:SEALION andWP:CIR when somebody rightly points out you haven't answered their question in any meaningful way is really shoddy. And the accusation of lying is exceptionally confrontational, alongside using words like "clueless" and "mislead". Yes, you were in the right; the claim was really easy to source. But that's what made it all so unnecessary.Boynamedsue (talk)22:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
We seem to be at a stark difference of opinion about whether I answered their direct question meaningfully. I tried to opine with perhaps too much brevity that the reader deserved a clearer explanation of the sources provided by describing Leslie Kean as more than just a "journalist". Exactly what words we used to explain her UFO predilections, I tried to be clear, was not something I cared that much about. What I saw as theimmediate response to this was, "WHAT POLICY ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE THIS OPINION?" And I'm like, "all of them"? Seriously.
I tried to explain later what I think went wrong. If VPP had said, "I think this statement is contentious because people find any connection to UFOs to be contentious, so is this something sourced?" I guess I could have pointed to the source at the end of the sentence? But I thought it was obvious that was the source until the point the CN tag went in. In any case, apparently adding yet another source in place of the CN was good enough, and I didn't care enough to have theWP:OVERCITE argument.
What it sounds to me like you wanted was someone not to push back on the kind of officiousness that implied that no way but VPP's way could be the right way. That was what I was getting out of that conversation, and I don't buy the argument that the person invokingWP:BLP gets to make demands and act like they own the place.
'it needs to be clear which source is supporting the claim' On what are you basing this imperative?
WP:BURDEN:"All content must be verifiable.The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all ... material the verifiability of which has been challenged...". (emphasis in original). Note that WP:BURDEN also includes a footnote noting that the issue is not whether the source is in the article or not: each individual dispute places the burden upon the proponent to demonstrate sourcing support for the claim in question. What's more, even once the WP:V issue is resolved, you still have anWP:ONUS requirement to achieve consensus for inclusion.So Boynamedsue is absolutely correct about who, between you and VPP, was responsible for the legwork of supporting their position with a directly on-point source, and you are demonstrably incorrect. I'm honestly surprised you are not familiar with this requirement, as it is a longstanding and prominent feature ofWP:V. And beyond that, I'm curious: even if this were not a requirement under policy, why wouldn't you just provide the source if you knew it was in the article, especially considering you ended up wasting several times as much effort in back-and-forth broadsides on the talk page instead? What is the point of that? It certainly doesn't help your case now, after the fact, when you want to assert that the other editor was not only disruptive, but so disruptive that the community should take action.SnowRise let's rap23:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Would making this a more general point clarify matters for you? Let's say that there is a sentence in an article: "Living Person A is a B". Two sources are at the end to support the statement. The sources also indicate that, aside from being a B, Living Person A is a Bof type C. I add an edit that says "Living Person A is a Bof type C". Another editor comes in and slightly changes the words, but the main point stands. A discussion on the talkpage is started where this addition is challenged with the argument that this edit is a "BLP violation". In addition to the sources already in the article, another editor provides a list of even more sources that identify Living Person A as being a B of type C. No real contestation of this characterization happens in the discussion, although some of the sources are discussed (not the ones in the article). Some days later, I return and basically say, "I think it is a good idea for us to include thistype C characterization to help the reader." The response from the editor who started the conversation comes back, "what policy supports you?"
That is how I see what happened. Is that what you think happened? If so, please let me know where I went astray withWP:ONUS.
You didn't provide a basis for your edit in policy when asked for one. The simple way to do this was "Reliable sources use this language, here is the quote. In fact, as this is BLP, here are several quotes from different sources." Instead you simply asserted your edit was correct according toWP:5, and started accusing another user of sealioning for not understanding your reasoning without you having explained it. You then used the length of the useless debate, which was largely useless because you had refused to defend your edit substantively, as evidence against another user at ANI. This is where you went astray.--Boynamedsue (talk)04:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Again, as we identified above, you and I are at a difference as to whetherWP:5 counts as a "basis in policy" or not in this context. Just to be clear: I really did feel like my edit was done in the spirit of following the five pillars. I briefly thought about citingWP:ENC instead, but felt that 5P was a bit clearer in describing my state of mind. Itfelt like a high-level question. It did not feel like a question about reliable sources.jps (talk)18:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't pretend to have read every word of this discussion or its background, but I get the impression that Chetsford has been worn down by dealing with the flying-saucer-conspiracy-theorists. If they were banned from this encyclopedia as soon as they should be, rather than allowed to continue their disruption, then I doubt that any such issue would have arisen.Phil Bridger (talk)10:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
If they were banned Sorry for being slow, Phil (see my user page) but is "they" Chetsford or VPP? Do you support or oppose a topic ban for VPP (the Chetsford topic ban proposal was decisively resolved in the previous section).JoJo Anthrax (talk)12:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
If so, I have a response above (14 May, in response to Silverscreen) which explains why whack-a-mole blocking is insufficient in itself to substantially stem the issues in this area.SnowRise let's rap13:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
I recall the UAPDA article and what atimesink that was for editors. An "Act" never passed into law despite VPP's insistence that it had been. I don't know if all that was due to misrepresentation of sources or misreading and lack of competence, but either way it creates a burden for other editors. I think at least a warning after that episode would have been appropriate if not a topic ban. Anyway, support a topic ban now.fiveby(zero)19:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
It continues, continuing I note that despite VPP's claims to the contrary (e.g.,here), they have, just yesterday, decided to continue particpating in this topic area,now by proxy and with the ironic, self-contradictory claim thatI don't want to be involved in this further and will not. The simple fact is that VPP cannot and/or will not stay away from this topic area, and based upon their pre- and post-block behaviors (as evidenced above in this discussion), there is no compelling reason to believe their disruptive behaviors would not continue therein.WP:PACT seems relevant here (YES, I know it is an essay), but far, far too much editor time has already been exhausted by VPP's disruptive behaviors. It needs to stop.JoJo Anthrax (talk)14:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I mean, let him have last words towards an editor who's working on the same topics he used to.
VPP didn't state how or when he was gonna fully leave the topic, and, from the very edit you showed, he is just tying up his loose ends.
calling for a ban based on this single edit That is a total misrepresentation of my post. By the way, how is it that this is your only edit ever to enWiki?JoJo Anthrax (talk)19:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
It's a rotating IP. No edit history means nothing in these cases. But, yeah, this isn't a good-faith read of the concerns people have.Simonm223 (talk)19:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't followWK:GF. I think my reply would be better without the last paragraph. About the edits, I'm a newbie who's been following the VPP/Chetsford thing (and also diving into policy pages in the meanwhile, lots to learn!).2804:214:8742:52C5:213B:CB11:424C:C65B (talk)23:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Agree with closure, disagree strongly for "no consensus." There are twice as many editors supporting a topic ban than opposing it, and I note that several of the "oppose" !votes are based upon trusting VPP to "walk away" from the topic area. VPP has made no such claim, writing only thatI think I'm done [with the topic area] (quote fromhere). And even if that claim really and truly was a promise to avoid the topic area,they have already broken that promise.JoJo Anthrax (talk)17:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
My count does not show a 2:1, but that's not really the major reason why I don't think consensus can be found here. The issue is that nine support !votes is very weak tea for a community sanction, especially when there is substantial contention that it is necessary and a lot of evidence has been presented that other parties whom we summarily let off without action (including the one originally reported here) contributed to the overall disruption. It's not exactly a good look if we let off the veteran editors with trouting and then penalize the reporting party, who has less than a year and half of experience with our rules, for behaviour that is roughly equivalent in disruptive influence--and which involved justified complaints about process and no brightline violations of content policies or WP:CIV.So, I have to agree with Bushranger here: I don't see how a closer could reasonably find the necessary level of consensus for a sanction in the above. Now, can I tell you with confidence that I don't think VPP will be back here in three months for similar dogged and problematic behaviour in this area? No, I must admit, I think that remains a not altogether unrealistic possibility. But taking the totality of the circumstances here, I think the result of this whole affair should be a (very short) length ofWP:ROPE.SnowRise let's rap21:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
My count does not show a 2:1 Mine does.nine support !votes is very weak tea It isn't nine as you claim, it is 12, not counting the latest!vote !votes at the bottom of the page. But...whatever. Of course this isn't astrict numerical counting exercise, so I'll just note that my commentshere andhere stand.JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Strike and edit.JoJo Anthrax (talk)18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE, and IMHO the fact the original report-ee not only originally only weakly supported a minor sanction but has changed to full oppose over the course of the discussion weights fairly notably. -The BushrangerOne ping only03:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Again, The Bushranger and Snow Rise are making a strong case for a “no consensus” close. The real question is how much longer this trainwreck will continue to twist in the wind at the top of AN/I.Jusdafax (talk)06:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Per JoJo Anthrax. There's clearly a consensus that VPP's behavior has been persistently sub-par in this topic area (howeverpolite) and that it is best for the project that they should be removed from it. (If of course they have walked away from the topic as they claim, then the t-ban won't affect their editing anyway.)—Fortuna,imperatrix17:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I mean there's obviously notclearly consensus, as several people believe there is no consensus. There might or might not be consensus per our policies, but if it's there, it's not clear. Especially given this whole incident has been triggered by pretty poor behaviour from two more established editors, and the quality of argument counts as much as the !votes.Boynamedsue (talk)12:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Support VPP's not a net positive in this area and it's clear from this topic, and the supporting diffs, that we're just going to be back here endlessly.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment I can't believe I read through about 85% of this enormous discussion. The whole discussion is stale and everyone has moved on. A variety of different editors have been the focal point and I'd prefer this discussion just close as "Over" (call it "No consensus" if you must). This discussion just needs to be closed and archived.LizRead!Talk!03:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support TBAN. Looking at this whole mess (these whole messes), enough is enough; a sanction will probably help reduce time being wasted in the UFO topic area.Bon courage (talk)04:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I came here after sifting through the drama and aspersions at a related AfD nomination. I am very sympathetic to the support votes and it is clear that VPP needs to be much more cautious about future behaviour. With this being said, it is clear to me from the competing TBAN proposals and the split in positions on this TBAN proposal,that the community is divided. I agree with Liz: for now, it seems folks have moved on. If things stay that way, great. If things devolve again and VPP continues to be disruptive or there is recurring drama between these two editors, then the next move will be torefer to this to ARBCOM. The only conclusion I have reached from reading this mess of a discussion is that the community is unable to resolve the issue.FlipandFlopped㋡14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Support TBAN - The UFO editors have all shown themselves in this ANI thread to be willing toWP:BLUDGEON andsealion endlessly whenever their actions are criticized, and when (not if) this becomes a problem again we will go through the same headache. personally I think an indef and CBAN would be justified but I'll settle forWP:ROPE.Psychastes (talk)16:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: For all you thinking that VPP is going to go gentle into that good night of avoiding UFO topics,here is a draft article they are writing which strongly suggests otherwise. In the interest of keeping the peace, I will not go through and machete it or nominate it for deletion as a draftWP:POVFORK ofReactionless drive, but if the community really is unable to see why this account is a problem given their apparent inability to stay away from UFO topics, I'm not sure what more evidence y'all need.jps (talk)14:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
True. Completely unclear given the tags whether that article should be separate from reactionless drive or maybe even deleted.jps (talk)20:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
VPP is under no sanction or obligation not to edit any "UFO topic", much less his own sandbox. I think he could do with a break from it, as could you, but that's not particularly relevant to the matter at hand.Boynamedsue (talk)21:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I've edited no "UFO" article since walking away from Mellon. I suggested to Hemiauchenia they look at one source for something in talk while the above bizarre attacks on me unfolded, and I have spoken with Chetsford several times on my and his talk page as he was looking into sourcing something obscure I found on the Mellon article. I'd note that basically the "state" in which I left Mellon (which I authored) and Elizondo (which I repaired) are basically unchanged. Especially Mellon--I'm apparently a problem there, but I never opposed any edits by others, and no one has so much as touched anything I wrote to date, which implies it has no issues.
Field propulsion is a poorly written article that I began collecting sources for in 2024. I have no idea in what universe anyone reasonable or with any subject matter awareness could possibly frame it as "UFO stuff". It's dead center in the normalaerospace things that I already do and have edited since I joined--spaceflight stuff particulary. Calling it "UFO stuff" is like calling "NASA" a UFO topic.
Anyone can click here to see my lifetime contributions, and how I "edited" UFO stuff in a few bursts here and there and only on a handful of articles. I honestly have no idea why this discussion is even still going or what anyone's goal is. If it's to somehow exclude me from anything to do with aerospace or government or intelligence articles, it would be absurd to frame that as "UFO" stuff, and there is no rational reason to "banish" me in any event. While all the above quibbling has been going on, I've been busy creating new articles, which have nothing to do with "UFOs" (one,two,three,four new articles in less than a month). If these folks are this distressed by my presence a few times on the Elizondo article, swell: you guys win. I don't ever want to look at that stupid page again. --Very Polite Person (talk)22:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Above people were !voting with the argument that VPP had said he was stepping away. I guess now VPP is reiterating a commitment to step away except not field propulsion which, to be clear,does have obvious UFO connections. Look, even NASA says so! :)jps (talk)23:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Of the 100+ sources to review as I go (not all of them are even on that page yet) which I spent half a year collecting (and didn't take notes along the way), I guess it's remarkable you immediately found the one that mentions UFOs. They're all academic papers and NASA collateral and similar. I don't know what kind of article you would write, but I was going for the discussed technologies such as already deployed in tests byJAXA and actual science. If you want, go write a UFO article if that's interesting to you still. I was writing (another)aerospace article draft about the science and engineering. --Very Polite Person (talk)23:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I doubt anyone is still paying attention, but reactionless drives of this sort form part of the UFOlogy extended universe as all theHal Puthoff,Bernard Haisch, etc. arguments forfree energy conspiracy theory-based antigravity physics. That isn't to say there aren't mainstream ways to speculate on such things, but it's not as if this is something likeion thrusters ornuclear powered space travel. I willassume that you maybe did not know this, but it is not like this subject is a vanilla aerospace topic.jps (talk)15:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I suspect you are behind the times on the advances of research in this space (I noticed you are an academic of some sort on astronomy? Or something similar? I'm more on the engineering side/applied sciences side) and the fact that NASA and other bodies and companies are actively building and deplying field propulsion technologies and sciences into space. These things are flying over our heads, in space,today.
This is real mainstreamaerospace engineering, not fringe, not whackadoo, and certainly an AU away from anythingWP:FRINGE, except for this weird little corner of the topic:
Read the draft, and the tone. I have no idea what kind of article re-write youthought I was doing, but it's a serious dry professional FA-targeted aerospace article. I don't even see why I'd have to bring up those people by name. Each sub-topic, I assumed, would have a "main" template, 1-2 paragraphs on what the "thing" is historically > overview and basics > future if any > done. If a sub-topic lacks a page, the 'new' field propulsion, as the sub-sections get beefy enough over time, will trivially fork to new stubs/small articles with new main templates and then the article's basically done.
What did you think I was even doing with these? Look at the pages on my home page. Have you evenlooked at what I write, beyond hyperfocusing on me adding positive info about the AARO Kirkpatrick fellow, trying to remove one BLP violation on Elizondo, and sourcing Mellon?
This is a very good example of why you should not be contributing to these kinds of topics. You are either using OR to redefine field propulsion, or selectively choosing some definition (which is currently uncited) in order to include well-accepted technologies and be able to claim the ridiculousThese things are flying over our heads, in space,today. in response to jps's point about reactionless drives.fiveby(zero)16:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
What on Earth? I'm going to rather absurd slow lengths to source and reference everything in my draft page, very transparently. This is something I've barely begun working on comepared to where it will finish. That content will be in my sandbox up to a year, I suppose, because it's not the only thing I'll be working on.
{These things are flying over our heads, in space, today.
My evolving and adjusting as I go definition on mydraft notes in myuser space is by what the definitive experts and papers say, because that's not OR or synth. If the guy who coined the term writing for NASA says x tech is "field propulsion", and then other highly cited papers decades later seem to say them same, it's fair to say that "x tech has been identified as field propulsion since 1983...", there is no OR or SYNTH there.
I don't understand why everyone is in a tizzy about this all of a sudden?
This is literally modern advanced aerospace stuff. On a scale of first outdated tech, old tech, mature tech, newer but solid tech, advanced tech, bleeding edge tech, proposed tech... modern SpaceX/NASA going up in the sky today is newer to advanced at most for the crazy StarShip experiments that keep blowing up. Some of the early field stuff like tethers are already mature. The newer ones are being tested in space and some satellites use them for small adjustments. Field science is basically where rocketry as we define it today... was, I dunno, 1948-1952? 55?
Were you guys expecting likepoltergeists in my article or something? Seriously... read my other aerospace pages I have listed on my user page. This is just the same thing I already do, with a lot more sections. And then I can use this mother ship as a feeder to build more articles over the years, like why shouldn'tSolar sail andHall-effect thruster be FAs later? If you guys were wondering after my agenda, there it is.
I don't know how many times I have to say it. There's patently nothing wrong withChristopher Mellon, and I removed more content fromLuis Elizondo than anyone ever added (AFAIK) and both the versions basically sitting there now for six weeks since this entire headache began are effectively unchanged. Because I left them in solid shape. Thta's all I'vebeen doing. I drove some people to be angry, I guess, because I threatend a cold heavily sourcedHarald Malmgrem (which others beat me to), and then I did the same withChristopher Mellon through AfC. I proved it was notable -- it would have easily sailed pastWP:GNG andWP:SIGCOVwithout the UFO sections, because when I was done, I literally did that -- I removed the entire UFO section in a draft. He was still trivially notable. The UFO stuff was not even necessary for notability.
Whatever this ongoing beef some in this community have with "UFO stuff", I'm just the guy throwing down brick and mortar from RS and I'm not really interested in all this fighting. I find something worth adding, I add it. If someone wants it gone, cool, pitch the idea, and I'll agree with you if you're right. "My fighting" was one event over a BLP concern a year ago. People are mad at me because I keep sourcing things, for all I can tell. --Very Polite Person (talk)00:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The field propulsion utilizes the mechanical property of space- time possessing structure (continuum mechanics in the view of the macroscopic structure, statistical mechanics in the view of the microscopic structure). However, a propulsion using the momentum thrust generated by an independent matter, such as plasma, ion, and photon with unrelated to the structure of space-time (or pressure thrust induced by mutual interaction with an independent matter, such as plasma, ion, and photon with unrelated to the structure of space-time) is not applicable to field propulsion. The pressure thrust in field propulsion is different from the pressure thrust in solar sails and light sails induced by receiving the pressure of light.
This is a common bait-and-switch tactic employed by pro-fringe editors.
No offense, but I have zero idea who you are and why you're coming at me extremely aggressively out of nowhere, and insulting me. It's feeling a bit out of line.
I'm not even sure of what I'm being accused of baiting and switching anyone at all on my sandbox page that is still in terribly early assembles notes, data and struture stage for myfield propulsion rewrite. Are my notes not in compliance with some policy? Which? --Very Polite Person (talk)02:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you linked that 1983 study byBraddock Dunn & McDonald and have so heavily cited it in your draft. It only mentions field propulsion twice other than the title, and that is a short summary ofa different study from 1972. It was an enjoyable read tho, some real gems but especially liked the nuclear powered battlecrusiers Space Command would have by the year 2000. I didn't bring up your draft, you did, to support your claim thatThese things are flying over our heads, in space,today. The bait is accepted technologies such as solar sails, hall-effect thrusters, etc., the switch is to then say this is "field propulsion" and let me tell you about all the new and exciting reactionless drives coming to a future near you!
As far as who i am, i'm just someone who hangs around FTN and reads the occasional reference because i dislike when editors mislead or misinform readers with the citations they provide. Remembered you fromthis waste of time and so commented in this thread. Keep seeing further examples which demonstrate why you should get a topic ban.fiveby(zero)05:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)VPP, I can appreciate your frustration, but I don't think that fiveby's comment should be taken so personally. They are expressing what seems to me to be a sincere concern in a fraught area. That said, Fiveby, I do think you are overstating the case. "Field propulsion" may be a buzz word embraced by physics-illiterates with delusions of little grey men, but it is first and foremost a genuine technical term of art that describes such non-fringey topics as literally everybeam propulsion proposal studied in the last century. It's an entirely legitimate field of inquiry, however much some of the technical venacular may have been co-opted by people with more familiarity with the X-files than relevant STEM education. And unless someone can provide more specific concerns about VPP's approach to this area, accompanied by diffs explaining a need for them to not be involved in such technical topics, I think it's time for people to drop this particularWP:STICK. Because the concerns raised about their approach to articles about these technical topics have been long on hand-wavy fears, but lacking any specifics or evidence about their engagement in relevant articles, that I have seen.SnowRise let's rap05:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose TBAN for now, basically per Snow Rise. On the actual content dispute, VPP was very clearly wrong, per Rjjiii. However, if you ask for sources, and your opponents fail to give you any sources and instead simply insist it's obvious that an allegation against a BLP is well-sourced, then that's not fully on VPP. Especially saying someone is wrong by linking toa page that essentially summarizes the basic rules of Wikipedia is not helpful. If JPS had responded similarly to Rjjiii above and VPP then kept POV-pushing, that I think would be clearly worthy of a topic ban. But that's not what happened.Loki (talk)22:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I haven't read about this dispute, but I know a certain good-faith mistaken answer when I see it.Jimbo Wales hasn't been involved in conduct disputes or content disputes on the English Wikipedia for more than a decade. This also doesn't appear to be a dispute that the community is unable to address that requires arbitration. But the suggestion to take a dispute to Jimbo Wales is completely off the mark.Robert McClenon (talk)16:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Support topic ban. If it is indeed an area they rarely edit, as claimed above, then being topic banned from it should be no inconvenience anyways. But it's quite clear that blatant POV-pushing and UFO fringe claims are being pushed, not just by VPP, but by several others. Any and all fringe pushing should be actively put down. It is that exact sort of misinformation peddling that we should be excising from Wikipedia. And it doesn't help that fringe editors in one area are almost always fringe promoters in most other fringe topics as well if they ever enter into them. The conspiracy theorist bleed-over effect is a major problem.SilverserenC17:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
blatant POV-pushing and UFO fringe claims are being pushed, not just by VPP
To my knowledge, you're the first person to bluntly say I'm pushing "UFO fringe claims".
What did I, and where, and when? Keep in mind I tend to edit in bursts, and will as often toss in two sentences from a source, only to pull out a quarter or more of each the next edit a literal minute later. So if I did this, I'd like to see it, and especially where I didn't remove it myself after. --Very Polite Person (talk)00:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The aggression that this topic generates among wikipedia's sceptic community is astounding.But it's quite clear that blatant POV-pushing and UFO fringe claims are being pushed I would suggest that no firm evidence of this exists.not just by VPP, but by several others. Argument byWP:ASPERSION. I willWP:AGF and assume this is not an unevidenced dig at those of us who view VPP's behaviour as less problematic than you do. Actions of mysterious unnamed clique members, assuming these people exist, are not the responsibility of VPP and should not be considered here. I would ask whoever sums up to ignore this comment.Boynamedsue (talk)05:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully, Silverseren, I doubt you (or any of us) would be quite so easy going about a topic ban if it were our records as contributors on the line. Bluntly, the "if they don't intend to contribute in this area, the topic ban is harmless" canard has been repeated far too many times in this thread already. Such sanctions have huge implications for editors: They impact how other community members view the user. They can be (and invariably are) leveraged by rhetorical opponents in further disputes, particularly in behavioural discussion spaces. And they can be used to try to preclude editors from contributing in adjacent areas where they'd be useful contributors. In worst case scenarios they can discourage parties so much that they quite the project altogether. If nothing else, they can be rightly felt by the person placed under them to be a scarlet letter and a millstone.For all of these reasons, these sanctions (and let's remember, a TBAN is a CBAN), are not meant to be applied without a strong showing of need. Now, a reasonable difference of opinion exists among the un-involved respondents to this thread as to whether that burden has been met here. And though I think those driving for a sanction should take the hint that after weeks of this, no admin has felt comfortable closing with a consensus to sanction, I respect that those taking that position are doing so because they believe it is in the project's best interest. Fair enough. But the argument that a TBAN is a harmless result for VPP is fallacious and should not be taken seriously, no offense intended.SnowRise let's rap06:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
UserTiti7000 (talk) has been disrupting theAso Olona page, they added sourceless information to the page 3 times against advice, and when I pointed them to read theWP:BURDEN page on how wikipedia uses sources, they simplyremoved reliable sources contrary to their opinion, without opening up any discussions on the topic or providing any proof for their claims.
Hello,Sohvyan, I don't see where you gave them any advice about their editing, at least, there is nothing on their User talk page. Where did you offer them help? They are a very new editor.LizRead!Talk!01:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
They left lengthy edit summaries on their edits, so I used the same format to communicate rather than a direct message to their user page. In retrospect, a message on their user talk page will be the better way to communicate.Sohvyan (talk)02:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
This is a general comment because it is so very common...but it's a bad idea to carry on a conversation through edit summaries. And if you are going to leave a message on an editor's User talk page, it is much more likely to have an effect if it is a personally written message than a template. I think most editors just skim templates and don't even read them. A personal note is more likely to get a response.LizRead!Talk!04:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparent misuse of a clean start by User:Ultra 348 (now User:Bio8738)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Bri,MilesVorkosigan,Danners430,FOARP, andTurboSuperA+: I am pinging you since you recently participated inthis WP:ANI discussion. Right after Bri notifiedUltra 348 (talk·contribs) about the aforementioned discussion on 27 May 2025 (diff), the latter apparently dropped their 21-month-old account, and on 2 June 2025 createdBio8738 (talk·contribs). They continue with the same bot-like editing behavior, and in one of the few cases where they were reverted (such as byEem dik doun in toene inTurf Moor), they edit warred without providing anymeaningful reason. In the span of eight days they have made just shy of 3,000 edits, and there is overlap in 421 pages; their changes are very similar (EIA). This appears to violateWP:BADSOCK, particularly through the misuse of a clean start. –Demetrios1993 (talk)23:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, there is no overlap in usage of the two accounts so I don't think you can call it sockpuppetry. That doesn't mean that there aren't issues with their editing but it's not considered socking.LizRead!Talk!00:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
PerWP:CLEANSTART:if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring, or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized (as a "sockpuppet") and connected to the old account, and will be sanctioned accordingly. It doesn't expliclty say "behavior" in addition to "articles or topics", but if it was clearly done to evade scrutiny, it's a sockpuppet account. -The BushrangerOne ping only02:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked both for disruption. Ultra was exclusively on proxies and Bio's data indicates similar but not so obviously. Check was inconclusive, but behavior is pretty obviously there.Izno (talk)02:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is one of several that have engaged in COI-like behavior in the past several months on articles related to the companySmilegate. Seethat article's history andtalk page.
Advanced gameboy made a draft for a related companyDraft:Smilegate Future Lab. After the draft was rejected, they ignored the rejection andmoved it to mainspace themselves. I posted on their talk page with anotice about COI, and they did not reply. I also nominated that article for PROD because of the suspect circumstances around it; still no reply. At least they didn't try to delete the prod.
Another article,Draft:Orange Planet was also similarly rejected by AFC. It's (surprise surprise) also related to Smilegate. After the rejection, they just went ahead andmoved it to mainspace.
Think it's almost certain there's COI going on here. They're also ignoring feedback and refusing to engage with others. Think would save us time to quickly block and keep an eye on future Smilegate COI editing.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)05:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I have majorcompetency concerns with this user, and it's obvious to me that their English is not good enough to be editing English Wikipedia, and that they've created a mess that other editors are gonna have to clean up.TheGrandDelusion(Send a message)16:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I can't see anything about either issue on their userpage, but if this user is either very young or doesn't have English as a first language (or both) then we may see an improvement. One of the drawbacks of working in the world's most popular language is that many people over-estimate their English skills, and get offended when you question them.Phil Bridger (talk)16:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
So far, nothing I've seen from them has convinced me that they can edit Wikipedia in a net positive manner, as evidenced by their edits to the articles I mentioned above; the spelling and grammar mistakes they introduced are still present as of this typing.TheGrandDelusion(Send a message)16:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
So far, The Grand Delusion, I haven't seen any effort from you to communicate with the editor to discuss the problems that you see with their editing. As has been said before, ANI is the last resort after other attempts to resolve problems have failed. Did you talk with them on an article or policy talk page because I see no edits from you on their User talk page. Did you suggest that they find another Wikipedia project in a different language to work on?
It isn't fair to choose not to communicate with an editor and then to seek for them to be blocked. You skipped over all of the intermediate steps of looking for other ways to resolve this starting with talking with the editor.LizRead!Talk!19:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
User:Behappyyar and AI-use
Behappyyar(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is clearly usingWP:LLM to generate new articles, and it seems they aren't even reading the content they are writing. For example, check their recent article,Salahuddin Satti: Reference #2 points to an entirely unrelatedDawn article, Reference #3 is dead despite citing an archived version, and Reference #4 is missing details such as the page number (this suggest that AI is randomly citing references).
I recommend to rejecttheir request to become autopatrolled and review all ninety-odd AI-generated articles and move the low quality, LLM-toned articles to draftspace to save volunteers' time. Bot-like creation of articles on weak notable topics only creates extra work for volunteers. I even support forced AfC submission if there is consensus. Thank you.2A10:D582:A86C:0:F541:6D4F:59:E706 (talk)03:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I haven't looked at anything other than the single contents the postretirement section but this purported "gotcha" is more complicated than it seems. I'm also not commenting generally on the editors behavior but want to be cautionary about drawing simplistic conclusions.
The relatively short sentence:
After retiring from active service, Akram was appointed as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission in 2013, a position he held until 2018
contains several assertions
Akram retired
Akram was the chairman of Punjab Public service commission at some point in time
Akram was appointed chairman in 2013
Akram's as chair ended in 2018
The source with the date of 2016 supports assertion 2, but is silent with respect to assertions 1, 3 and 4. Where should such a reference be placed? If it was supporting assertion one but nothing else the probably should be placed after the first comma. If it supported assertion 3 (and by implication assertion 2), it probably belongs after the second comma. If it supports everything it belongs at the end. If it only supported assertion 4 belongs at the end. One might argue that if it only supports assertion 2, it belongs after the first punctuation symbol, the second comma, but I wouldn't be surprised if opinions vary. Placing it at the end seems acceptable.
In other words, while there may well be legitimate issues with this editor, the observation that a 2016 citation appears in a sentence that has an assertion about 2018 seems thin gruel.S Philbrick(Talk)14:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by thislong-winded(sorry - bad choice of words) elaborate reply. As Isaid above, this might just be an example of bad referencing in general. Possibly the ref was badly dredged by a LLM, or possibly the editor just omitted 75% (by your count) of required sourcing. I mention this in conjunction with the other concerns listed above, and suggest not making a meal out of this single ancillary item. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)14:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree. I support hatting everything beyond the OP, so that other readers can concentrate on the important substance. I don't feel comfortable doing this myself but if you're willing to I support it.S Philbrick(Talk)18:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
No, I don't think this item needs to be removed from view just because you chose to stretch out my already stated reservation at paragraph length. --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)05:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Salahuddin Satti is mentioned in source [1] (slightly different spelling), but the Baloch regiment comes from a different person also covered at that source, and the rest appears made up. Can't access [2]. The information attached to [3] is not in that source, but bizarrely, the actual topic of that source, the subject's involvement in the1999 Pakistani coup d'état, is not in the article. [4] has clearly not been used, it has dates that contradict the sentence framing. Source [5] is source [1]? And also doesn't relate to the text. And there is unsourced text. There's no complicated gotcha here.CMD (talk)12:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Have some time, so Sajjad Akram. Source [1] is literally just a picture, it does not support anything. [2] does support the text in the first section, but not the second. Also, weirdly the source date seems made up. The date for [3] is also bizarrely wrong. Can't access [4], google isn't finding it. [5] checks out fully for its small statement, and its different date format makes me wonder if it's not a later addition. [6] does not support the text.CMD (talk)15:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, that's now an even stronger explanation for the made-up dates and possibly the inaccessible sources.CMD (talk)02:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
@CMD, Thank you CMD and others for your detailed review of the articles. I appreciate the feedback and take the concerns seriously.
I want to clarify that the articles were not AI-generated. I wrote them myself. In some cases, I did use ChatGPT only to help identify possible references, especially when the information was hard to trace — but I understand that even suggested links must be carefully checked.
I now see that some of the references used were either weak, unrelated, or inaccurately formatted. That’s my responsibility, and I am actively reviewing and correcting the issues. I’m also open to removing or revising any unsupported claims.
Thank you again for pointing these out in good faith. I remain committed to improving the articles and ensuring they meet Wikipedia’s sourcing standards.
I hope you realise that this clarification doesn't make any sense. How can you write it yourself if the sources were unrelated? Please stop using AI entirely, including in your responses here.CMD (talk)10:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
@CMD I understand the concerns raised here and I want to sincerely apologise for creating a new article while this discussion was ongoing. That was a serious oversight on my part, and I take full responsibility for it.
To clarify my previous comments: I have not used AI to generate full article content. In a few cases, I used ChatGPT only to help suggest possible references when the material was difficult to trace — but I now understand that even this limited use can lead to problems if the results are not carefully verified. Unfortunately, some references were not properly checked, and I acknowledge that this resulted in mistakes. I am already reviewing all of my recent articles to fix these issues.
I now recognise that AI tools should not be used in any way on Wikipedia unless fully transparent and thoroughly reviewed. I will stop using them entirely going forward, including in discussions.
Please allow me the opportunity to correct these errors and demonstrate that I can contribute responsibly and in line with Wikipedia’s policies. I appreciate the feedback and am taking it seriously.
I understand. This response is written by me personally. I have just tried to explain my position clearly and respectfully. as I know there are serious issues being discussed here. I'm no longer using ChatGPT for any Wikipedia-related work, including replies like this one.Behappyyar (talk)20:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Almost all ofHako33's edits on 4 June were undiscussed page moves to use the English-language name of mainly Spanish-language sports venues (in violation of consensus) that were reverted. Hako33 was also involved in a pagemove war last month involvingRCDE Stadium which resulted in the page beingtemporarily move protected, andappeared not to understand how they were being disruptive. There were also a lot of undiscussed pagemoves on 1 May changing the titles of non-English-language stadia that should probably be changed back, but I will wait until this discussion has concluded; it is my understanding that as long as the alphabet used is Latin in nature (like Spanish and French), we use the native name of the stadium for the main article and provide an English-language redirect and the translation in prose. Hako33 was warnedmultiple times during the May pagemove war that such behavior is disruptive. Apart from the apparentWP:CIR and/orWP:IDONTHEARYOU issues regarding undiscussed pagemoves, Hako33 seems to make constructive edits, so I think a block on their ability to move pages is sufficient. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)14:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that I made a mistake by moving the stadiums using the English-language name of mainly Spanish-language sports venues. The reason of these moves is that I found many stadiums' names such as Santiago Bernabéu, Metropolitano, Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán Stadium ...etc using the English-language. I think there is no need for a block because I will pay attention in the future.Hako33 (talk)16:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
These are good moves, this isn't the Spanish wikipedia and articles should be titled in English. Just looking at one of the (reverted) moves shows good evidence this is the actual English name and not just a translation the user made up. A topic ban from page moving would mean the user isn't allowed to propose moves either. This just seems like another Wikiproject clique bullying a good-faith user based on made-up local rules that go against site wide policy (such asWP:USEENGLISH).206.83.103.232 (talk)01:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
USEENGLISH is a guideline, not a policy.WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable policy, and the common names I see in reliable sources for sports stadia tend to be the native language. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)15:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
@Bladeandroid: "Page moves are supposed to be BOLD", according to? Page moves are supposed to be BOLD when they're notcontroversial. That's exactly what @Hako33's moves seem to be lately.BRDude70 (talk)21:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Systematic ignoring of "discuss articles, not users"
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ahriman the Exile(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)continuespersonal attacks despite repeated requests to discuss articles instead of users, anattempt at an official warning actually resulted in a response in the style of"no you".Another example. I tried to assume good faith for too long and tried to explain to the user several times in a row that the authority of the source is not absolute and that if the source is generally considered authoritative, it does not mean that any of its material in any situation is considered authoritative. As well as the fact that a simple statement about the obviousness of a fact cannot serve as an excuse for refusing to search for authoritative sources, also giving an example when I was "forced" to search for RS on a fact that seemed obvious to me. But the user seemed to perceive this as disrespect for him and simply began to openly accuse me of not agreeing with him and that I refuse to accept his position due to bad inclinations. At some point I ran out of patience and I directly let the user know about it. Of course, they took advantage of this and only became more confident in discussing me instead of the topic of discussion. I am tired of endlessly leaving the latest Chinese warnings and asking the user not to base their arguments on personal attacks and comments addressed to me, so I am creating this request.Solaire the knight (talk)21:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
First, what do you mean by "Chinese warnings"? Second, this is just a content dispute. The other user is being rude, but this does not require administrator intervention.EvergreenFir(talk)21:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
China's final warning. I just don't know what to do, since this dialogue has simply gone nowhere and requests to stop discussing me and finally find really suitable sources seem to have caused even more antagonism on the part of the user.Solaire the knight (talk)21:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Those are not personal attacks. You keep telling Ahriman not to make the dispute personal, but as was correctly pointed out in the discussion, you made the dispute personal with your comment about how you had to go and find sources regarding an unrelated topic. That said, Ahriman's tone has been a bit rude. You should both avoid each other and move on.voorts (talk/contributions)21:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, this remark was too emotional on my part. But as I wrote above, I was confused by the very fact that first I was required to find a source for a fact that I consider obvious, I find it and it is still deleted, but then another user leaves something in the article based on "obviousness" and no one says anything about it. When I tried to remind the user that in some cases sources are not required, I was accused of condoning original research altogether. That is, I found myself in a situation where I am expected to provide sources for any statements, while other users can wage an edit war all day long and rewrite text based on pure "because it is so" and no one cares about it. The request to protect the article was ignored, an attempt to discuss it on the discussion page ended with this request.Solaire the knight (talk)21:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
In response to this I will say that I tried for hours to reason with @Solaire the knight and provide genuine discussion as I was eager to put the issue to rest.
I'm new here here as an editor but I'm a long time reader and genuinely wanted to help the articles credibility.
I instead became the target of @Solaire the knights frustration with other users and was attacked and blamed for them removing @Solaire the knights edits.
Even when politely reminded them that such aggressive behavior appears to have gotten them into trouble before, the actions continued, at which point I provided more citations, only to be bullied on my talk page as I tried to leave the discussion.Ahriman the Exile (talk)21:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
It was never my intention to come off rude and if I did, I apologize
The problem is that I explained to you several times that authority is not absolute, and explained why the source you cited was not relevant to us despite IGN's overall authority. I even suggested outright that if the issue really was that simple, you shouldn't have any problem while find better sources. But you ended up just accusing me of rejecting sources for bad reasons, etc. And when I specifically asked you not to do that, you simply mirrored it. Yes, I was guilty of getting emotional and responding rudely myselfs, but you simply ignored my attempts to continue the discussion and didn't listen to me when I tried to explain to you why I didn't agree with your source. In the end, you only tried to find other sources at the very end,and at the moment I am the only one evaluating them.Solaire the knight (talk)21:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Your reasons/responses didn't read "discussion" to me.
They read "nothing you show me makes any difference because I want to get my way since my edits were deleted", which is why I got upset.
I also think that appointing yourself as the "only one evaluating them" is a bit of a stretch, as others have already edited it better than it was.
Regardless, as I said before, I'm no longer interested in discussing this as it has got me riled and I'm adult enough to know when I can't leave emotion out of a conversation.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I tried hard to explain to you why I didn't think your source was suitable, but you not only ignored it, but also tried to explain it away as my bad inclinations. When I predictably reacted emotionally to this, you simply took it as confirmation of your opinion. Just understand that disagreement with your position does not mean antagonism towards you personally, and if your source is criticized, you should either defend it with arguments or try to find another one. The "you disagree with me because you're a bad person" attitude is not only rude, but also directly contrary to the spirit of working in Wikipedia. If you really think that your opponent disagrees with you because of bad intentions, then you can always write about it yourself, with arguments and links to this or that comment. I am always ready to discuss it.Solaire the knight (talk)21:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this request is simply moving towards a repeat of our dialogue and it obviously won't lead to anything good. Responses convinced me that the intervention of the administrators is not required, since we simply mutually refused further communication with each other.Solaire the knight (talk)22:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Mugsalot : Edit warring and disruptive editing
Mugsalot (talk·contribs) is constantly editing articles related to Syriac Christianity in a disruptive and tedious behaviour. On 23 March, I had moved five of the articles of Chaldean Patriarchs[174][175][176][177] from their Anglicized names to normal transliteration to avoid ambiguity and to ensure concise titles per academic sources such asbethmardutho. However the user has stalked me all over the pages just hours before now and has reverted all those moves.
You are welcome to discuss moving articles with discussion in future with references added, which you did not do. It is not stalking to see you had changed the links in your edit.
I have discussed the issue with you onTalk:List of patriarchs of the Church of the East briefly but you have immediately gone to ANI even though I have compromised and retained some of your edits.
You are the one who made controversial changes to the stable version. And then you made concessions? I did not ask for any concessions from you, instead, I urged for consensus. You're not willing to engage with that at all. I am not interested in accepting your arbitrary decisions.Logosx127 (talk)14:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think they have gone past three reverts in 24 hours at any point, although you have ifthis is a revert - however, this isn't really relevant (see below).Black Kite (talk)14:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Since both the editors here have reverted six times in the last couple of days atList of patriarchs of the Church of the East, I have pblocked them both from it for a week to see if that makes any difference to a discussion on the talk page. If that edit war spills onto the other pages mentioned we can look at further sanctions.WP:BRD genuinely means what it says - bold, revert, discuss. It is notWP:BRBRBRBRBRBRD.Black Kite (talk)14:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
@Black Kite: My request is to restore the status quo ante. I am someone who has stepped back from the edit war and come here seeking intervention from administrators. Therefore, I firmly believe that this request should be considered.Logosx127 (talk)14:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Just a standard edit-warring block, unless anyone wants to upgrade it (I hadn't even noticed the subject was a CTOP, to be honest).Black Kite (talk)14:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
True, I realized that I should have been here earlier. I also reverted many times. But I don't think that is an obstacle to restoring the status quo.Logosx127 (talk)14:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Logosx127, you are attempting to revert to text that was changed 6 months ago. That's old enough to represent current consensus perWP:EDITCONSENSUS. Also, there's nothing wrong with reverting undiscussed page moves, which yours were.DeCausa (talk)14:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
@DeCausa: The edits Mugsalot made were not discussed. Meanwhile the changes I made were about three months ago. So in the same parameter, it should as well represent consensus, right?Logosx127 (talk)14:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
You didn't make any changes 3 months ago. Your last edit to that article prior to 7 June 2025 was 15 July 2022.[184] Mugsalot's edits in January don't need to be discussed for EDITCONSENSUS to apply. To me, 6 months in an article pretty much makes that the stable version.DeCausa (talk)15:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I meant the moves that I made in 23 March to articles of individual patriarchs, which were left untouched until the current dispute with Mugsalot just started two days back.Logosx127 (talk)15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, this isn't the place for discussion of a content dispute and it isn't really relevant what the "correct" version of the article is. You both need to stop edit warring and get to the talk page to talk through the issues and find compromise. If that's impossible, thenWP:DR is your friend. — Amakuru (talk)15:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
First, clarify what discussion led to the major changes you made to that article. It was only after this that you reverted the moving of other articles. If your version in the list of patriarchs article represent a stable version, so do the 3 month old versions of other articles that I moved.Logosx127 (talk)15:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Both of you, go to the article talk page and discuss the content dispute there, instead of continuing to bat this back and forth here and risking further sanctions. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed this when I was trying to update the information inExpo 2025 pavilions, when the IPs contradicted sources by listing theTech World pavilion as a official pavilion of Taiwan, as well as listing it as their own zone by itself and breaking grammars[185].
It appears that similar problems, likely caused by the same person, has been happening across multiple pages since the end of May. For example, 220.141.229.213 was blocked for a week for Taiwan-related disruptive edits on ISO, with multiple disruptions on expo-related lists and articles as well. Requesting a wider block to stop them.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here)02:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I protectedExpo 2025 pavilions for 2 weeks, since blocking the IPs isn't going to solve the problem. I'm not seeing arecent consistent pattern on other articles (correct me if I'm wrong) on the various IPs to warrant protecting other articles. So, I don't know that we can act elsewhere just yet. The latest IP stopped editing hours ago, so likely will change again. The IPs appear to be in a dynamic pool. --Hammersoft (talk)02:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I've blocked 220.141.199.154 and 220.141.223.105 for a month as those are the ones that have edited recently. The other two are stale. I've also wholesale undone their edits. Hopefully they get the message. If they crop up on another IP, ping me again. --Hammersoft (talk)13:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent unsourced and unreliably-sourced additions, OR, and no communication.
Resolved
–Indeffed by User: The Bushranger
Unnecessary Editor (talk·contribs) continually makes unsourced additions, additions which are inadequately sourced, or additions which appear to beWP:OR.
And many more across multiple articles, many with a blend of inadequate sourcing and OR which are readily apparent from a spot-check of their contribution history.
They've continued editing instead of responding here,adding more unsourced information:"Approximately more than 280 Launchers and an unknown amount of missiles are on deliveries." Could someone pblock them from article-space to encourage a response?fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)18:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Yep. 330 edits, none to talk pages. Pblock from article space for lack of communication and unsourced edits. Invited here to respond. — rsjaffe🗣️20:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
42 minutes after theblockFirefenyxG makes theirfirstcontributions to Wikipedia at the same page, with theirlatest being the type of unsourced OR mentioned above, saying"(instead of ruining this unit because you don't like it, ask me and I will provide you with proof", which indicates familiarity with having unsourced info removed from that article. Should I open an SPI or is this obvious enough as-is?fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)19:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I think an SPI would be useful. The edit summaries are very different from the original editor, though that may be in response to the concerns about communication. Also, since I bet we're going to see more of this person, the report will set up quicker responses to future puppets. — rsjaffe🗣️19:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
You're now engaged with @FirefenyxG on the article talk page, which is great. Please continue, as that is the best method to solve content disagreements.
@FirefenyxG, note that using videos is rarely acceptable as a source, and definitely not in the way you have been using it in this article. Please find decent secondary sources (e.g., news articles) if you want to make any edits. SeeWP:SOURCE for good information on sources youcan use. — rsjaffe🗣️02:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd call that a legal threatper se, but itis clearly intended to cause achilling effect. Combined with the incivility and aspersions cast there, and the pretty clearmeatpuppetry (based on the result of the original SPI), I'm indeffing as NOTHERE. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Welp. I try to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. At least this user quickly answered our concerns about their value to the project. Pretty shortWP:ROPE. — rsjaffe🗣️02:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Ehs2018
User:Ehs2018 is harassing me, please take a look at the history of my user talk page and all my edits they reverted in the pageJosé F. Escobar (they even mass reverted my improvements there, and never answered my question of why) without any correct justification. I am a good-faith editor and this is making me sad. Thank you.Esevoke (talk)01:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor doesn't appear to care aboutWP:ARBECR, among other things. They havebeen here twice already. They said "Who gives a fuck if I get banned lol". Maybe it's a compromised account. Either way, the PIA topic area could do without editors like this.Sean.hoyland (talk)16:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
What is the reason for filing this report today?
The link in the header does not work.
There aren't any recent diffs provided to show what you are concerned about.
The user doesn't appear to have edited since May 28 and while that edit appears to be contentious, I don't see that it's obviously violated any policy.MilesVorkosigan (talk)17:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
So, we've established that you don't seethe revision on May 28, an unambiguousWP:ARBECR violation by a non-extendedconfirmed editor, as something that obviously violated any policy. That's useful information for you, information about what kinds of policy violations you don't see. You can use that. I'm not really interested in answering your questions. You are not able to block the account. That is the purpose of this report. But I will answer two.The link in the header does not work - the link in the header can be used to access various account related functionality by hovering over it.What is the reason for filing this report today? - I sawthis edit on my watchlist. An account having to revert a combinedWP:ARBECR/NPOV violation that should not have happened in the first place. That led to an examination of Lavipao's revisions, a set of various ARBECR violations, previous warnings and a couple of blocks etc.Sean.hoyland (talk)18:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
It could be used to hover over and see account information if you had entered it correctly, but as I pointed out, you did not. It says 'Thisaccount does not exist'. You're thinking about what it would say if the talk page itself did not exist, but you had entered a valid account.
Your argumentative tone and personal attack are unnecessary, I specified "not immediately obvious" because I didn't want to imply you were wrong, just that you had forgotten to say why you were reporting this account and forgot to include any diffs, expecting other people to do your work for you.MilesVorkosigan (talk)18:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
They did, yes, but I don't want to edit their header without checking, and after their personal attack, I feel no further need to help them.MilesVorkosigan (talk)18:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I have some reservations about this user's past behavior. That said, they have not edited in more than ten days. So this looks pretty stale. Beyond which there are some mitigating circumstances here. The user has <200 edits, making them a novice by any reasonable standard. The page in question has not been protected, there is no edit notice or any other warning about ARBECR applying. And lastly, their edit does not look like deliberate disruption. It strikes me as fair and accurate with proper sourcing. Previous warnings on this issue are also looking a bit stale. My gut says that while this is a technical violation, I would be uncomfortable blocking. A formal caution is probably in order with a topic ban as the next step if this continues. -Ad Orientem (talk)18:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I fixed the header so it should now link to their non-existent User page. They have only made 171 edits in 12 years so I am not sure they will be back on the platform to see this report. They were blocked twice back in December so I can see another block coming to them again if they make an egregious mistake. Sean, you shouldn't be so uncivil to another editor as your initial report didn't contain any diffs to point out what the problems were that you were reporting. They were just pointing that out.LizRead!Talk!19:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Uncivil? Attack? Well, this is disappointing. I just want to get an editor who shouldn't be active in PIA removed. Man alive, is passive aggressive dismissiveness uncivil now? It's taken me years to transition from dropping f-bombs and the occasional c-word to deploying passive aggressive dismissiveness. What next? Am I supposed to be nice? These are unreasonable demands. Repeated ARBECR violations are egregious mistakes aren't they? Admins and other users not treating them as egregious or even recognizing them is, let's say, less than ideal. There's a cost for editors in PIA.
On diffs, maybe I optimistically hope people are curious, look at the revision history themselves rather than rely on an editor spoon feeding evidence that incorporates their selection bias. Bbb23 would probably have already blocked the account, and it would have been a good block. It's not really 12 years. It's 2 edits in 2013, a decade+ gap, then multiple ARBECR violations.Sean.hoyland (talk)03:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
You were warned for personal attacks against MilesVorkosigan above. As for diffs, youmust providespecific evidence as opposed tovaguely waving and sayinglook at the revision history themselves. And your mention of another recently dysopped admin is apalling.WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP. -The BushrangerOne ping only03:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
No, what Imust do is remain focused on the task at hand which is to ensure that the ARBECR rule is enforced in PIA by people who have the tools necessary to apply a cost for violations. If you guys can't help me with that then I don't need anything from you. But I'll add this.while this is a technical violation, I would be uncomfortable blocking...this deserves a comment. My view is that in PIA, where it's not possible to reliably distinguish between new users and ban evading actors/compromised accounts etc. (that write a significant amount of the content), technical violations are violations. Whether an ARBECR violation has merit, whether it is constructive or disruptive, is not a factor. Account age is also not a factor once an account has been told about the rules. Enforcing the ARBECR rules in PIA in the way an uncaring smart-bot would enforce matters because it is one of the few tools available that can positively influence the dynamics of the topic area. While I think blocks achieve very little in practice because account creation is virtually frictionless and there are plenty of tools available to help people rapidly acquire an EC grant, it's better than doing nothing and giving people a pass, as is happening here. That means that the cost is paid by the community in PIA rather than the account that violated ARBECR.Sean.hoyland (talk)04:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, regarding "your mention of another recently dysopped admin is apalling", I would love to explain what I regard as appalling in the way "the community" evaluates and handles important resources like Bbb23, but it is not pertinent to ARBECR enforcement, so I will let it go.Sean.hoyland (talk)04:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
people who have the tools necessary to apply a cost for violation cannot enforcethe ARBECR rule if you do not point out the violation using diffs, which you did not in your original post, and while you did provide one in your reply when you were questioned about this, it was as part of a veryuncivil response to the question, which indeed could easily be seen as apersonal attack by you, and also included the statementI'm not really interested in answering your questions. ANI does not appreciate it when someonethrows a grenade and runs away. When you report someone at ANI, your reportneeds diffs illustrating the conduct that brought you to ANI. That's notspoon feeding evidence that incorporates their selection bias. That's giving admins a pointer to the problem so that their time is not wasted having to hunt down the problem. Please keep this in mind for the future when you need to report someone at ANI. -The BushrangerOne ping only07:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Whoof. Your demeanor here is extremely hostile for someone wanting action taken against another editor. You really fancy lashing out like this is the best way to get people to investigate and deal with potential problems? Ravenswing12:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Onel5969
Closing before a Boomerang lands. There is nothing that rises to the level of ANI here and no indication that One has acted in such a way that problematic behavior will be found.StarMississippi12:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi there, honestly, I'm not sure if this would fall into any category but in my opinion,User:Onel5969's editing and responses to various editors might be doing more harm than good. I'm not the only one who is noticing several of the problems with him asRamaxel has also noticed it as well. I'm a good faith editor and being honest here, his behavior towards editors is not only disrespectful but also very snobbish.Unknownuser45266 (talk)04:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I am sorry,Unknownuser45266, but administrators do not act on vague, generalized complaints like yours. You will need to furnish specific details and actual evidence of misconduct, usually in the form ofdiffs.Cullen328 (talk)06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
In regards to that, Here is the evidence from various talk posts in response to the user's edits.
I see nothing at all wrong withOnel5969's conduct in any of those links you provided. In fact, I find his responses to be courteous and professional. There is nothing actionable here.Bgsu98(Talk)07:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Jim is right,Unknownuser45266, you have to provide examples of edits/diffs that display the conduct you are objecting to so that other editors can evaluate your argument. Also, I hope you posted a notification on the User talk page ofUser:Onel5969 as that is a mandatory step for opening a complaint here. You must notify any individual who you bring up in a dispute on a noticeboard so letRamaxel know as well. There is information about these notifications at the top of the page and on the edit notice when hyou are leaving a post here.LizRead!Talk!07:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Since I was invited by @Unknownuser45266 to talk about this matter, I am going to speak a few words.1. Unknown you have to understand the position of admins as they are obligated to keep this place clean and healthy. I hope you understand what I am meant. Also since you are new here, you might misunderstand rules and regulations of Wikipedia, which are not much but strict, so keep yourself aware. 2. You are somewhere right that his behavior is not outright justified. He is deleting more than 1000 bytes of edits without asking anyone or coming into consensus. This is not healthy for someone like you, as you came here (wiki) with idea of mutual collaboration. I can advice you to talk about this with 3O and DO NOT ATTEMPT EDIT WARRING. Someone more experienced might note his behavior and do what is appropriate, until then have some patience.
which are from independent, reliable sources, then the GNG requirement is not met. So yes, I am doing a service to the project by keeping crap off of it. That being said, don't post on my talk page again.. I am sorry seriously? This kind of behavior toward other editor is not right, especially for admin.Wh67890 (talk)07:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I have informed Onel5969 of this discussion, as the OP still hadn't done so. I haven't looked into this deeply, but considering their complaint is that Onel5969 is "disrespectful",this doesn't look particularly respectful either. The OP's user page issimilar.Here, Ramaxel and the OP discuss how to deal with Onel5969. From what I can see, their complaints mostly centre around Onel5969's removal of unsourced material and original research. Also, whilst the OP didn't inform Onel5969 of this thread, theydid canvass 3 people to it with comments likethis.Black Kite (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Black Kite (talk)07:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Unknownuser45266, I see nothing in the diffs that you provided that would justify disciplinary action against Onel5969. They are all instances of an experienced, knowledgeable editor trying to ensure that Wikipedia's content aligns with our policies and guidelines. Also, you failed to inform Onel5969 of this discussion as required, after leaving a series of threats and insults on their talk page. That's very poor form.Cullen328 (talk)07:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I would like to address that Onel5969 also had insulted me as well in their responses when they said "don't post on my talk page again". Despite not knowing much about the topics as Wh67890 has brought up. I would've wanted a detailed explanation from them regarding this and possibly to assist but they decide they want to play the insulting game and instigate it themselves.Unknownuser45266 (talk)07:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
But the behavior in which they gone about it was. This is nothing new as they have repeatedly made comments similar to this to other people including to Wh67890.Unknownuser45266 (talk)08:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
including to Wh67890 I actually take my behaviour responsibilities too, as i have already mentioned in that talk page I was exhausted, normal for a scholar. But yes his behavior is not right, especially after his edits and actions. He has 997,xxx edits which make me believe that now he must have enough sense as to how to talk to an inexperienced editor. I dont want to say much about this but nobody, not even @Ser Amantio D Nicolao should behave like that, as this will not help Wikipedia and infants wikipedians. However, Olen is a page reviewer so a diverge class of people will meet him in his talk page, and with no certainty we can predict which is right or wrong, that being said, I think this is just misunderstandings between two editors (normal part of Wikipedia), please do not escalate this too much.Wh67890 (talk)08:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
No it is not an insult but it is against what the hell we are doing here. Saying "Dont....." is not a great way to fix issues and reach consensus. Especially toward an inexperienced editor this kind of message is not going to fly, as he will take it personally.
Taking "Don't post to my talk page again" -- inexperienced or not -- as a personal insult is a sign of having a dangerously short fuse for editing on Wikipedia. I expect an editor who's been around for five years and has nearly 5000 edits not to have such a short fuse. Ravenswing11:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The root may be that Unknownuser45266 thinksWP:OR should not be applied to their area of interest as that lacks sources (I speak on behalf of the fans of Juggalo Championship Wrestling who feel as though they have been ignored in the industry and the pro wrestling media despite the promotion's many accomplishments.[194]) and OP has insider knowledge (e.g. edit summary:Also, I have insider knowledge from people who attended the Joliet, Illinois show that the fan attack incident happened at,[195] an edit reverted by Onel5969).NebY (talk)10:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I've read over the diffs supplied and don't see any thing meriting disciplinary action against Onel here, administrative or otherwise. Sure, a few times where he maybe was a bit too eager with BLARing, but overall I'm not seeing much of concern.Eddie891TalkWork08:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
One editor BLAR'd an article, another reverted it, and a third sentence it to AfD. That's not editing warring it's just the normal process.The article in question isJCW Lunacy for anyone interested. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment - Sorry to be here. Thank you toBlack Kite for alerting me to this discussion, since Unknownuser45266 did not feel obligated to, despite it being a requirement. I've asked this user not to post on my talk page, since they appear to have difficulty adhering toWP:CIVILITY, including to fail to understand that accusing someone of vandlism, where there is none, is one of the earmarks of incivility. And, as been pointed out above, they also appear to not understand the principle ofWP:OR, since they have admitted to including such on at least one article, and feel justified in doing so. Regardless, have a good day everybody.Onel5969TT me12:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Chingcong9999
Concur with Czello; editor indefinitely blocked forWP:UPOL violation. I've also warned them about their insulting behavior and attempts to own a page. If they return and continue such behavior, please re-report. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk)13:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chingcong9999(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has beenpersonal attacking and insulting editors in their edit summaries, making tendentious edits and POV–Pusing in multiple articles, mostly related to Bengal since their initial arrival on Wikipedia. Most of their edits are reverted for POV–Pushing or being unsourced or other good reasons, see their contribution:[196]
On getting reverted atSarkar (surname) for removing content without any explanation, They accuse other editors of spreadingfalse information and threatens toBan their account from editing the page[197].
Recently I reverted their edit atDeva dynasty for not providing any source for changing content[205] and instead of citing any source they called meilliterate and used“everyone knows it's true” as an excuse to revert me[206]
Same atVanga kingdom, Instead of citing any source they saidSource is available on Internet, sultan is ill!terate it's not my problem... (refering me as sultan)[207]
AtPala Empire, They removed sourced content (mention of a religion and cited efn citation) and replaced it other religion with anon-existent efn citation[208][209]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For your information: UserGabel1960 (talk·contribs) is under investigation in de.wikipedia for excessive usage of ChatGPT which he confirmed since he also edited in the English WP. See for instancethis edit that has been reverted for non-existing or wrong references. Orthis edit and the section withPhilip Short where I could not find all the quotes in the source or the quotes differ from the source. (I am not 100% sure if this is the right notice board, please direct me to a more appropriate board if this one is wrong.) --Jo1971 (talk)19:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Jo1971 has correctly stated that in my articles in the German Wikipedia there have (unfortunately) been errors and hallucinations for which I am responsible, although I would ask that these are not seen as deliberate breaches of the rules. I am also in the process of checking my edits here in the English Wikipedia; fortunately, there are not that many. Of course, before I can do it, everyone else has the right to delete unsubstantiated and incorrect source information and/or set editing blocks.Gabel1960 (talk)20:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
This I think is a good response. It looks like the user is taking their time to review their edits. If you're going to be using an LLM for editing Wikipedia it's on you totriple-check and make sure everything is up to scratch. (I've made the same mistake before.) Gabel, please make sure you read and understandWP:LLM and in particularWP:LLMWRITE. Lastly if you need help checking your edits, please don't be afraid to reach out.»Gommeh (he/him)14:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's a mildly heated discussion on a perennial topic. I disagree with your conclusion. It isn't even to the point ofbludgeoning, as they have 7 comments. That said, they have probably hit their limit, and should likely just let others comment and let the discussion play out, but WP:NOTHERE doesn't really apply. Honestly, the only real problem was you calling them a troll out of frustration. Please don't do that. Bringing it here was fine, but that doesn't guarantee others will agree with you.Dennis Brown -2¢13:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I wouldn't call it frustration, more of aWP:SPADE situation; the point is the editor keeps using patently absurd excuses such as that e.g. "[t]he person in the photos has a deformity", in an inane attempt to discuss a decade-long consensus. That they're posting slowly, about once a month, doesn't make it less problematic; if anything, it could be seen as an attempt to avoid consequences. However I agree to wait and see what happens next.cyclopiaspeak!14:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Well ... looking back, MisterTimelord tried the exact same thing over two years ago with the exact same attempted removal of the media. Ravenswing12:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
While the editor might be repeating themselves, they are not very active. I'd guess that in 2025, they are averaging 2 edits/month. I can see where repetitive comments might be annoying but at this rate, we probably won't see them again until July.LizRead!Talk!18:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Requesting removal of move protection on War 2 (2025)
Tagging@Explicit: in advance (admin who protected the page). And@Arjayay: and@CNMall41: too.
I was reviewing thedraft version of War 2 (2025 film), and while reviewing, I got to know about the sock puppetry issue and the AfD case, creating a problem in publishing the draft. A NPP user recused himself but insisted on declining the draft (CNMall41). I recommend the draft to be published, as the first instance may look odd, upon looking at the current version of the draft, it covers significant coverage forWP:NFF, passing theWP:NFILM criteria. I made my observation in the draft; you can read it. I kindly urge you to reconsider removing the move protection of the page so that I can publish it. Any objections are welcome.
CSMention269 - I see no reason for the article to have the (2025) disambiguator. When ready, I think the draft should be moved toWar 2, which is currently a redirect.War 2 was protected first, leading to people creating and recreating articles atWar 2 (2025) so that was also was salted. -Arjayay (talk)16:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I have already stated I recuse myself from reviewing it. The page has been created a dozen times (literally), moved back and forth from draft just as many, and now protected under several disambiguations. The bludgeoning and failure to adhere to the deletion discussion outcome and attempts to circumvent Wikipedia's process makes it impossible for me to be objective. So, no opinion on notability and no opinion on unprotection. Pinging@Kailash29792: who would likely give the most unbiased opinion regarding notability. --CNMall41 (talk)16:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate both of your opinions. Thank you for putting your inputs. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ●✉️ ●📔)18:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I simply do not understand that a notable movie is blocked to be published due to it's page been salted. I again urge the admins to remove the protection tag and delete the page so that I can publish it. I tagged theWar 2 for CSD G6 but declined. You may ask any other Indian EC user who can say it is notable. Feel free to inform me when this is resolved. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ●✉️ ●📔)05:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I am getting real sick of seeing discussion on "Westerner" versus "Indian" when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Hoping you will clarify what being Indian has to do with evaluating notability. --CNMall41 (talk)16:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Again no offence@CNMall41:, I didn't object to your first review, because of the policy violation from a sock user. And I didn't mean on this "westerner" thing. Some users may do. I treat every one same here, as wikipedian. You made a right call at that time, I mentioned that in my AFC comment. Sometimes a notable draft as gets published but later got deleted because of the sock user came again causing the article deleted under CSD G5. So, we have to follow the rules here. I know that. If I say something wrong I appologise for that. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ●✉️ ●📔)05:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Also I did mention "Indian" because of notability verification if required as the submitter was not from sock user, and if so, it may create a policy violation again. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ●✉️ ●📔)05:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
You said "if I say something wrong I appologise" - You did say something wrong. Your insinuation is serious in my opinion. Now you say you did not mention "Indian" because of notability, but you clearly wrote "You may ask any other Indian EC user who can say it is notable." How is that NOT about notability or a slight that anyone who is not Indian does not understand the notability policy? Still hoping for clarification or accountability here. --CNMall41 (talk)23:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for late respond @CNMall41. I'm sorry. Look I twisted my words and made it confusing. But we learn our mistakes to gain experience and not repeat it again. I saw that the draft was notable qualifying theWP:NFILM andWP:NFF, and TOOEARLY won't apply anymore. A bad apple (the sock user) caused this mess and made the article draftified. I'm not challenging that opinion.
Now another user has improved this draft and submitted, but when I try to publish the draft the article page was SALTed. Now, as AFC reviewer I had tagged the redirect for CSD G6 but rejected, because I asked to remove the move protection made by@Explicit:. I tagged you to inform as a courtesy so that no objection comes thereafter.
See I mention"any other Indian EC user who can say it is notable", as in the sense of the user who is expertise in editing Indian film topics.
If the admin say they won't remove the protection due to the policy or rule they specify, then I will recuse myself from reviewing this page in future. It's upto them to make the decision. I will follow accordingly. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(😐 ●🗨️ ●✉️ ●📔)07:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Your entire response is nothing about what I asked with the exception of a double down. Being Indian does not make you an expert in Indian film and you don't need to be Indian to understand Wikipedia notability guidelines.--CNMall41 (talk)22:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Since it is a big project with thousands of reviewers like you and me, I would say this that this conversation has run its course and I do not want to involve myself on this topic further. For a long time, it's you and me speaking and no admin has responded to my request except the one who shared a moral story to me. Geez. Iwithdraw the request. Let that situation bestatus quo, as I'm not gonna waste my time while I'm busy reviewing other drafts. If I can't get simple answer, I don't expect to waste others time as well. Thanks. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(😐 ●🗨️ ●✉️ ●📔)05:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I feel as though this line of questioning was unnecessary and borders on needling. I think twisting the original phrase into meaning"anyone who is not Indian does not understand the notability policy" is very much a failure toassume good faith. Can you really not find any other interpretation?GabberFlasted (talk)18:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thewarritimesian is a (supposedly) new contributor, who only signed up a couple of days ago. Their editing first drew my attention at the somewhat controversialTB Joshua article, where they added bland opinionating commentary about this deceased Nigerian pastor's 'legacy', sourced to 'blanknewsonline.com' (of which more later) and to blogspot.com.[212] Given the clearly promotional nature of this editing (the church he founded continues, and there have ben repeated attempts to use the article in order to promote the church), and perWP:NOTMEMORIAL I reverted. Thewarritimesian responded by adding more of the same, including such absurd claims asd that "[Joshua's] influence is still being felt globally on the religious front".[213] Another revert, with a request to discuss on the article talk page[214] entirely failed to result in dialogue, with Thewarritimesian carrying on editing the article regardless. Thewarritimesian has also been engaging in similar questionable promotional/memorialising editing atCornelius Adam Igbudu[215],Edwin Clark (politician)[216] andJunior Pope[217], and has also created an (unsourced) article onBlanknewsonline (mentioned above), the entire text of which consists of "Blank News Online is a news website owned and run by Albert Ograka, an Asaba-based Nigerian journalist. The site www.blanknewsonline.com is popular for its reliable news reportage."
PerWP:AGF (which I'm struggling with) I might be prepared to accept that this is a newcomer, unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, but that clearly doesn't preclude the requirement to engage in discussions rather than attempting to edit-war inappropriate content in. More so, when the material being added to the Joshua article resembles similar promotional/memorialising material added earlier by at least one blocked user suspected of sockpuppetry.[218] Accordingly, regardless of whether this is sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or an entirely new contributor, I would have to suggest that a block from article space would be appropriate, until such time as Thewarritimesian demonstrates a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, they did make one Talk page comment but it's not sufficient. Given that this editor has only been active for the past 3 days and many of their edits are to promote a pastor, I'd guess they are a enthusiastic newbie who is learning the ways of Wikipedia and nothing nefarious. But you can always go to SPI if you believe they are a sock.
I've asked them to come participate here in this discussion at ANI but I've found that these personal messages work with new editors about half of the time. They are often rather nervous about coming to noticeboards where they are being discussed (can't say I blame them). My vote is to watch their editing, see if they get the hint and only escalate if their edits become truly disruptive. We don't expect perfection, especially from a 3 day-old account. And, once again, personal messages are more effective than templates.LizRead!Talk!18:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The talk page comment, such as it was,[219] cameafter I posted notification of this thread. As for 'nothing nefarious', I should perhaps have emphasised more just how long-running the issue with promotional 'legacy' content being added to the Joshua article - sourced in every case to the sort of questionable (and essentially fact-free opinionating) material thatWP:NEWSORGNIGERIA warns about. If this is an innocent newcomer, it is something of an unlikely coincidence that they should pick on this particular article to add such content to.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:109.52.32.201 / User:109.52.38.41 / User:109.52.55.148: addition of unsourced claims (WP:OR, WP:BURDEN), use of WP:BLOGs, personnal attacks, edit-war
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe it is the same user, as perWP:DUCK (see the diffs below).
This related to the behaviour of this user atBenevacantism.
They added unsourced or poorly-sourced information to the article, and when I explained this and reverted them, then they reverted me and attacked me.When another user reverted them, the same happened.
Personnal attack against another user, edit-war:[224]
I think the use should be blocked, as the user is clearly here only to add unsourced or poorly-sourced information to this specific WP article.Veverve (talk)20:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor has been changing genres on a number of articles without providing appropriate sourcing. I have tried to explain this to the editor (seeUser_talk:ROGER_DEACON#June_2025,Talk:Sex_Pistols#Genres,Talk:Mustapha_(song)#Song_have_elements_of_arena-rock). Despite being warned about edit warring, they have now tried to change the genre of the bandSex Pistols four times in the last four hours[225][226][227][228] and likely six times today if you include the likely IP editing in the same fashion[229][230]. I have tried to explain to them they needreliable sources to support the changes, and that referring to Wikipedia as a source violatesWP:CIRCULAR. They still aren't getting it, whether willfully or as aWP:CIR issue. Since I wasn't able to successfully explain this to them, despite my best efforts, I asked them to place at{{helpme}} request on their talk page to get someone else to explain it to them. They ignored that and continued genre changing/edit warring anyway. I am requesting a block of User:ROGER DEACON. I could do it myself, but given how much effort I've put into trying to explain this to them as well as undoing their edits, someone might construe me asWP:INVOLVED. User has been informed of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk)16:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, anyway, I figured out exactly what you wanted, your happiness. but I don't have much knowledge of what exactly I should do. I'm not going to touch the articles yet, because I understand what needs to be done, I'm just not doing it well, I have to learn how to properly edit articles on Wikipedia, in a couple of months I'll try to edit the article, but I'll do it right, and maybe it will be right. In the meantime, please delete this discussion page, as I'm still studying the correctness of the design, and I won't bother you for a long time.ROGER DEACON (talk)16:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Despite being told of the problems withWP:CIRCULAR references multiple times, you went ahead and continued to add circular references[231], doing so having tried to edit war your preferred genres into the articlesix times despite being warned about edit warring... and you're telling us this is all just a simple mistake? Hardly. This is intentional edit warring despite being warned and intentionally trying to change the genres without providing a reliable source. Either you know what you are doing wrong and are doing it wrong anyway despite multiple warnings, and/or this is a seriouscompetence is required issue. --Hammersoft (talk)16:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
oh yeah, you got it right that i know little about editing and i kept doing it. + i accidentally damaged your article but i put it back as it was but now there are 5 links missing at the very beginningROGER DEACON (talk)17:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I ran across the content deletion and the addition of Russian text, and reverted; then I saw there was discussion at ANI when I went to add a warning to the user's talk page. I thinkWP:CIR is at issue here.LizardJr8 (talk)17:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Good grief. Now, despite telling us just above that you will wait a couple of months to edit the article, you go and addeven more unsourced content toSex Pistols withthis edit. Not to mention that it's written in Russian when this is the English language Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk)16:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, but I almost got it back to its previous state, in fact, when I went in, I saw that half of the information was gone, and I tried to restore it almost exactly, except for the links, I was afraid that I might ruin everything with links. okay, I wish you good luck (if you don't have to write anything again), I hope you delete that topic of discussion, since I realized, and after that I saw your messages. in general, I realized the mistake, I don't have to write articles, so you can delete the topic of discussion, I'll study, and most likely not for a couple of months, I won't touch you at all.ROGER DEACON (talk)17:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
...what? I can barely make out what's trying to be said here. Given the continued disruption despite the apparent promises not to,incivility, and violation ofWP:3RR onSex Pistols, blocked for 31 hours. If they resume when the block expires, an indef pblock from articlespace may be the next option. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over the course of this user's nearly four year long editing history, they have exhibitedGENREWARRIOR-ism, disruptive editing, personal attacks, and above all,WP:NOTHERE. And these issues have been present since the very beginning. If you start by looking at their talk page (revision I am using as a reference for this point), you will see that the user has received several warnings for vandalism, disruptive editing, and changing genres on articles without a source, all from September 2021 to now. And their responses have ranged from clearly unserious remarks ("ok my lord", "disruptive your face") to downright personal attacks like "putang ina ka", which ifthis site is to be believed (I am not a speaker of any non-English language so this could very easily be wrong), translates to "your mother is a whore". All of the above can be found on the appropriate revision I have already linked. And while they are all generally older remarks, they are likely still relevant as just a few days ago the userunilaterally vandalized my talk page with a similar remark ("SYBAU" / "shut your bitch ass up") when I had not interacted with them (to my knowledge) in several months. Do you want another example of them personally attacking an editor? Here's themstraight up telling@TheCrew65: "fck you" out of nowhere. This was then followed bythem saying that TheCrew65 doesn't know how to read.
This is an awful lot of content to assess. But I have one question: Can you provide links to any discussions you have had with Leon s redfield? You know, where you discuss genres and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on them? I'm not talking about times that you posted a template to their User talk page but incidents where you had an actual discussion with them either on their User talk page or an article talk page or a noticeboard?
It would help me understand if you two have a contentious relationship and how they responded to your suggestions. Again, I'm not talking about you posting templates and warnings but actual discussions andedit summaries do not count as a "discussion". Just a few examples would help. If you included any in your paragraphs above and I missed them, I'm sorry. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!02:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked Leon s redfield for persistently adding unsourced and poorly sourced content including genres, making personal attacks, disregarding warnings, and in general, showing an uncollaborative and hostile attitude toward other editors.Cullen328 (talk)04:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
He's blocked for disruptive editing now so it probably doesn't matter, but to clarify anyways, me and him have never had a "proper" discussion, I guess you could say. The Disenchanted dispute and his vandalism towards my talk page + the warning, as far as I can remember, are the only proper interactions me and him have had. Sorry if it came off like me and him have had frequently talked with one another or if some grander dispute caused this, I was basically just trying to report disruptive editing.λNegativeMP104:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A suggestion to apply IBAN
CLOSED BY THE APPLIER
(non-admin closure) They have partiallyimprovedRonen Bar after the application. It would be better to do it relying on the talk page, instead of ani.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello admins, In a nutshell, I would suggest anIBAN due to thisreply: "Your recurring hostility is making it difficult for me to edit here". In detail, I have already described everythinghere. Iputtwice a good and validlink. They could improve the article, but they did not. Therefore, they made their editings as a battleground, andwrote: "Your recurring hostility is making it difficult for me to edit here". They kept making edit wars with me likehere andhere. On the other hand, they remained errors in the article, as I wrotehere: "Removal of the both author names, Removal of the trans-title translation, replacingWalla with "וואלה"; "No author name, No trans-title, No language ("He"), "www.israelhayom.co.il" instead ofIsrael Hayom. Please see also my commenthere: "Regarding #3, I was not replied why the linkQatari connection affair was written twice. It is not a stand alone link. All the five mentions of the arrests (in a red font) deal only with 31 March 2025". IBAN seems best. They will do their editings, and I do mine. If I see an error, I could correct it without getting endless edit wars. Please see also the discussionhere:"I don't like the underlying hostility in your comment. David O. Johnson 20:22, 27 February 2025". It is anAd hominem towards twodifferent users. Thank you,Dgw|Talk04:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I am the user being discussed. This is not the first time that DGW has suggestedWP:IBAN; please see this page from several months ago:[232]. They do not seem to beWP:assuming good faith in my edits. I am going to make mistakes, but that's what they are, mistakes. Thank you for your time,David O. Johnson (talk)04:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Dorian Gray Wild, please explain how it is possible for any editor to get you intoendless edit wars when edit warring behavior is something that you freely choose to engage in? I assure you thatDavid O. Johnson cannnot reach through the internet and force you to edit war against your will. So, the solution to the edit warring problem is clear - do not engage in edit warring. If any other editors edit war, they will pay the consequences, not you. Instead, use the full array of legitimatedispute resolution mechanisms available to you.Cullen328 (talk)05:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Dorian Gray Wild, it is difficult to see mention of "hostility" asad hominem when you made remarks such asDwarfs will not come to fix these errors. The conclusion is that the user is NOTHERE and Treating editing as a battleground. That's pretty hostile based on the weak evidence that you have produced. Why mention dwarfs? Do you have a grudge against little people?Cullen328 (talk)05:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Dorian Gray Wild, you also wrote,Since the user has merged the former article, he has the sole responsibility for the whole article. Can you explain where inWikipedia:Merging or in any policy or guideline this notion of "sole responsibility" originated?Cullen328 (talk)05:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Edit war is: 1. A user makes an editing. 2. Another user undoes this editing, and states the reason. 3. Another user (the first one, or a third) re-adds the first editing.
The adminLizwrote today: "It's a bad idea to carry on a conversation through edit summaries".
When I pointed out the errors which theylinked, they read it but did not correct anything. They kept following me, correcting minor edits, like re-adding a space between the info template and the first line of the lead. Please seeMOS: "Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable, it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another, unless there is some substantial reason for the change".
The errors inRonen Bar were visible. Every reader could see that something was wrong withfootnote #21. I wrote it in the talk page, and gotthis reply. Thissource does not exist in the article, although theyreverted another editing concerning it. The article was changed to a battleground as well as thisarticle and thisarticle.
That's a violation ofWP:BRD, but it is not, in the vast majority of cases, an "edit war". An edit war would be if, after those three steps,you went back and undid the undo you had originally made again. -The BushrangerOne ping only07:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The issue was that they did not correct the errors, although I had written it on three talk pages of different articles (their links were written above).
When I corrected or changed something, they undid my editing, even when it was not needed, due toMOS. It seemed to me likehunting, and their lastreply affirmed it.Dgw|Talk08:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mass rollback of irrelevant categories/information in articles needed
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oft-blocked library/school IP has addedCategory:Auditoriums to a number of articles involving arenas (along with several domed stadiums) and other articles with equally unapplicable cats, along with other irrelevant information such as school grades to BLP articles and overdetail about radio quiz shows. Mass rollback and a longer block needed here, please.Nathannah •📮16:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I notice that I left some messages on their user talk page about logged out editing and they geolocate to the UK so I thought that they might beUser:DinosaursLoveExistence. Dinosaurs was a very prolific editor with categories for many years but they had an interesting quirk, they would create dozens and dozens of new categories with their registered account but then use IP accounts to categorize articles and categories into them. But the primary reason they were blocked is because they would not communicate with other editors or on noticeboards when a problem did arise. It also says on their block notice that they were disruptive but I worked with them for years and I thought that most of their editing was okay but I see you are also having issues with their work.
My apologies on that Liz, I was writing this up at lunch and forgot to tag before getting back to work, will definitely make sure to do that next time. Thank you for your action here.Nathannah •📮18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do you prefer being called "Felipe Juan Pablo Alfonso de Todos los Santos de Borbón y Grecia" or will just "Felipe" do? — rsjaffe🗣️03:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
For future reference, and given the unmistakable whiff of LTA they very likely will drop by again sooner or later, best practice is to followWP:RBI. Most of the time AIV will indeed be the best venue for requesting blocks, but feel free to bring cases that are too complicated for that here.184.152.65.118 (talk)03:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has already previously been blocked for uncivil behavior related, and had this wonderfulgem saying "don't fuck with my edits" on their page until I deleted it yesterday. This would seem to indicate that they are exhibiting ownership behavior. Additionally, they were using their user page to host some sort of blog like drivel about their supposed agenda for Korea. I don't know what is going on with them, but it seems pretty clear to me that they are not here to contribute to the project in a constructive manner.Insanityclown1 (talk)20:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, better to block. This user isn't here to build an encyclopedia and is just distracting at this point.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)20:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Sell, most editors feel some ownership over their User page. Do you have other diffs to share of disruptive behavior besides pointing to their User page? What is "distracting" about their edits? And since it isn't linked, the editor isUser:Christieyilou.LizRead!Talk!21:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Frankly, there are to many examples to really give diffs of all of them in my opinion. Considering there were several diffs where she described edits she didn’t agree with as malicious, I really can’t categorize her behavior as anything other than not here.Insanityclown1 (talk)21:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
To be honest, I kind of like the distraction of knowing one of my "royal" friends has been endowed moon bears, steel, and Ktown LA, and another friend with "ancillary" ancestry has been endowed ducks and all of Canada...JoelleJay (talk)22:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
'Endowed moon bears'. I had to look up what a moon bear is. They look cute, but has your friend checked to see if they have enough room to keep it/them? Or is this more of a metaphoricalbear?
Yeah that alone is blockable. Overall, basically has contributed nothing of value to Wikipedia, is toxic, and is wasting multiple people's time.grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk)00:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An IP is adding probably false cast members into movies articles
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So103.242.104.64(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) is adding bogus cast member lists (from what I can tell) into articles.I checked four movies they edited (Mob Town (2019 film),In My Mother's Skin,Pagpag 24/7,Tokyo Gore School; see history), and a few others. Their modus operandi seems to add random (famous, I guess) East Asian actors as "Additional cast members" into articles about mostly East AsianB-movies that are completely unsourced and cannot be verified to any external source at all. A tell-tale sign for me was Filipino/Indonesian actors appearing in American or Japanese movies where there was no obvious hint at foreign cast. Another sign was that they implausibly edited the names of actors to other names for no apparent reason (as seenhere, edited to other namesminutes later; orhere where they edit both actors and their names they just added, again for no apparent reason)
This editor is only editing about the movies. They were warned in December 2024 byHariboneagle927 not to add hoaxes (see talk page). Whatever they do, they only add generic "added links" or "fixed typo" edit summaries which do not correspond to what they do (c'mon, +1,100 bytes of "fixing typos"?)
Help appreciated from more knowledgeable types in Filipino/Japanese obscure movies.
I think adding non-actors or wannabe actors to cast lists, especially for big ensemble movies, is very common on the project and I have wondered what we could do about this. We could limit cast lists to just actors with articles but, for some lesser known films, this could reduce cast lists to just one or two actors. I hope this isn'tWP:BEANS but I have often thought that adding your name or one of your friend's names to some of these films articles, particularly in uncredited roles, would be simple to do and would likely not be detected. Any ideas on how to avoid this happening? I could ask on one of the film WikiProject's talk pages but, again, BEANS.LizRead!Talk!18:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Repeated Disruptive Editing by IP 73.47.111.245
I'll be BOLD and close this complaint as we are getting into the details of spaceships which doesn't belong on ANI. Just a reminder to editors, new and experienced, unless you are encountering vandalism gone amok, your first message on an editor's User talk page shouldn't be a Final warning that the editor is going to be blocked....don't escalate from 0->200 mph in one second.LizRead!Talk!01:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP73.47.111.245 has been POV pushing on two Starship related pages.
[233] Changing Flight Test 9 from Success to Failure. This was the final consensus, but that had not been established at the time and a discussion had been underway to determine the classification of the launch outcome. While not fully straying into disruptive editing, its the start of the POV pushing.
[234] Declares Starships flight 3, 4, 5, and 6 to be partial failures.
[235] Removes statistics to falsely claim that starship has never had a successful mission.
[236] Claims that the benifets of in-space refueling are purely theoretical (which is quite false), and that it hasn't been tested or even simulated (which it was: Starship flight test 3 demonstrated propellant transfer between two oxygen tanks on the vehicle).
[237] Removes a note that clarifies some wording for in space refueling.
[238] Falsely explains the purpose of the edit, describing it as "Clarifying about the status of in-space refueling, and the potential benefits of doing so" Instead, you just added a citation needed tag.
[239] Falsely claims that the higher thrust output on future versions isn't confirmed. It is.
This ignores the consensus that the sources listed are reliable, and claims that I mean to keep the page inaccute, and claimingI'm the one disrupting the encyclopedia. This, at least to me, seems like "I didn't do it, you did" behaviour. They then promise to "escalate this continously". Essentially, promising further vandalism.
They then reverted three of my edits to SpaceX Starship (spacecraft).
Instead of going here immediately, I explained how their editing was disruptive,[245] and informing them that I would take the discussion here if needed. A second post 9 minutes later also told them to self-revert, since they had strayed into edit warring.[246]
They responded with an explanation of their edits.[247] Note that they justify changing the outcome of Flights 3-6 (and 9)as part of the discussion. AFAIK, changing unrelated sections of an article as part of a discussion isn't how Wikipedia works.
And while I wrote this, they continued the "I didn't do it, you did" accusations,[248] while also claiming I had reported themtwice. This is the first report I've made to ANI regarding this particular editor, so they may be confusing the two warning I left with reports.
This shows that the IP is not here to improve the encyclopedia. They are here to push their opinion that Starship is a failure and will not succeed.
Comment from the "IP User" 73.47.111.245 - apologies for my limited ability to use wiki markup
I implore anyone assessing this to read my comments on the talk page[251]. I edit wikipedia in good faith, with the intent to increase accuracy with more verbose and explicit language.
RedactedII (talk) has a long history of reverting more accurate edits, closing discussions without consensus, and making false statements.
Each and every time this is related to a single topic - SpaceX's Starship, and they appear to be obsessed with pushing a single viewpoint, that is often unsubstantiated at best and intentionally misrepresented at worst.
As I even mentioned in my replies, I appreciate their excitement - I am excited by SpaceX as well, I am an engineer in the (silicon) valley, and have been following it since it started. I obsess over factual details, and abhor inaccurate language and statements.
That said, they have been warned many times - I have only been warned by (talk), and aside from the reverts from (talk), I have never been reverted.
My proposal for deletion was decided against, and I did not fight that, though I assure you it was made in good faith.
I'd also just like to be extremely clear about one point that may not be clear to people who do not follow spacex closely -Flight Test 3 did not demonstrate inter-vehicle in flight refueling - it demonstrated moving some cryogenic fluids between a two tanks in a single vehicle. The cited article includes a quote from a NASA representative stating the flight "achieved one step towards refueling of Starship". The same article also disputes another one of RedactedII's edits, stating that current estimates could require up to 20 refueling trips, versus RedactedII's statement that it would require 8. RedactedII picks and chooses statements from non technical articles to further their viewpoint, without consideration for factual reality. If there is a better example of disruptive editing from a biased editor, I am not sure I have seen one.— Precedingunsigned comment added by73.47.111.245 (talk)03:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
"I'd also just like to be extremely clear about one point that may not be clear to people who do not follow spacex closely -Flight Test 3 did not demonstrate inter-vehicle in flight refueling - it demonstrated moving some cryogenic fluids between a two tanks in a single vehicle"
Thats a orbital refueling test. And keep in mind that your claim was that it had never been tested or even simulated.Redacted II (talk)04:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
First, this is a content dispute. You were both setting yourself up as adversaries and a discussion on ANI is not going to resolve differences of opinion on Starship. Take this to the article talk page or dispute resolution.
I'd just like to say one thing, I looked at 73.47.111.245's user talk page and before this discussion that you relate here,Redacted II. the very first thing you posted to them were TWO final warnings to the editor saying they were probably going to be blocked. Why did you escalate to the highest warning and threaten a block? Did you think to welcome them first?
Why would you need to post this twice, once in May and once today? How could you think that doing that would set up an atmosphere of collaboration? Of course things were not going to be cooperative if you start off with a maximum warning template. I can see that you were frustrated with their edits but you are an experienced editor and what would you tell an inexperienced editor who started off with the maximum warning to a new IP editor? You'd tell them to dial it back to a low level warning so that's what I'm going to tell you. Now, it could be that you are right on the details of this space ship and your argument and 73.47.111.245 is totally wrong but you were the experienced editor here and you know that threats are not the way you work with other editors. Try talking it out on the article talk page and engage other editors to take part so it's not a Me vs. You situation. Don't seek to get another editor sanctioned just because you're in a content dispute.LizRead!Talk!04:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll go through why their edits are vandalism.
The first disputed edit was[253]. They changed a flight outcomeduring a discussion. There's always some edit warring right after flights that don't go well, so I don't really hold that against them. But it does help show they don't care about talking.
Then they go to[254]. "There has never been a successful launch of starship, this is objective truth". The relevant consensuses (all for success) arehere,here, andhere. There was no discussion for flight 5 that I can recall, because basically nothing went wrong (I encourage you to go read therelevant article to understand why).
[255]removes the information listed in the intro that has the % of failed missions and % of successful missions, injecting their POV in its place. "but has yet to have a successful mission, or attain orbit" (attain orbit is false on a technicality, but thats not the issue). The consensus for flights 3, 4, 5, and 6 were successful, so thats clearly false.
One somewhat disruptive edit and two edits that I can only describe as blatant vandalism was going to result in a more severe warning. I went with final, but you are right: I shouldn't have jumpedthat high.
They did at least seem to get the message, because the next edit was about a week later
[256][257] Are further pushing of their POV. They want to paint Starship as a failure. So they add extreme emphasis to the portions of its planned capabilities that remain unproven, and they goway too far. In particular, they claim that in-space refueling has never been tested or simulated. That couldn't be more wrong. (See this for more)
[258] Is just lying about the contents of their edit. "Clarifying about the status of in-space refueling, and the potential benefits of doing so", when they actually added a citation needed tag. They'd later claim that they did try to search for a citation but didn't see one, but their previous edit was a minute prior.
It took me about a minute to find sources for that (and another citation needed).[259][260]
[261] I'm notcompletely against this edit. Hell, I mostly agree. But it continues the trend.
[262] "Clarifying about what has been accomplished and what data has been shared" They change will be taller to "are expected". Note that one such version has somewhat flown, and its taller (1.8 m taller, to be exact). They then claim that data has not been released to confirm "higher thrust output". This is also false: telemetry shown by the companies CEO shows a higher chamber pressure (which almost always correlates in a higher thrust).[263] for the data.
[264] "There has never been a clear plan demonstrating the possibility of point to point earth travel, from a technical perspective or a geopolitical perspective" They just say it hasn't been substantiated. Which doesn't exactly match the description of their edit.
After my second warning, they respond with[265]. A promise to escalate. That shows a complete lack of interest in discussion: they are here to push their POV, so thats what they wll do.
When I explained to them the problems with their editing, they justify their edits with the discussion on the List of Starship launches talk page. They never commented there. And pushing their POV on the article hardly assists in any discussion.
After that, I started writing out the above ANI post, but they weren't done. They then tried to accuse me of everything they had done wrong.[266]
I tried to talk with them. They proved to have little interest in that discussion.
I agree this belongs on the talk page. Mods, I hope you will close this out.
I am acting in good faith. I am not trying to push a particular perspective or viewpoint. I do not care much about the success or failure of each launch, I deeply care about helping the generalnon engineering public have access to accurate information that is easily digestible. No article on wikipedia should be advertising what something theoretically "WILL" do. That is not and never has been how any encyclopedia, or any other article on wikipedia, has ever provided objective truth.
RedactedII is one of the least cooperative editors I have ever interacted with. I appreciate you acknowledging that. I am not a combative editor, I want to help spread scientific truth - that is my sole purpose in editing wikipedia, or contributing to any scientific journal or research paper.
I did not say I was going to escalate this, I said I will if need be, as in, if they keep reverting my productive and more accurate edits. I'm fine with them or anyone modifying my edits in a constructive manor, and I would approach that with honor and respect. RedactedII decided that if they couldn't project their perspective, which is objectively not consensus here let alone in the actual industry, they would escalate it to ANI - which I think is ridiculous tbh. I said I will escalate this, meaning, if you keep reverting my edits back to conjecture, I will seek out a third party moderator to decide what is objective truth, and what is conjecture.I never reached out to a single mod let alone post in ANI.
It seems the administrators are clear here - you have not acted in good faith RedactedII. You are not being cooperative, and this is one of many, many times you have been chastised for not being cooperative. Look at your talk page history.
I request this be closed. It seems RedactedII has heard the message, has not re-inserted "WILL" into the article, is not posting "LOL" in the comments, and actually removed a bunch of factually inaccurate fluff citations. That's a fantastic outcome in my opinion. I hope this helps you become a better editor, and objective truth seeking person, for real.
PS:
For what it is worth, I am an experienced editor regarding technical documents, I've published dozens of peer reviewed papers, and have even contributed to (traditional) encyclopedias several times.
I started contributing to wikipedia in 2004. I have never learned the wiki markup, or deeply understood the moderation schemes. I have, hundreds if not thousands of times, added my technical expertise to articles and cited sources. It has always been in good faith with the intent of being productive. Every more experienced editor on those pages has helped build on my technical comments and help with my formatting and citation. I kid you not, this is the first time I have experienced this. I think something about SpaceX brings out extreme emotion in some people, and they expect that anyone who post something they don't deeply agree with, is an antagonist. I am not, nor have I ever been, an antagonist. I seek truth and sharing truth.
I do my best to add my deep understanding of all things electrical and mechanical, and my understanding of silicon valley politics / shareholder slides / overpromises, to ensure the general public is not being fed an advertisement when trying to read objective truth.
If you want to believe that moving fuel between two chambers in a single rocket is demonstration of in flight refueling - which, by the source you cited, and every source I have seen, it is not - I will explain in detail why those are different in a talk page.There is no one in aerospace who would agree that that movement between two tanks in a single vehicle is demonstration of in flight refueling. It is extremely misleading to claim that as fact. SpaceX does not claim this either. This kind of discussion belongs on the talk page. It is unfair for you to say this has happened, when no one, not the wiki articles, not the cited sources, not SpaceX, not NASA, no one in industry, even those who benefit to gain from this idea, have said this is what happened. That is just being inaccurate.
If you believe that graph of chamber pressure directly correlates to thrust, and you trust that tweet, so be it. State that the raptor v3 enginedid achieve that thrust and cite that tweet. We can discuss that on the relevant talk page. For what it's worth, you will never find an aerospace engineer who agrees that chamber pressure directly correlates to thrust... there are many, many other variables.73.47.111.245 (talk)23:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
"I am not trying to push a particular perspective or viewpoint"
I don't think you are consciously trying to. But you most certainly are.
"RedactedII decided that if they couldn't project their perspective, which is objectively not consensus here let alone in the actual industry"
Please look at the linked discussions. The status of Flights 3-6 has a consensus for success.
"they would escalate it to ANI"
I went to ANI because I believed your edits were damaging articles after attempting to show you where you had made mistakes. Trust me, I don't go here unless I'm confident that there is no other option. And even then, there's a lot of thought before I hit the initial post button.
"removed a bunch of factually inaccurate fluff citations"
I noticed them, and removed them. That isn't something I've just started doing: I've been editing for two years, two months (to the day). Most of them weren't factually inaccurate though, IIRC: just unneeded.
"has not re-inserted "WILL" into the article"
I did agree with a substantial portion of your rewording. But there were parts that at least seemed like vandalism. Like describing the benifets of in-space refueling as theoretical (they aren't) and saying refueling hasn't been tested or simulated (when it has).
"For what it's worth, you will never find an aerospace engineer who agrees that chamber pressure directly correlates to thrust... there are many, many other variables"
Yeah, aerospace engineering student here: there is a correlation (assuming other factors remain the same, such as nozzle radius, throat radius, and specific impulse), but it isway more complex than chamber pressure = thrust. But I have no idea how much the average reader of this thread knows, and I don't want to overwhelm anyone with absurdly long equations.Redacted II (talk)23:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
And if your not just going to immediately try to reinsert the false claims I've listed, I haveno problem whatsoever with this being closed.
I will constructively debate with you about Raptor v3 thrust, I will constructively debate with you about Flight Test 3 demonstrating even a modicum of what is needed for real in-space refueling, on the talk page -we all agree this is not the place for that.
If you agree to stop inserting "WILL" into pages, and stop reverting my changes that say "purportedly" or "expected to", then I think we are aligned this ANI was a waste of everyone's time and should be closed.
Awesome that you're an aerospace engineering student. Remember, you are a student, you are stoked on SpaceX, I've been stoked on SpaceX since before you could read (assuming you are <22 years of age like most engineering students). I hope I can help you learn more about how to accurately discuss ongoing engineering efforts, and I hope you stop trying to enforce your single viewpoint on literally one article/type of article regarding Starship, when it's clear you have no industry experience.
Let's close this and I will move my points to the talk page. I still think you are off your rocker for believing that Flight Test 3 demonstrated anything like in space refueling. Do you think when a 777-200ER moves fuel between it's tanks, that that is in flight refueling? It's not, not at all. Anyways, best saved for the talk page.
I'm not a vandal, I'm not disruptive, and you should adjust your attitude about differing opinions being inherently disruptive, they are not. You are pushing one viewpoint, and think that anyone who doesn't align deeply with your viewpoint, is a vandal. That's not acting in good faith, whether you did it unconsciously or otherwise.
Being an engineering student may make you feel more educated than the average cat, but you are decades away from being an expert. Best wishes.73.47.111.245 (talk)00:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SurelySure, an SPA created solely to make personal attacks against me
Luckily, this discussion has died down before any sanctions came down. I hope as they get more experience on this platform, SurelySure will be able to assume good faith and not rush to accusing other editors of bias over completely trivial matters. Consider yourself given moreWP:ROPE.LizRead!Talk!03:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SurelySure is a brand new SPA account that I surely seem to have upset in a previous incarnation. Apart from saying "Hi" on their user page their entire editing history has been to make personal attacks against me,this being the main one. The rest are spammy repeated replies onTalk:Riley Gaines (1,2,3,4,5,6). Surely their intention is to bully me off the page. I assume that they are a sockpuppet of some editor that I have upset in the past as this is clearly personal and they barely mention anybody else making similar points on the same page. The edit were made so fast that it is clear that they were just clicking and pasting over and over. Two of the replies were 18 seconds apart. Any faster than that and I'd suggest that automation might be involved. Surely that's not the behaviour of a constructive editor. --DanielRigal (talk)16:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
In their latest missive (here) they admit that this is personal against me:"But now everyone can see how unhinged you've been acting. I just wanted everyone to really see how unserious you are.". I think this is more than conclusive enough for an indef.DanielRigal (talk)17:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I was a little upset because you seemed to threaten me in another comment. You are ACTING in a disturbing way and yes, I wanted people to know that you are acting out. HOWEVER, my concerns about you still stand. You need to allow the correct to Riley Gaines' page and stop bullying people. I made a very clear case against your behavior and you haven't addressed it at all. You said Gaines is trying to "self-identify as 5'5"" which is a laughably obvious evidence of bias from you. You then claimed that the discussion around her height (again, because he refuses to correct the article) is "obvious extreme silliness...completely unnecessary argument over her height". This shows that you are indeed being unserious and I think you should be removed as an editor from that particular page.SurelySure (talk)17:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Arguing endlessly about how tall an ex-swimmer is surelyis extremely silly. What isn't silly isverifiability, which requires Reliable Sources for our content. I made multiple suggestions for how to resolve the situation in which Gaines claims to be one height but the best sources we have say that she is another but all I get for my effort is a heap of abuse. I am extremely unconvinced by the performance of umbrage over my very gentle little joke about self-identification. Surely nobody is really angry about that.DanielRigal (talk)17:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I am and others were on the page, what are you talking about? Please don't downplay it. Several other accounts said it was no okay. And it shows your bias.SurelySure (talk)17:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
So, having read these edits, this is an obvious case of WP:NPA and I'd argue WP:NOTHERE because they seem to have come in specifically to act disruptively and uncivilly towards DanielRigal. I would not be surprised if this was a sockpuppet.Snokalok (talk)17:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I wanted to address the bias in the Riley Gaines talk page. I have never ever had a wiki account in my life! I am not a soskc account, I am a real person that concerns with Daniel's bullying in the Riley Gaines talk page. Why is no one addressing my valid concerns? Should I make my own incident report? Like am I taking crazy pills?SurelySure (talk)17:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I am a new user and I have never had a wiki account in my life. I saw Riley Gaines in the news so I searched up her wiki page and I noticed her heigh was wrong (which is in the news right now). I went to the talk page because it says it was being disputed. After I reviewed the talk page, it became clear to me that DanielRigal is biased and needs to step away from editing Riley Gaines' page for a bit because it appears he has trouble remaining neutral. This is was my compliant:
"I want to raise a concern about user DanielRigal’s ongoing involvement with the Riley Gaines article. He’s been editing the page for years, mainly focusing on her political views, and it’s become pretty clear that he doesn’t like her. That’s fine and everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but it becomes a problem when that opinion starts shaping the page unfairly.
For example, he and a few others, including Rebecca (Rebbing), have claimed that even something as basic as her height is “political,” and have pushed back against correcting it (it is currently incorrectly listed at 5'8).
Riley Gaines has publicly stated her height, and other sources list it at 5'5" as well. Dismissing all of these sources just because they don’t align with certain views isn’t how Wikipedia is supposed to work. There’s even been pushback on including Gaines' own video evidence as a source, which makes no sense. DanielRigal said they Riley Gaines was trying to "self-identify as 5'5"" which is a laughably obvious evidence of bias from the user. This language in absurd and frankly it's hard to take seriously. He then claimed that the discussion around her height (again, because he refuses to correct the article) is "obvious extreme silliness...completely unnecessary argument over her height". It appears Daniel isn't actually interested in factual information as his profile suggests. In fact, I would go as far as to call this vandalism at this point. This kind of behavior and language makes it hard to trust that the goal here is neutrality. It feels more like an effort to control the narrative around Riley Gaines, not to reflect accurate, sourced info.
DanielRigal has done a lot of editing on this page and honestly, at this point, it might be time for him to step back. If he can’t separate his personal views from the article, then continuing to oversee it so heavily isn’t helping anyone. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and fact-based. Let’s make sure that’s still the case here. DanielRigal, do the right thing and take a breather."
No where in this did I personally attach DanielRigal. He should not assume that I am someone he knows but rather someone who simply cares about truth and fact. I think his behavior is inappropriate and I believe he is trying to bully anyone who disagrees with him and falsely accusing them of personal attacks.
Dear DanielRigal, if you believe that I have personally attacked you, I offer my sincere apology from the deepest part of my Canadian heart and please know it is not my intention to do so and I know that attacking you personally would only hurt my point which is: I think you are acting inappropriately and using unfair language.
I agree hence my complaint was confined to the talk page of the article. Another user said this was an admin incident thing and the user I was speaking to on the talk page opened a ticket about me. The article in questions has since been corrected by another user and I have zero reason to further engage with this user. I believe the matter at hand to be done with, hopefully.SurelySure (talk)22:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I did mention Rebecca but sadly you are the main aggressor in the talk page so I called you out. I understand you are upset but you don't need to lie. You are in fact being the bully on the page and have been since 2023. Also, it's my first time being on wiki, I did not know it was frowned upon to copy and paste replies. I wanted to make sure that people saw. Once a user told me I didn't need to do that, I stopped. I am learning the ropes. So far you've accused me of being a bot, a bully, someone with a personal vendetta against you and yet haven't addressed any of my valid concerns. You are the one not being constructive.SurelySure (talk)17:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I will admit one personal attack: I said you don't have anything else going on in your life and that was very rude and I'm sorry. Otherwise, I think my concerns are very valid and I hope you can address them directly. Thank you!SurelySure (talk)17:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely not! What is your evidence? I am a real person and I genuinely thought it was the right thing to do to own up to my mistake. Isn't that better than just lying and saying I did nothing wrong. I should not have insulted Daniel BUT I have valid concerns. I apologized and I will again - I am sorry for getting upset but I have valid concerns about Daniel's use of power on the Talk page.SurelySure (talk)17:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Genuinely, how do I prove I am not a sockpuppet? I am a real person and I have every intention of filling out my profile as soon as I learn to edit my own page. I have NOT made ANY edits to ANYTHING and I HAVE NOT called for Daniel to be banned or punished or reported him for any reason. I called out his inappropriate behavior (with evidence) and asked him to take a step back. I may have said a personal attack in frustration but I have apologized many times. I do not deserve to be banned.SurelySure (talk)17:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I read the WP:NOTHERE policy and I do not fit the description. AndyTheGrump removed height and weight and gave a good reason why and I agree with it. I am definitely here to build an encyclopedia.SurelySure (talk)17:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Given that Gaines is clearly notable as a political activist, and given that we do not list such parameters as height and weight in infoboxes for political activists, I have removed both from the infobox. If there is justification in policy for the inclusion of such apparently irrelevant personal details, I'd like to see it.AndyTheGrump (talk)17:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Just to put a pin in this: I am here to create an encyclopedia, which is why I welcome AndyTheGrumps' contribution and I support the removal of her height and weight from her page as it isn't relevant to her notoriety. Furthermore, to demonstrate that I actually want nothing to do with DanielRigal, and to prevent any further interaction with him, I will block him as user so he can stop his accusations that my account was set up to harass him. I have no idea who he is and I've never had a wiki account before. I only wanted the Riley Gaines page, like all pages to be factual and correct. And now it is.SurelySure (talk)18:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh I just realized I cannot do that. Oh well. I hope the admins don't ban me because I really just want to move on.SurelySure (talk)18:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether it should kept or not, but the reasoning was that she had been an athlete, it was included back then.MilesVorkosigan (talk)18:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
SurelySure, although you are clearly not a brand new editor, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were, for some reason, just worked up over this minor fact about a person's height if you promise to keep your distance from DanielRigal and stop talking about him. If you do continue to badger him, I will be the first in line to block you. If you are being sincere, this shouldn't be a problem. Sound okay?LizRead!Talk!19:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I am a brand new editor and I don't know why you would doubt that but I suppose I can also assume you are being deceitful, since you think that's a useful approach. I don't appreciate the threat of an action that you seem to think would have an impact on me. I do not need to promise anything to you. I have not contacted Daniel in any way after the matter was resolved with the height and weight removed the article in question. You are stirring the pot when it's been put to rest. I do not know who you are and since you seem hostile towards me,I invite you to block me now. I haven't quite figured out how to do it myself. Sound okay?SurelySure (talk)19:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to bring this complaint to a close with no sanctions and I wasn't expecting that hostile response towards me. I thought that you were not a new editor because you have more knowledge and skills than most new editors have. You could have acquired that while editing as an IP editor. So, it was actually a compliment, I wasn't being "deceitful". As this point, I will stop trying to help and let the chips fall where they may. I suggest if you return to editing on this project in some other form that you remember to "Assume good faith" and stop seeing enemies everywhere when they actually might be allies.LizRead!Talk!19:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I think your kindness might be better directed towards somebody who deserved it. I don't think there is any possibility of good conduct here. The personal attacks continue.Here I am being falsely accused of "harassment" and "vandalism" just for giving SurelySure the notification thatI was required to give them about this very thread. Admittedly, they did blank the whole page shortly after, thus removing the false accusation of vandalism, but I still see only two possible readings of their actions. Either they are what they claim to be, and are entirely unable to edit an encyclopaedia in collaboration with other editors who they might disagree with, or, as I suspect, they are just trolling and "hiding their power level". I'm wondering whether this rises to the level where a checkuser might be justified? I appreciate that maybe I am not able to be entirely objective here but I am 99% certain that if I saw an identical thread about a different SPA harassing somebody else then I'd be in favour of an indef, so I don't think that I am being unreasonably self-serving in saying that I believe that one is justified here.DanielRigal (talk)21:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I genuinely did not know that Daniel was required to inform me by posting to my page about posting here. I sincerely thought it was vandalism on my page. I can restore his message if I find out how (feel free to link me but I'll find it myself, hopefully). I have no interest in continuing this matter since the height and weight on the Riley Gaines article has been removed and thus my issue with bias with re: to her inaccurate height have been settled. I have no desire to speak to or of DanielRigal and I believe at this point, he may a unfair vendetta against me for raising valid concerns and wants to get a check user against me (which, I am not sure, but seem to be a warning or ban of my account). Either that or, more likely (I am assuming good faith), he doesn't seem to understand that it wasn't personal and now that the article has been fairly edited, I do not seek to engage with him in any way. I will state, once again, that I am who I claim to be and I am engaging in earnest, good faith. I am not an SPA and there is no evidence to point that I am harassing this user. I agree that this was a content dispute which is why I have seized interactions with DanielRigal because the article has finally been corrected. I am new user and a little clumsy at this but I have no desire nor have I ever harassed this user. I wish to move past this.SurelySure (talk)22:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to be clear that, as per Liz's suggestion, I am replying to but not addressing this user directly as to "keep your (my) distance from DanielRigal and stop talking about him." and not badger him. I am only responding this message to defend myself. I do not wish to further engage with this user.SurelySure (talk)22:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I tried to undo to changes to my personal talk page but it said "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually.". I have to figure out how to do that. I wasn't trying to hide anything that was supposed to be there. I was mistaken and I am sorry if it's not right to remove other's posts on my talk page. I am being as sincere as possible, I don't know what else to do to prove I am not an SPA. I have apologized for any personal attacks I may have done, I have explained myself, I have asked others on how to prove myself. At this point, like Liz said, I will allow the chips to fall where they may. I am juts glad the artciel in question was corrected. TSurelySure (talk)22:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Making false accusations (or really, any unsourced accusations) about another editor is the exact opposite of 'stop talking about him'. Your speculation that he doesn't understand that your repeated personal attacks were actually in good faith is also an attack.
The requirement to assume good faith is not a rule for you to use to attack another editor, it is one thatyou are supposed to follow.
If you want to continue to edit on Wikipedia, you're going to need to find a way to stop yourself from doing that. You may also want to strike out your comment above where you invited administrators to ban you.
I cannot see my comment that I left so I will re-post it. I hereby strike out the comment where I for user Liz to block me. That was not right. I do not have the option to edit the comment but only reply to it. I was only mirroring the language used by the user: "Either they are what they claim to be, and are entirely unable to edit an encyclopaedia in collaboration with other editors who they might disagree with, or, as I suspect, they are just trolling and "hiding their power level". So I thought it was okay to also assume two possibilities. I did not think I was talking about him - only responding to what he has said about me, which I reject as false and untrue. Thank you for your reply with helpful hyperlinks. I appreciate it! EDIT: I think I found out how to strike it out! I thought I wasn't really allowed to edit this whole page so I hope I did it right. Thank you!SurelySure (talk)22:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Liz, I did not know you are responsible for responding to/closing the ticket and I took your initial comment to be hostile. Thank you for the compliment, I am a fast learner but I don't get everything right. I will assume good faith moving forward.SurelySure (talk)22:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I am so so sorry! It was a genuine mistake. I was just trying to follow instructions. Really, I'm sorry about that. It won't happen again.SurelySure (talk)23:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal attack by User:Go D. Usopp – accusation of editing "for vanity"
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"User violated 3RR while reverting an edit he disputed simply for vanity without regard for MOS"
This is an inexcusable, unjustified, and direct personal attack against me. It is not a comment on the content of my edits. I edited the article to improve it. The accusation is false, defamatory, and violates Wikipedia standards of respectful behavior.
I demand that appropriate action be taken against the user.
I was describing your reverts, while I'm sure that caring about an article's style isn't an insult in any way. That was not the point of criticism I was describing at the time.Go D. Usopp (talk)05:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I was reporting you for violating 3RR; that description was for your reversions being related to your perception of the article. I assumed good faith on your reversions, given that you demanded the article be exactly how you intended, without assuming any personal attack on my edits; 3RR is still a necessary rule to be upheld.Go D. Usopp (talk)05:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Go. D. Usopp wrote: I assumed good faith on your reversions
I was trying to mean that with "vanity"; I apologize for my inconsiderate word choice causing any misunderstanding.Go D. Usopp (talk)05:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Go. D. Usopp wrote: I apologize for my inconsiderate word choice
WP:UNCIVIL statesThis policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor incident, to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is in itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.
Take heed of that warning, or you may find yourself facing more of an editing restriction than you currently have — rsjaffe🗣️06:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Edit-warring? Coming here with demands? Not accepting an apology? I would be completely justified in levelling a much more serious accusation against you.Phil Bridger (talk)09:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
For what its worth, I've been asked, and have been trying, to mediate some of the issues atSokoban. It's an ancient game/series that has been largely unmaintained for much of its existence, and all of the sudden it's a hotbed for high tensions and serious arguments on both sides. It's rather bizarre honestly, as usually something sparks these sorts of debates, and as far as I can tell, there's nothing new going on with the subject, nor are there any sensitive social/political/etc connotations at stake.
In my observations, while Go D. Usopp comes in a little too hot and too heavy handed with some reverts, they've done nothing to justify the ire of Briandamgaard like this. Fully support their p-block, which should be extended if they can't change their approach into something more collaborative.Sergecross73msg me13:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disruptive editing/possible sockpuppet at the Battle of Agios Dometios page
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last week theUser:Chumash225 kept editing (in a disruptive way) the page of theBattle of Agios Dometios by changing the result in the infobix to a ‘’Greek victory’’ by simply just adding one sided, non-neutral Greek sources without having used the talk page nor having reached any consensus. I asked him to do so but he simply added everything back and then threatened me with reporting me because I reverted back his edit[268]. I clearly asked him before to use the talk page first, but he again didn’t listen:[269]. He also was caught doing the same three edits with three anonymous IP accounts before as two other users reverted back his disruptive edits as well here (also admitted by the user himself, with the reason being that he ‘couldn’t login to my main account’’):[270],[271] and[272],[273],[274]. (IP accounts:User:46.199.2.49,User:2A00:1358:F010:B8C4:A50F:26E1:D451:3D8F andUser:2A00:1358:E237:EC00:74B3:6266:DA08:201C). For the last IP account, a other user even asked him to use the talk page, but he still didn’t do so:[275]. So after all of this from last week,User:Chumash225 and I started discussing it on the Talk Page of theTalk:Battle of Agios Dometios as I already reported him earlier, but he now just starts with personal attacks by calling me racist (‘’Sourcing clearly isnt your issue as you originally made a borderline racist comment because theyre Greek’’) and ‘’problematic’’.
I have tried everything to reach an consensus with him on the talk page, I advised him to read the Wikipedia rules etc but he just won’t listen. He just says that he is gonna wait for a ‘’cooldown time’’ (whatever thats supposed to mean), and add everything back again without having reached any sort of a consensus, with the reason being as follows: ‘’Im no longer continuing this conversation with you as its fruitless, when the correct edit has been re-added you may bring about your concerns with actual evidence which I have still yet to see you provide and then a consensus can be reached. Have an amazing day.’’. I made it clear that I’m open for discussions regarding the topic of the discussion itself, even told him that he can go and ask a third editor for their own comments/opinions, but he just won’t listen and goes more on personal stuff now and keeps repeating that he will add everything back as he considers that as the ‘’correct edit’’, even though no consensus was ever reached. The problem is that even the source he is using doesn’t confirm his ‘’point’ which I already explained at the talk page.
I also strongly believe that this is a case of sockpuppetry as a user calledUser:ShovelandSpade was also involved in changing the result to a ‘’Greek victory’’ and is blocked now:[276]. The exact same edits on the same page and involved with almost entirely just Cyprus related articles etc. Seems to have been blocked in January and right after that this account,User:Chumash225, seems to have been created. A sockpuppetry investigation may be needed. Also some earlier IP accounts doing the exact same edits, see here:[277], and as comparison this here, same type of language being used by both users:[278][279]I would appreciate it if a admin could help regarding this issue.Woxic1589 (talk •contribs)20:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Woxic1589, it looks like you just brought them to ANI two days ago, was that situation similar or resolved? Can you link to that previous discussion? If you think they are socking, then you should open a case atWP:SPI. Also, don't forget to sign your messages on noticeboards.LizRead!Talk!21:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
It was reported atAN, and closed by The Bushranger asTake this content dispute to Talk:Battle of Agios Dometios. If it cannot be resolved there, explore alternative means of dispute resolution. Only if that fails then you can reopen a complaint at WP:ANI. There has been (apparently unsuccessful) discussion on the article talk page since then.Schazjmd(talk)21:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi Liz, yes thats true. But I was not sure that this user was possibly a sockpuppet of an even older account until I noticed the similarities in the language, edit history and the fact that that account was blocked begin this year in January and right after that this account was created. My earlier report was here which was just about the edit warring[280]. So in short, it was not resolved as the user does not even try or want to reach an consensus on the talk page. I’m reporting this again because I’m convinced that this user is likely a sockpuppet of the user I mentioned above,User:ShovelandSpadeWoxic1589 (talk)21:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
And I have never reported a other user for sockpuppetry before so I thought a admin could maybe help with it. Will take a look at it if I can report it now.Woxic1589 (talk)22:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Libertarian uploaded a copyrighted image on commons (File:Assad Toppled.png) and tried to add it to theFall of the Assad regime regime article, to which his addition got opposed by 3 users (incl. me). I've placed deletion tags (which he repetitively removed), and when I tried explaining to him that the image that he had uploaded is not free and that he should stop removing the deletion tag, he replied saying that the non-free image that I marked for deletion "deeply implies something about hafez al assad being torn gets to you personally" (seethe talk page discussion). After that, he went to the deletion request page on commons and repeated the same personal attack. Noting that this isn't Libertarian's first time attacking other editors on syria-related topics. They've been previously warned for the same thing and were given a ctop warning𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)13:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I left a very stern warning on their talk page. I almost blocked, but the only reason I didn't is because they are engaging in discussion now atTalk:Fall of the Assad regime rather than continue to edit war on a CTOP page. Hopefully this ends the behavior. Some admins might have gone ahead and blocked, and its possible another administrator might do so given the warnings they already received (and ignored). --Hammersoft (talk)13:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't flag it usually but it'sslang I just found out about today from said case and several mentions of the term involve some kind of death. I miss being able to understand something immediately.Nathannah •📮03:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Hopefully that's all it is (certainly not asking them to elaborate); I'll cede to your judgement but the wording just threw me off after reading that story.Nathannah •📮03:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, while I don't think it was a death threat, I'm certainly not speaking up for the rest of their behavior which has been poor. They are lucky to have avoided being blocked.LizRead!Talk!04:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the basis for claiming it's a death threat is because of thesinger of the song having just been sentenced to 30 years in prison for the killing of his cousin. It seems not exactly a death threat but it's also not exactly civil.Simonm223 (talk)12:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh. Tbh they've been given too much rope, the last time, that is. But I see no reason for them to stay unblocked when they haven't given a single f for the multiple warnings given by Hammersoft𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)13:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
S-400 missile system:[281] (adds POV LLM-generated text);[282] (re-adds LLM-generated content this time with dubious sources to boot);[283] (unexplained content blanking);[284] (re-adds LLM text this time citing even more dubious sources);[285] (again content blanking);[286] (re-adds LLM cruft);[287] (blanking again and now LLM edit summaries go along with it);[288] (re-adds LLM cruft);[289] (blanking RS claiming fake news);[290] (blanks it again with an LLM edit summary);[291] (and again);[292] (and again)
PAF Base Nur Khan:[300] (replaces content with LLM cruft);[301] (LLM again);[302] (and again with an LLM edit summary);[303],[304] (falsely labels a source and then blanks content)
Ajit Doval:[305] (inexplicably blanks a whole lot of content);[306] (adds LLM cruft);[307],[308],[309] (repeats the LLM addtns with LLM edit summaries to boot)
The user's reponse (beyond the clearly LLM generated crufthere andhere andhere): isthis dubious POV tagging of sources and blatant personal attacks such asthis andthis.
This isWikipedia:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by a user who clearly has no interest in the project who has continuously edit warred, made unacknowledged use of LLMs (including the hoaxes and fake cites they generate from the POV prompts given) and who's sole purpose appears to be to disrupt a sanctioned topic space. We should be looking for a block here.
Also requesting for an ECP on the first four of the list above, considering the unabated edit war coming from multiple users.Gotitbro (talk)14:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
This userJamali287 has been making personal accusations against me and my nationality .
You are a liar, when I target your nationality and when I speak negative about you and your family? You can't block me, do anything you wish to do(Redacted).Jamali287 (talk)14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
At least I am not adding any misinformation like you, you are citing from that Indian media which has no credibility, I will not let this platform to be tool for your propaganda. I have removed and edit that information which is totally unverifiable. I put that information which is correct, reliable which you don't like it. I will be doing this my work you can't stop me for exercising my right to edit Wikipedia.Jamali287 (talk)14:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He has been making disruptive edits in several pages includingS-400,PAF base Nur Khan andAjit Doval. He continues to make disruptive edits in several pages including deleting references and parts of topic entirely and on confronting him, he uses "right to wikipedia" term.AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk)14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An inquiry for input was added to the United States page regarding its listed form of government. The attempt was to align the page with its peer nations. The inquiry was closed with a request for clarification.
Clarification was offered and in less than 24 hours the topic was closed without expressed justification byUser:Moxy. When attempts to discuss the closure were made, the user expressed agreement on the need for change due to historical examples that aligned with the sourced material. However, refused to reconsider the closure due to an apparent assumption that the edit is relevant to current events and not the historical material listed in the suggestion.SydCarlisle (talk)00:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
You're messing around with a CTOP area and trying to make changes using opensecret.org. I suggest you drop this since a topic ban is likely if you don't.Nil Einne (talk)01:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continuing to add content against consensus
blocked 31 hours to stop the disruption. I left a block notice and explanatory message on their user talk page. Hopefully they get the message. If not, please re-report. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk)02:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On theBooby and Booba page, this user has been reverting to their own edits numerous times[314][315][316][317][318], despite consensus against it, and multiple warnings on their talk page from @Butlerblog (sorry for the ping). Eitanbenosher has been edit warring over the TV infobox template, mainly, they have been adding a flag to the country section (against the infobox documentation consensus at{{Infobox television}},MOS:INFOBOXFLAG)The |first_aired= and |last_aired= date parameters are to be formatted using |Start date= and |End date=.However, the user continued to reinstate the flag and remove the date parameters despite continued warnings. Today, they continued to do it[319] despite having 2 final warnings on their talk page, so thus I’m filing this report. Butlerblog has explained the TV Infobox numerous times but Eitanbenosher is continuing to reinstate their disruptive edits.NacreousPuma855 (talk)01:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
They created the article, so there's definiteWP:OWN concerns here, and the article is so anemic it's a PROD/AfD candidate (its network,BabyTV, doesn't have a list-of to redirect to because all of its content is meant for...well, see the name). It also looks like the article was created despite itsdraft version never being submitted for review (and being moved out of article space in March), so there's more than just that dispute going on here and we've extended enough rope to them already.Nathannah •📮01:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has an unblock request open that is unclearly either nonsensical or deliberate trolling. Would someone be nice enough to revoke TPA? Pinging@Ponyo:, who issued the block.JeffSpaceman (talk)23:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another sign of BCD is that they almost always close AFDs as "No consensus" and they often geolocate to New York state.LizRead!Talk!17:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts: Actually, there is, for the former at least.WP:NACD says:In general, administrators (admins) are responsible for closing deletion discussions, but non-administratorswho are registered (i.e. not IP users) may close (or relist) these discussions, (emphasis added). -The BushrangerOne ping only21:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Well there is the edge case of withdrawals, not common though. The bigger issue is that disallow edit filters can be counterproductive if they cause LTAs to shift their patterns to edits that are less likely to be caught quickly, though filters that log, warn, or show CAPTCHAs can still be employed. For a somewhat related concept seeWP:NOSALT. Ultimately it depends on the LTA and for the reason further discussion is likely best done privately.184.152.65.118 (talk)22:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that is technically possible but perhaps it can be done with just XFDcloser. IP editors can't open AFDs so maybe there is a way to prevent them from closing discussions. It would not be totally effective though with this sock as they also use registered accounts.LizRead!Talk!22:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP Address appears to be vandalizing every recent death article with allegations that they died from vaccines. Please block. FWIW, this is my first request here in months/years.Bearian (talk)16:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I removed their extended confirmed user right. That will prevent them from editing disruptively in other extended-confirmed protected pages. It seems they're not ready for this user right yet. I can't do anything unilaterally about a topic ban. If someone else wants to indefinitely block The Image Editor, that's fine, but I considered the immediate self-revert a mitigating factor.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)12:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
They give an interesting explanationhere. It doesn't sound like they will repeat this action so I'm closing this complaint since it sounds like an isolated incident.LizRead!Talk!18:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zaathras in an edit summary attacked a fellow editor,Executive20000, saying: "Yea, dim trolls can GTFO with this black eye photo nonsense. Grow the fuck up." it can be foundhere. I origially wasn't going to report it, but it's so extreme I think it constitues some sort of look.Stadt64 (talk)13:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
タリシ has been mindlessly editing warring and adding unsourced info. Edit summary and talk page used zero times. Pays zero attention to their talk page warnings. Vasty majority of edits reverted. Been ongoing since 12 November 2024. Can they please get blocked until they find the talk page? --HistoryofIran (talk)09:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, can you supply some diffs? You're not a newbie to ANI, you know they are expected with complaints so that we can quickly see what you are referring to.LizRead!Talk!18:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So a user namedVellutis Recently got exposed for being asockpuppet, but before that he was banned for 48 hours foredit warring. the edit warring comes from theNicusor Dan Article where he kept changing the image to a worse, oversharpened, overcropped one. And now he practically went insane, i mean that he is doing is that he is mass vandalising theimage kept in the article onCommons basically every time the vandalism gets reverted after just a second it gets back to being vandalized. 𝕸𝖆𝖑𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖐𝕳𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖓𝕿𝖆𝖑𝖐15:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your complaint but if this is activity happening on the Commons, there is nothing we can do about it here on the English Wikipedia, they are two separate projects. Contact administrators on the Commons.
If it is some activity here, you will need to supply diffs, showing us examples of the activity you believe is disruptive.LizRead!Talk!18:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notice regarding Repeated use of AI-generated, promotional content by Sumanrsb2
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I'd like to raise concerns aboutUser:Sumanrsb2, who has been creating multiple articles that appear to rely heavily on AI-generated or LLM-assisted content. The tone across several entries includes non-neutral phrasing, promotional language, and unsourced editorial statements, which may conflict with core content policies likeWP:NPOV,WP:TONE, andWP:PROMO. Despite past warnings on their talk page, similar patterns continue in recent edits.
“The slogan reflects a commitment to prioritize the development of Bihar…” “It sought to offer a comprehensive roadmap toward making Bihar a self-reliant and forward-looking state.” These lines include promotional language without attribution or sourcing, violatingWP:NPOV
1] It is one of the most prominent attractions of the region, renowned for its spiritual significance and therapeutic properties.Here used words like Prominient etc which doesnt seem to be neutral...
2] According to local legends and historical references, the warm spring is believed to possess....
Here they added unsourced emotive content likely to be generated through AI, Their edit history, is full of creating LLM generated articles,
Comment - In view of what I've just deleted, plus the blanking of the user page, I think there is a case for a block.Deb (talk)12:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to give Sumanrsb2 a chance to respond to this discussion first. If they don't respond here, then I would support an indefinite block (either from article space or sitewide) until they commit to stop addingpromotional content and to stop usingLLM-generated text for editing. — Newslingertalk18:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
@Newslinger Given their editing history, they tend to edit with long gaps between contributions. Similar issues have been raised multiple times since 2013, and they should have seen and understood the warnings by now. It seems unlikely they will respond here.JesusisGreat7☾⋆ |Ping Me18:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not in a hurry to support a block before Sumanrsb2 responds becauseblocks are intended to be preventative, and an editor who is not currently making edits is also not currently disrupting the encyclopedia. I don't see Sumanrsb2's pattern of editing to be of sufficient bad faith to justify blocking without giving them a chance to respond. If Sumanrsb2 does not respond for 48 hours from the time of the initial message in this discussion or continues editing without responding here, then I support the block mentioned in my previous comment. — Newslingertalk19:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I have ever used such AI tool or other LLM gen text for editing on wikipedia. If you have any particular issue regarding language that I can watchSumanrsb2 (talk)04:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Sumanrsb2, I think you misspoke here.I have ever used such AI tools or other LLM gen text... sounds like you have used AI. Did you mean to say "never"?LizRead!Talk!04:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes it was a typo. Kindly read "I never have ever used such AI tool or other LLM gen text for editing on wikipedia. If you have any particular issue regarding language that I can watch."Sumanrsb2 (talk)05:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Sumanrsb2, the low standard of your written English in these responses suggests to me that you would not have been capable of writing the articles unaided. You have one last chance to tell us the whole truth about your contributions, otherwise a block is inevitable.Deb (talk)08:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
@Liz, @Deb, @Newslinger, I’d like to request admins to review the below diff— another article created by the user, which I cleaned up, contained promotional content. Terms like “Lord” and “Goddess” were used, which violateWP:NPOV. Additionally, the article included lines that appear AI-generated, such as:holds spiritual significance…,making it a popular tourist attraction. It is an integral part…, andRishikesh’s religious and scenic landscape — none of which were supported by reliable sources. This content is overly emotive and unsourced, and again raises concerns about possible use of LLM tools. Are they sure they haven’t used one in this?
Please don’t comment on the standard of my written English. Just let me know if I’ve violated any policy—if so, I will ensure to take care of it in the future. I stand by what I said, I have never used any AI tool or language model for writing or editing any Wikipedia article. Kindly keep personal biases aside and allow the concerned authorities to make their own judgment. I am here to contribute positively to Wikipedia, not to promote any particular product, person, or idea.Sumanrsb2 (talk)10:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I do not find the accusation of LLM usage terribly convincing in this case; certainly this is miles away from what you would get if you asked ChatGPT to write a Wikipedia article on Bihar cuisine and then copy-pasted the result. (This is not to say that they are good articles, just that they don’t look LLM generated to me.)173.79.19.248 (talk)11:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Fair, but several of their earlier articles — including recent ones — were speedy deleted for being overly promotional and filled with emotive language. On a deeper look, the same kinds of lines are clearly visible — as mentioned earlier. I possibly find that they might have taken help from multiple AIs or selectively copied lines and dropped them into paragraphs without proper sourcing.JesusisGreat7☾⋆ |Ping Me11:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I have to disagree. The means by which Sumanrsb2 created the initial revisions ofBalushahi (Bihari cuisine) (28 February),Delhi School of Journalism (28 February), andJanaki Setu (27 February) are obviously different from the means by which Sumanrsb2 created the initial revisions ofSankat Mochan Mandir Nawada (25 February),Sitamarhi Mandir (25 February), andGandhi Inter School Nawada (24 Febuary). The former three revisions use correct grammar and punctuation (excluding the citation placement), and appear to be LLM-generated content that then had bare-URL citations manually added in. The latter three revisions have multiple grammar errors despite being shorter in length.Thesmoking gun is the first revision ofRajgir Kund (24 February), whichincorrectly uses title case in section headings while promoting the subject in a declarative way (e.g."The region also offers a range of accommodations, making it a convenient destination for travelers.") that is characteristic of AI chatbots. It is very difficult to believe that the same person wrote the first revisions ofGandhi Inter School Nawada (24 Febuary) andRajgir Kund (24 February) on the same day.As Sumanrsb2 is not forthcoming with their LLM use, and has posted an LLM-generated response in this discussion denying their apparent LLM use, I am blocking the editor indefinitely perWP:NOTHERE. The repeated and undisclosed use of LLM-generated content in articles and discussion comments falls under two examples ofWP:NOTHERE:"General pattern ofdisruptive behavior" and"Dishonest and gaming behaviors". — Newslingertalk11:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
@Newslinger,In addition, they also tried to vandalize theAsim Munir page, where they added terms like “pig” and modified the short description template, then reverted it to hide their behavior. It’s hard to guess whether their faith is good....
@Newslinger, I had cleaned up most of their promotional content—only a few bits remain. I was only able to report it after a deep reading. I also noticed that some of their promotional pages were already marked as reviewed by patrollers. It makes me question how that's even possible...JesusisGreat7☾⋆ |Ping Me12:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up the articles. LLMs are still relatively new and theWikipedia:New pages patrol tutorial page currently doesn't mention them at all. It will take some time for editors to recognize LLM-generated content more consistently.WP:AICATCH contains some advice, but the page is still in development. — Newslingertalk12:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bogus/invalid citation spree - mass rollback and block needed.
New contributor Anumodu favour Amarachi registered on May 10th this year, but only started editing yesterday. Their entire edit history consists of rapidly adding citations, each with the same edit summary ('#1Lib1Ref #Lib1RefNG #1Lib1RefIM', which indicates participation in some sort of editathon or contest, per the tags). I've not checked all 73 edits, but of those I have, almost every one has fallen into one of two classes - either citing clearly inappropriate sources (Wikipedia mirrors etc, for which they have been already warned twice, with no effect.[338][339]) or outright bogus citations - mostly formed by copying an existing reference into a location previously marked 'citation needed'.
A few examples (I've already seen many more):
Foot Locker. Citing a NYT article from 2001 for an event occurring in 2023.[340]
Leigh Bowery. A series of edits, which include 'citation' of aGuardian article from 2002 for a claim regarding the smell of bananas being a part of a performance. TheGuardian article says nothing whatsoever about bananas.[341]
Tommy Nutter. Desparately poor sourcing: ancientfaces.com, a 'family-friendly memories community', and clearly not WP:RS. Note that this edit was made well after the second warning re sourcing linked above was given.[342]
Trevor Kent. With this one, at least an attempt at finding a legitimate source has been made. Unfortunately, it is citing a 1979 NYT article for events that occurred long after.[343]
I could continue, but I think I've shown enough. If someone wants to go through the lot on the offchance that there is a valid citation amongst the 73 edits made, good luck, but in my opinion the appropriate course of action would be for someone with the necessary tools to do a mass rollback of the lot, and then to block Anumodu favour Amarachi from article space. I'm going toWP:AGF here, with the assumption that this is due to some sort of misunderstanding at an editathon or similar, but regardless of the cause, it clearly can't be permitted to continue. Hopefully Anumodu favour Amarachi will be able to provide some sort of explanation as to why this has occurred.AndyTheGrump (talk)21:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll spot check a few more, but this looks one of those cases where we have someone who is making enough bad edits at a high enough rate that it's not a good use of people's time to check every individually to see if one of them just happens to be valid.184.152.65.118 (talk)21:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, spot checked two more, both bad, this makes for easy multitasking so if no one else mass rollbacks it first I'll get around to it myself and just revert the lot over the next hour.184.152.65.118 (talk)21:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm really sorry about all these, they were not done intentionally as I am a new editor, please I beg not to be blocked, I've taken corrections, pardon meAnumodu favour Amarachi (talk)21:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm really really sorry about these, I'm a new editor on Wikipedia and I wasn't aware that all these would be a problem.
We try to be understanding because this can be a daunting place for new editors, but you ignored multiple talk page messages requesting that you pause. Now would you please explain how you were selecting these references?184.152.65.118 (talk)21:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't able to notice the warnings on time, if I had noticed them, I'd have stopped before it would cause more problem, I'm still begging please, editing on Wikipedia has really helped me to forget about my worries as I don't have time again to think of them, if I'm blocked, I'll surely be a mess.Anumodu favour Amarachi (talk)22:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Anumodu favour Amarachi, are you participating in some sort of editathon or similar event, as the tags to your edit summaries seem to suggest? If so, can you tell us who was running it?AndyTheGrump (talk)22:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Well that may have been your intent, but for example you added academickids, a Wikipedia mirror as a reference, so some of your edits did not do that. However I would like to focus for a moment on your addition ofthis reference to the article on Max Fleischer. Why did you pick that reference to support content indicating that he developed an ulcer or that he decided to move the studio for more space and to escape further labor agitation?184.152.65.118 (talk)22:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
So, cash prizes are being offered to 'add references'. Does it never occur to the people running these things that they are actively encouraging inexperienced/clueless contributors to go around messing up articles?AndyTheGrump (talk)23:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I just removed a bunch of one of the other sock's references. These aren't just bad additions, but if actually made in good faith, some of the worst efforts I've ever seen on this project. I have a hard time believing that someone is in good faith citing information about open-faced sandwiches being popularized to the Netherlands before England to a lawsuit filed by a casino operator in 2016 against internet registrars concerning trademark infringement. And also somehow also the source for information about what Estonians call open-faced sandwiches.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)02:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I've reverted everythingwell almost everything one edit request pending. In not one case where I actually checked was the added reference appropriate. On the off chance a random edit in there was constructive anyone who is willing to take responsibility for it should feel free to restore without consulting me. I'm still multitasking so any follow up that requires lengthy back and forth may be delayed.184.152.65.118 (talk)23:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
An aside: Whoever runs these events should make it clear that whatever set of tags they ask participants to include in their edit summaries should come at the end ofa proper edit summary. They shouldn'tbe the entire edit summary for every edit.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLargoplazo (talk •contribs)00:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, though that's probably better brought up atWP:VPW. Also, if memory serves there's at least one contest where the person at the affiliate who started it is locally c-bannedfrom before they began coordinating the contest so cooperation isn't guaranteed. Anyway, socks blocked, edits reverted. I think we're done here.184.152.65.118 (talk)00:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we are done, if this is some kind of editathon or campaign that is occurring through WMF, they need to be informed that their system is broken and instead of improving the project, these new editors are actually messing things up and creating work for other editors to clean up. I don't think brand new editors should edit for cash prizes.LizRead!Talk!01:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
By here I meant ANI, I mean we can have a discussion here NOTBURO, but it's less likely to attract the input it needs, especially as the topic shifted and the thread title is unindicative. No discussion closure is going to be able to force the WMF or any affiliates to do anything anyway. That may also be true of VPW, but WMF representatives are supposed to be monitoring the page and with better input from a more focused discussion additional options may reveal themselves, like a petition of some kind.184.152.65.118 (talk)02:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/ looks like a good tool for tracking these edits. Using that, I foundBiomass partitioning, where I checked the last few edits using this tag. In all cases, they're reasonable looking sources (on topic, in academic journals) but don't appear to support the statements they're being used as citations for, so a net negative. This is a mess. Perhaps we should create an edit filter to prevent any more of these?RoySmith(talk)11:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The #1Lib1Ref is a global campaign encouraging the addition of reliable sources to articles needing citations and not promoting further disruptions or vandalism. Too bad that a few of the participating editors were out of line (and are currently blocked). In the last few hours, all participants in the community have been undergoing further training with close mentorship to deepen their understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I appreciate the prompt responses and community support so far. Best,King ChristLike (talk)12:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Inan earlier case, where some of 300+ new refs did appear to support the statements, text was never added, corrected or deleted in accordance with the new refs. The references hadn't been used to write the article, yet the entire article was seemingly already in perfect accord with all those works. It was incredible and if the current additions never affect the text, maybe they are too.NebY (talk)12:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1073 has been tracking these for some time, and could simply be set to disallow if deemed prudent, or a new filter created that disallows only certain tags if other competitions have lower error rates. We are probably going to want better data before we do that however. Bearing in mind that it's not an entirely dependable solution since it could be evaded simply by the competition organizers changing the tag required or dropping the tagging requirement altogether.184.152.65.118 (talk)14:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Not this again. A Nigerian edit contest, massive issues identified, organizers claim improvement, no improvements apparent? Set the edit filter to deny, block the participants, block the organizers. The number of hours we waste on these time and again is staggering. Most recent edit,[344], adds a source which doesn't support the statement it references[345] (source doesn't mention Tilden, marble, or Bethersden). Not a one-off error, their previous edit[346] had the exact same issue.Fram (talk)13:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Nigerian editors contribute largely and positively to Wikipedia. FWIW, this shouldn’t be generalized but treated on a case-by-case basis. Defaulting editors should be warned or blocked (either temp or perm). Trainers and event organizers spend a lot of time and resources organizing office hours, training sessions, and mentorship, especially for new editors, so why rope them in too?King ChristLike (talk)15:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
"Nigerian editors contribute largely and positively to Wikipedia. " The edit contests we have so many issues with that they end up on AN or ANI, are way too often Nigerian ones. This statement says nothing about Nigerian editors in general and may just as well be caused by e.g. issues at the Nigerian Wikimedia chapter. "Trainers and event organizers spend a lot of time and resources organizing office hours, training sessions, and mentorship, especially for new editors, so why rope them in too?" That's not what we see though. See e.g.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344#1Lib1RefNG junk-references, where my reaction was already "oh no, not this again", and where some previous similar issues are noted.Fram (talk)15:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Why, if you are spending so many hours on this and have today been giving "close mentorship", don't you do something about edits likethis one? It's still the same issue, suorces somewhat related to the general subject but not supporting the actual sentence(s) they are supposed to reference.This one adds spam link to an already referenced sentence.Fram (talk)16:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
King ChristLike, I wish there was a way you could encourage more engagement with the project without supplying prizes. I think the incentive to "win" can cause editors to take shortcuts that undermine any improvement they might be trying to accomplishment. I understand that working as a volunteer on Wikipedia, you are competing with all sorts of other activities that provide more entertainment or financial inducements but, hey, it's why we are all here. Good luck with your project and remember check, check and recheck those citations!LizRead!Talk!18:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
@Liz, Sure, incentives influences contribution, but this isn’t the only campaign or contest with prizes attached. Several participating communities or individuals are also using the familiar hashtags to make contributions all through the campaign period. But I’m only a co-facilitator and trainer inmy community. I’m afraid I won’t be responsible for checking or patrolling every other edit. As earlier mentioned, much emphasis is placed during the training sessions and office hours in understanding policies and guidelines on enwiki, especially for new editors. There have also been meaningful contributions so far by other editors and this is what we all aim to achieve—quality improvement and making Wikipedia more reliable.King ChristLike (talk)19:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Concur with Fram — this 1lib1ref nonsense is a drain on the encyclopaedia and actively harms it as unverifiable claims may appear verifiable, and when that happens it can take over 15 years to address.206.83.102.201 (talk)06:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
It does not matter what the outcomes are for these AfDs. The issue is bringing articles about law to AfD because it does not passWP:GNG without doing anything related toWP:BEFORE after being told several times.Competence is required, and this user has demonstrated they are not taking any insight or feedback. I want to assume good faith, but their talk page shows similar issues with other procedures throughout Wikipedia. I would like admins or more experienced editors to weigh in on this. –The Grid (talk)18:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
It's impossible to tell if an editor has or has not done BEFORE since it is an activity editors do on their own, without leaving edits on the project. I mean, an editor could have done a BEFORE but not seen anything worthwhile that would change their decision to nominate an article for deletion.
So, it seems like your complaint is that these articles clearly meet GNG notability standards, should not have been brought to AFD for a deletion discussion and that the editor is not responding to complaints on their User talk page, is that right? I'm just trying to clarify your accusations as we have to be able to assess the editor's edits and not all of what you object to leaves a trace in their Contributions list.LizRead!Talk!19:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
You personally never attempted to resolve these issues with me before heading to ANI. All you've done is insult me by calling me incompetent and threatening to have me blocked in a thread about another editors edit summary:You clearly have a lot to learn here. Your competence is required or you are going to be blocked until it can be shown that you understand the guidelines and policies on here.Special:Diff/1294265690. Maybe we should be talking about your unconsturctive behaviour.Legend of 14 (talk)19:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, you've come here to make unfalisiable accusations, you can't prove the searches I did or didn't make, and I can't prove the searches I did and didn't make.Legend of 14 (talk)19:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Did you look at any of the linked afds? They aren’t great, and the OP likely has valid concerns. Lo14 shouldn’t be sending anything to afd until this matter has been discussed.173.22.12.194 (talk)20:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
One of my gripes about ANI is that there is a tendency to call for a BOOMERANG way too early in a discussion. The Grid hasn't even returned yet to respond to comments that have been left so far.LizRead!Talk!23:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
You have not replied to either conversation on your talk page regarding these matters. It’s quite disingenuous to claim that the OP didn’t attempt to discuss this with you when multiple other editors have.173.22.12.194 (talk)20:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
What conversations are you talking about? The conversation that started off by another editor just outright calling mevexatious bad faith§ About your behaviour and the ANI notice.WP:CIVILITY says that "walk away" is a valid way to handle uncivil comments.Legend of 14 (talk)22:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Here: James500 explained the offline sources most useful for articles on those types of laws. You did not reply.Here: James500 again pointed out some of the offline sources that support notability, as did Dormskirk. It's after those two conversations that James500 wrotePlease stop making vexatious bad faith nominations of articles that you know perfectly well satisfy GNG. Dormskirk weighed in there, as did Oblivy. You did not reply. (thread)Schazjmd(talk)22:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I made that comment after the editor nominated the articleMagistrates' Courts Act 1980 for deletion. In that case, sources containing extensive coverage were already cited in the article at the time of the nomination, all but one of them was online, I had previously warned him which books contain coverage of the Act (andI never claimed they were offline)[347], and the Act has so much coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar and the Internet Archive, that no-one who ran a search for its short title, and who actually read the sources that came up in the search results, could possibly have failed to be aware of how much coverage it had. This Act is not like a medieval statute that is cited by a plethora of confusing nicknames and other methods of citation. It is not difficult to run a search for "Magistrates' Courts Act 1980". (Okay, you will find abbreviations like "MCA 1980", but they are not so common they would make it impossible to find coverage on a search for "Magistrates' Courts Act 1980"). In the AfD he falsely claimed that the only sources cited in the article were copies of the Act. He also claimed that he "Couldn't find any other sources":[348]. His claim that he couldn't find any other sources is impossible to believe. He either did not search for sources with a search engine at all, or he did not read the results the search engine produced, or he lied about the results the search engine produced. If you doubt this, then try runningthe search he claimed to have performed. You will see that numerous sources come up immediately.James500 (talk)01:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I did not format the query in the same way you did. When I did the search, I got copies of books containing the text of a bunch statutes of the United Kingdom including the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Wikipedia articles do not have live updates. I opened the page before you made the edits, which I explained in my withdrawal comment.Legend of 14 (talk)01:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I think if you did anymore AfDs without utilizing any comments provided, you would definitely come across as disruptive. It's adding unnecessary work for editors. I don't know how to stress that criticism shouldn't be taken personally, this isn't trying to gang up on you. Either it will click or not, it's ok to state that something isn't perfect. This deflective mindset isn't productive acting like nothing happened. –The Grid (talk)23:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not acting like nothing happened. I'm full acknowledging you came to my talk page to insult and threaten me, and then made an unfalisifable ANI about things you cannot prove I did. Calling me incompetent is personal,threatening to block me is personal, calling me vexious bad faith is personal. These personal attacks are not dispute resolution.Legend of 14 (talk)23:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Their initial message was that you need to listen to other editors, which is true. Yes, they were bitey about it and could have been more civil. So you banned them from your Talk page. It happens.
We're at ANInow because they're saying the issue is continuing. You say that they should have discussed it with you, but how? You can't ban someone from your Talk page and then say they should have discussed it with you.Woodroar (talk)23:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
They could've tried replying tomy comment on their talk page, to name their specific concerns and actions they wanted me to take in a respectful way, but instead they threatened me with being blocked again and then followed through on their bullying by starting this ANI.Legend of 14 (talk)23:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
You told me to not make any more comments to your talk page - after just making one. That level of ignorance will get you blocked. It's not even a threat when pointing out that behavior is not tolerated here. You can argue civility but I rather be blunt to warn you. –The Grid (talk)01:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
This is a noticeboard of last resort for seriously defective actions in the general hurly burly of Wikipedia; there are higher ones for egregious actions, but the air there is rarified, and far more so than here. Before coming here it is prefered that this be raised directly with the editor concerned.@The Grid: Please provide diffs to show that you have done this prior to bringing the matter here. Matters such as this are better resoved collegially than with requested ANI action.
While it wasn't The Grid, the issues were already brought up by other editors (here,here andhere) to no effect. As mentioned by woodroar, The Grid was banned from Lo14's talk page after one comment, and so was unable to further discuss. Looking at Lo14's talk page, I don't think "collegial" was in the cards; it looks a lot likeWP:BATTLEGROUND to me, though The Grid's initial salvo was far from having a collegial tone, too. I think the ideal outcome here is that Lo14 accepts thatWP:OFFLINE holds, accepts what they've been told about certain legal sources by others, and stops nominating law articles for deletion if they are unable or unwilling to access those sources. It would also be nice if everyone involved remembered that we're all here to build an encyclopedia, and if we work at cross purposes it's likely due to a misunderstanding, not malice.EducatedRedneck (talk)23:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Support preventative action. When after the talk threads (in which Legend of 14 participated and was certainly aware of)User talk:Legend of 14/Archive 1#Your editing (started on 5 June 2025) andUser talk:Legend of 14/Archive 1#About your behaviour (started on 6 June 2025), Legend of 14, on 9 June 2025, startedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piracy Act 1698, that was a massiveWP:IDHT exercise, and proof that Legend of 14 wants to validate their starting ideas and does not want to take in feedback. Legend of 14 got high-quality feedback for their editing, did not dispute that they made a mistake to only searchon google, google books, google news, and google scholar, received messages of concern that they might be making vexatious nominations, and then waited for 3 days for to be left alone to start the 9 June AfD, which cannot be anything but a vexatious nomination. That AfD is the reason why this is at ANI.@Timtrent: please look into this evidence.The Grid failed to cross-reference the talk page discussions with the timing of the AfDs. —Alalch E.00:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Support minor action - Possibly a time-limited ban on proposing AFD? The battleground-style responses here (Please explain how the Your message thread is related to the issues brought up by The Grid. Thanks.) and that feedback has to match their personal standards for clearness and respectfulness don't provide a lot of hope that they understand the relevant policies.
Thisis a page of crime-related AFD where you can see most of the debates together. Most responses are all 'keep', with ~1 that has a few supports for 'Merge'. Most of the responses point out references supporting notability that Legend of 14 says they were not able to find.MilesVorkosigan (talk)00:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I fully understandWP:Civility, a key policy here. I know when a discussion has become to heated, and I shouldn't get involved or should back off if I'm already involved. I am not making a battleground by asking a genuine question about how a thread that is about a warning I left on another user's talk page related to civility of their edit summaries, is relevant here.Legend of 14 (talk)01:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
My first encounter withUser:Legend of 14 was on 28 May 2025 atMFD when they nominated four user sandboxes for deletion. They had found them in the maintenance categoryCategory:Stale userspace drafts. That category had slightly more than 39,000 drafts in it at the time, and has 39,492 drafts in it at the time that I write this. The user sandboxes that they nominated were not doing any harm, except for being in an enormous maintenance category It was my opinion, and that of the other MFD regular editors, that Legend of 14 was wasting volunteer time by submitting them for MFD review. I asked what their reason was for making those nominations, and got the following answer:
Well I've found that most abandoned user drafts either are valuable for the encyclopedia or could be valuable to the encyclopedia if they are transferred to people with the right skill set. I think getting rid of user drafts without potential, from inactive users, especially with the large backlog right now, makes it easier to find and deal with the drafts with potential.
In other words, they were, in good faith, trying to help by working off the backlog in that category. My opinion is that the category is so full of mostly useless stuff that it should be ignored. These AFD nominations of obscure Acts of Parliament are similar in being a waste of community volunteer time in reviewing stuff to get rid of it when the benefit of getting rid of the stuff is negligible.User:Timtrent asks what is the suggested outcome of this report. One possible outcome would be totopic-ban Legend of 14 from deletion nominations for a period of time, because they have shown that they waste the community's time with deletion nominations having little or no value.Robert McClenon (talk)01:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
And *that* response reinforces what I was saying about not appearing to understand people’s objections.
In this case, you saw an editor point out that you’re wasting a large amount of editor time and your response was that *one* of your nominations was accepted.
I've been involved in the AfD's for some of these statutes and, as noted above, participated in a talk page thread on @Legend of 14's talk page asking them to slow down. I'm frustrated by their actions. Some of the nominations were unsupportable and attempts to support them were abrasive and bludgeon-y. In context of what had been said by 9 June thePiracy Act 1698 AfD was indefensible. But having said all that, @The Grid got it right when they said:I think if you did anymore AfDs without utilizing any comments provided, you would definitely come across as disruptive. It's adding unnecessary work for editors. I don't know how to stress that criticism shouldn't be taken personally, this isn't trying to gang up on you. Either it will click or not, it's ok to state that something isn't perfect. This deflective mindset isn't productive acting like nothing happened.If, after all this, things don't improve, perhaps administrator intervention will eventually be called for. But I have to assume there's room to grow if that's what @Legend of 14 wants.Oblivy (talk)02:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I want to apologize for the disruptions my nominations on AfD have caused. It was a mistake to nominate so many articles at the pace I did, and my behaviour inadvertently created a significant burden on other contributors and the community in general, for which I'm truly sorry. I have begun the process of reviewing my nominations for those which sufficient sources have been provided since the nomination and withdrawing and closing them. I do not have time to go through all them today, but I will hopefully finish tomorrow. I hope this will resolve major concern raised here.Legend of 14 (talk)02:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I think this is an important reminder that while we allow editors to ban other editors from their talk page; editors who do so do so at their own peril and definitely should not do so likely. As others have said The Grid's comments might have been a little bitey, still it was silly to ban them over it. And it's definitely silly to expect The Grid to reply to a talk page thread Legend of 14 had opened on The Grid's talk page and outline the concerns due to the ban. So having banned The Grid, Legend of 14 opened themselves to an ANI which might not have been necessary had they behaved more reasonably with The Grid. And since it came to this ANI, Legend of 14 should consider themselves on a very short leash going forward.Nil Einne (talk)05:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Nil Einne, maybe you should have said that bit about the short leash more slowly, clearly and distinctly enunciating each syllable, becauseLegend of 14 doesn't seem to have gotten the message -- see[349].EEng23:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, time for the gloves to come off. On top of the link I give just above, your contributions history and talk page[350] page show that for the last month you've been bumbling about the project doing stupid things which waste the time of productive people. If you don't sit up and fly rightinstantly, aWP:CIR block will be coming your way.EEng23:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
That's an understandable reaction, especially since the creator is blocked and has said they won't be back. Shame though, I think some people could have improved it to an actual humorous essay.»Gommeh (he/him)14:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Final warning, Legend reacts to feedback here about wasting community time by... opening an ANI about someone not using edit summaries. They need to learn that time is valuable or they will be blocked.StarMississippi01:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
As noted above, they'veflounced, but overall this is an editor who is a time-sink and if they choose to return (which many flouncing editors do...) we have no guarantee that it won't just be more of the same. Accordingly, after a quick look through their talk page (and jolly gee whillikers, that clinches it) I've indefinitely blocked Legend of 14 perWP:CIR. -The BushrangerOne ping only03:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Following the links inthat discussion reveal the Lo14 has been battling everyone in sight since at least January. Even now, on their talk page they're arguing that they're in the right.EEng16:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I thought it was a good block for the reason stated by the Bushranger, that users who say that they are rage-quitting often come back and are still angry. I had earlier suggested a ban on deletion nominations (not just AFD, because their MFD nominations were also problematic). I think that an unblock request should also apologize for their outburst.Robert McClenon (talk)15:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Well, from a quick and superficial look,I think that a topic ban from AfD may be more appropriate than an indef block.
On a different note, I would urge everybody to remain civil. Comments likemaybe you should have said that bit about the short leash more slowly, clearly and distinctly enunciating each syllable, because Legend of 14 doesn't seem to have gotten the message are egregiously incivil to Legend of 14,EEng.
And on yet another different note, I would urge someone who can't be bothered to take more than a quick and superficial look to refrain from offering uninformed commentary.EEng21:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I see User:Legend of 14 has been indef blocked, and I approve. We are in CIR territory now. The frequent lashing out at good faith critique tells us something. A number of users have been patiently attempting to get Lo14's attention and explain that mere industry doesn't translate to competence. After this block I'm finally seeing Lo14 start to admit their part in this and accept some responsibility. However, based on the user's recent history, I have little reason to believe them.BusterD (talk)15:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I oppose this editor being unblocked with anything less thanWP:STANDARD. I do not want to be back here in a week or a month. I agree with BusterD that this has reached the point where Legend of 14 needs to actually prove that he can edit a WMF project without disrupting it. WP:STANDARD allows him to do that without risk of further disruption to this project.James500 (talk)14:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the articleShamsher Gazi, there is an image that is very likely user generated and per the wikimedia commons file, the users own work. I removed the image per community consensus for historical figures:Wikipedia:Historical portraits and pictures. An editor has reverted me and is advising that I need to provide a source for it not being user generated? Is this correct and could I please have an admin input on the issue. The image itself doesn’t seem to have any historical basis and seems to be an original piece of artwork. If we were to allow it then the precedent would be to allow any editor to draw their own image of historical figures.
I don't know what makes editors think that our readers are interested in their personal artwork. I've deleted it from the article.EEng14:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I am the other user involved in this discussion. There appears to be no proof that the image is user-generated. User: Ixudi has not provided any evidence to support this claim. also, the image clearly shows a signature at the bottom right-hand corner. I was also initially, incorrectly accused of uploading this photo which I didnt do, and the removal seems intended to erase it without proper basis.
while I agree the original uploader should specify their source, the phrase “own work” can also mean they took a photograph or scanned the image, which is not against Wikipedia’s policies. I suggested user: Ixudi to discuss it with them but they declined.Regalhist5 (talk)14:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
In theory, yes, "own work" can mean that but the phrase is widely abused and we should err on the side of caution. For example, people post photos on Indian book covers which show an artist's impression of a historic figure, often editing the photo to remove any text etc. They label it "own work", which the photo is, but it is a derivative of a copyrighted cover. So if in any doubt, remove. The onus is on the uploader to do things right. -Sitush (talk)14:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the uploader should clarify the source. However, I am not the uploader and have been accused of being the uploader. I also don’t think it’s right to remove images without legitimate reasons, especially since this looks like an oil painting rather than an Ai-generated image. You can review the ongoing discussion between me and User:Ixudi on my talk page for more context:User talk:Regalhist5.Regalhist5 (talk)15:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
You have not been accused of being the original uploader, nor has it been said that it is AI. Ixudi beginsthere is an image that is very likely user generated and per the wikimedia commons file, the users own work.User generated here simply means that it was created by a wiki-project user, not that it was AI-generated. They then say that it was likely the users own work, as it was uploaded asown-work, not saying thatyou made it and uploaded it, as they later introduce you asan editor.Weirdguyz (talk)15:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes I have been accused of being the original uploader. you can check my talk page where this issue was originally brought up by user:Ixudi. [[User talk:Regalhist5]. I only undid a revision on the main article, user:Ixudi went on my talk page to start a discussion, there was no resolution there so then they brought the discussion here.Regalhist5 (talk)15:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
You have not been accused of being the original uploader of the image. Thetemplate Ixudi used is the closest applicable template for you adding the image back in. This should be evident, as Ixudi was the one who removed it before you even touched the image, after which you reverted their edit (thereby adding it back into the article).Weirdguyz (talk)15:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I was accused, and again you are being biased instead of checking our discussion on my talk page where this originally started.Regalhist5 (talk)15:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Ixudi startedthat Talk page section withTemplate:Uw-upload1—they should have been more careful about that. But after you clarified that you didn't upload the image, Ixudi started talking about "reinstating" instead of "uploading". By reinstating the image, it's up toyou to make sure that it meets our policies. You even said that you wouldn't reinstate the image again, but you did 2 edits later. That's why we're here.Woodroar (talk)16:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, also user:Ixudi tagged my talkpage with a general note saying:Uploading unencyclopedic images on Shamsher Gazi. so I was clearly being accused, something you denied earlierUser:Woodroar. We discussed this issue for a while and after a few responses, it seemed like the discussion had ended so I assumed the discussion was over and was going to close it, but then it was redirected here. Since there was no evidence that it was a user-generated image (user:Ixudi wasnt even sure), I reverted the image back into the article (totaling only 2 reverts). But since admins have come to the conclusion that it should be removed then that is fine. I just wanted to make it clear that I never uploaded the image or plan to re-upload. Going forward, I hope we can all engage with one another in a manner consistent withWP:CIVIL.Regalhist5 (talk)16:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Ixudi has already apologized and noted that wasn't their intention with the template, it was the closest they could find.Harryhenry1 (talk)16:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Please stop repeating the same points about the template. As clearly stated, user:Ixudi added a general note on my talk page accusing me of uploading the image, which I never did. That is one of the main issues here, along with their behavior, not the template itself. This has been discussed thoroughly, and admins have decided to remove the image. Continuing to bring up the template instead of the facts is unproductive. Let's move on and respect WP:CIVIL. This discussion was and already is closed from my end.Regalhist5 (talk)17:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Apologies if I gave the impression that I was accusing you of being the uploader. It was just the closest matching template that was available to me.Ixudi (talk)16:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
If it's not their own work, then it's presumed to be aWP:COPYVIO.WP:IUPC is clear that a photograph or scan of an image inherits the copyright of that image, which would make thethis image, which is attributed to "own work", copyvio unless they also hold the rights to the original image. If that were the case, they'd need to release that copyright. Regardless, it's incorrectly licensed and thus was rightly removed as a COPYVIO. I'll also say that repeatedly reinstating it is probablyWP:Edit Warring, which is prohibited.EducatedRedneck (talk)15:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
There appears to be no proof that the image is user-generated – There's no "proof" (or indication at all) of what it is. It's either some artist's work (and therefore, presumably copyrighted, and wrongly described on Commons), or it's some random editor's work. Either way it's unacceptable.EEng15:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Oppose deletion.
Although I am not the original uploader, I previously voiced concern over the proposed removal and my stance remains unchanged.
This file is asigned oil painting (see lower right-hand corner) uploaded to Commons byNurul Amin in 2017 under aCC BY-SA 4.0 license. There isno credible evidence that it is AI-generated, user-generated in violation of policy, or a copyright violation. It is visibly a traditional oil painting with the artist’s signature, and there is no visual indicators suggesting it was AI-generated. Just because an image cannot be “proven” to the satisfaction of a skeptical editor/s does not justify deletion.
Additionally, Commons permits posthumous artistic representations of historical figures when no contemporary portraits exist, particularly in the case of underrepresented or pre-colonial era figures like Shamsher Gazi. The deletion reason seems to based more on guesswork than on policy, and does not justify removing this important artwork.Regalhist5 (talk)20:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion of whether or not it should be deleted from the Commons but it definitely shouldn't be used on an article to illustrate a historical person. Obviously homemade.LizRead!Talk!20:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Just because the image isn’t European doesn’t mean it lacks value. If you have a valid opinion, please provide evidence and bring it to the deletion discussion page.Regalhist5 (talk)22:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Regalhis5, you probably want toWP:DROPTHESTICK. Your above indignation at being templated, then castingWP:ASPERSIONS by saying Ixudi "accused" you (even after they clarified that they did not, AND apologized) and now implying that folks who want to delete the photo do so because they're biased against non-Eruopeans, is all making aWP:BOOMERANG seem more and more likely. Behaviorally, you got an apology for the miscommunication. Everything else is content, and does not belong at ANI.EducatedRedneck (talk)23:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP editor has been disruptive atSecond Life since at least September 2024, makingedits like this that change the genre from "virtual world" to "video game". Multiple editors have reverted these changes. It has also been discussed atTalk:Second Life#Virtual World, not a game, where the consensus is that "virtual world" is appropriate. I checked the first bunch of secondary sources from the lead and they are unanimous with the existing "virtual world" or "platform" labels.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Broadly construing this to blanking and redirecting seems fine to me as it kinda circumvents the deletion process. However, proposals for mergers are (in my opinion) not under that t-ban. That being said, the incivility and hastiness that led to his deletion t-ban could be expanded to that area if it's clear that they're still showing the same hostility.Conyo14 (talk)16:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
'deletion and deletion-related processes, broadly construed' seems vague. I had misinterpreted this that led to the ban, wished I could contest my last ban but by the time I was able to, the ban passed. Why should putting a tag in problem articles be a bad thing. I didn't feel a merger orWP:BOLD apply to this, otherwise this violation is unintentional. What else can I do to problem articles. I feel this is just another attack as usual here.SpacedFarmer (talk)19:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I was somewhat sympathetic to your argument until the last sentence. If a ban is 'vague', that would rather suggest that people can legitimately hold differing opinions as to its scope. Which makes expressing concerns here legitimate, and not just 'another attack'.AndyTheGrump (talk)19:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
There are entire other swaths of the project to edit. You do not need to be the one BLARing. That's the easiest way to steer clear of sanctions.StarMississippi20:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The reason why some of those were redirected because some exists elsewhere besides some do not pass notability of its own.SpacedFarmer (talk)20:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. That's deletion-related, as you are using article deletion criteria for your actions. That is plainly deletion related. BLAR is deletion related. — rsjaffe🗣️20:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
And given that response makes it clear they don't understand or don't believe that was a violation, blocked for a month (as their last block for violations was two weeks). -The BushrangerOne ping only20:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment - This editor appears to be a net negative to the encyclopedia, and their can has been kicked down the road for one month. I suggest that this thread be closed by an uninvolved administrator, with the understanding that any thread that is opened in July focus on a ban. We have had enough, and this block should be a final warning.Robert McClenon (talk)16:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm an uninvolved administrator but I don't see an indefinite block being a consensus view from editors here yet. I don't think we have reached that level of frustration.LizRead!Talk!05:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
User:Liz - Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking for this thread to be closed with an indefinite block. I was asking for this thread to be closed with a warning that any future block after the user comes off this one would likely be indefinite. But if you don't think that warning is in order, then a close with any sort of warning is fine with me.Robert McClenon (talk)02:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Summary: Editor regularly resorts to edit-warring during disagreements. They've been warned about this multiple times over the last two years ([366],[367],[368],[369]) and last year they were page-blocked ([370]) and then topic-banned ([371],[372]) for this behaviour. They've been warned again by three different editors from three different articles in the last three weeks, and are continuing to do so.
Mamluk Sultanate:[384],[385]; in this case, there was already adiscussion on the talk page about this before they came in, reverted away from the stable version, and claimed thatWP:CONSENSUS requires their edit to be accepted prior to further discussion. I asked them to self-revert and stop edit-warring, to no avail ([386]).
The edit-warring, the tendentious interpretation of "consensus", and the refusal to acknowledge the edit-warring are a long-running pattern of behaviour; if needed, see my longer report below for more context (hatted, at the recommendation of an admin, due to its length). It's a very frustrating behaviour for other editors to deal with. I don't necessarily advocate a block, as they have other contructive edits besides these, but a restriction on reverting (such asWP:1RR) is sorely needed.R Prazeres (talk)17:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Full report (initial report on 8 June, hatted and summarized above so editors can opt to read less)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Forgive the space here, but this has been a long-running pattern for this editor. They repeatedly edit-war, to varying degrees of severity, across a variety of articles. They've been warned by three different editors from three different articles in less than three weeks and continue to do this:
Al-Andalus: reverting two other editors and insisting they go to the talk page, while refraining from doing so themselves ([391],[392],[393]). The latter after being warned ([394]). For what it’s worth, I actually agree with them in principle, but after two different editors revert you it should be obvious that it’s time to use the talk page.
Court of the Lions: they changed the meaning of a sentence, then restored their revision twice after revert:[395],[396],[397]. They relented after I re-explained the issue to them and warned them (seehere andhere), but again they edit-warred by default (and never even explained the motivation for their original edit).
Muhammad XII of Granada: repeatedly reverting a well-motivated edit without further discussion:[398],[399],[400]. The latter after a warning ([401]). Here again,WP:STATUSQUO could technically justify them, but there is no effort at engaging with the other editor (Beshogur); their last edit summary says “see talk” despite no relevant talk page discussion existing.
Mamluk Sultanate: reverting away from stable version of article ([402],[403]) despite a discussion clearly already present on the talk page (here) with no consensus in their favour. On the talk page, they've responded by claiming, baselessly, that a “majority” of editors agrees with their version and that their preferred version is the “long-standing” version, among other frustrating behaviour. I've asked them to self-revert ([404]), to no avail of course.
I would dismiss most of these incidents under different circumtances, but what brings me to ANI is the persistence of this behaviour over 2 years. Before the examples above, they've been warned multiple times since 2023:[405],[406],[407],[408]. Here are some major past examples that are indicative of what it's like to deal with them:
Marrakesh in March 2024: edit-warring away from stable version (see edits from 10 to 21 March 2024 inarticle’s history) despite ongoingtalk page discussion and multiple warnings there and on their talk page ([409]). They eventually relented, but not before wasting most of my time trying to convince me thatWP:CONSENSUS actuallyjustifies their edit-warring and requires that their preferred version be restored until there is a consensus of other editors against them.
Arabic in July 2024: edit-warring while again claiming, against multiple editors, that a consensus exists for their change: see back-and-forth 26 July 2024 edits inhistory, plusthis talk page discussion. They had to be set straight at their own report to WP:ANIhere.
1948 Arab–Israeli War in September-October 2024: edit-warring multiple times against consensus (seearticle's history in September 2024 and again in October 2024), resulting in a page-block and a 6-month topic ban. TheSeptember talk page discussion exemplifies how they refuse to respect consensus-building, again attempting to define their preferred version as “consensus”, against all other editors. This resulted in a page-block:[410],[411]. Inthe October discussion they were again asked to engage in consensus-building instead of edit-warring, followed by a topic ban fromthis arbitration request (the thread is very long and involves others, but see the last comment; a following appeal wasdenied).
Nancy Ajram in January-February 2025: Edit-warring over, of all things, a period, while stating an objectively false grammatical point:[412],[413],[414],[415].
Muhammad XII of Granada in July 2024, less about the edit-warring but more about talk page behaviour: they stonewalled a straightforward improvement to the lead image ([416],[417]). In thesubsequent discussion, where they were the only one of four editors to oppose, they claimed that the previous black-and-white version is somehow the original historical version of the portrait instead of the higher-quality colour version and that it is used by a majority of sources. When I asked multiple times that they provide sources to back up that claim, they refused to do so. Eventually, another editor reverted them ([418]), but again, not before wasting everyone's time with a spurious objection.
Every time I’ve brought up this behaviour with them recently, they’ve denied they’re edit-warring or deflected: e.g.,[419],[420],[421],[422]. Aside from the page block and topic ban, they have largely flown under the radar of administrators because they either technically avoid 3RR or because other editors give up first.
I don't think a block is needed, as they also make routine contructive edits besides these. But their constant use of edit-warring in response to every disagreement needs to stop. For other editors, it is immensely frustrating, time-wasting, and an impediment to consensus-building, often over minor content questions that could be easily resolved otherwise. The most appropriate solution might be a 1-revert or zero-revert restriction (WP:1RR).R Prazeres (talk)20:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
What is drafting a list of every editing conflict I've ever been involved in is trying to prove, exactly, Prazeres? Should I make one of you? Like in articles where we both have equal number of reverts, yet somehow I'm always the one edit warring, never you? Yes, I'm relatively new here, with not the most pristine record, and had my share of mishaps, that I actually strive to learn from. Although not ideal, I would assume that's allowed, if not expected.
Now, the reason for Prazeres's filing is the discussion currently ongoing atTalk:Mamluk Sultanate. To summarize, the majority of editors in the talk page, including myself, appear to support having a version of the infobox name that seemingly only Prazeres disagrees with. In the discussion, Prazeres cites a former short, inconclusive discussion as consensus for the version they support, which I've explained to them why it's invalid as consensus. PerWP:BOLD, I restored the version prior to their spurious claim of consensus for the meantime, until conclusive consensus is achieved, with anWP:RFC mentioned as an option.Snowstormfigorion (talk)20:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
To clarify, you are not "new" here: you've been editing for two years and, in that time, you have been warned by multiple different editors in multiple contexts and have already been sanctioned previously. You have had time to learn since then. Instead, during disagreements, you continue to revert in your favour regardless of ongoing discussion, of other editors, or of previous consensus, and when you go to the talk page at all you are primarily focused on justifying why your edit must be accepted prior to discussion rather than as a result of it. The personal attack above is more of the same. You could still commit to stop doing this if you want; if not, I see no way for other editors to discuss constructively with you. I'll let the admins judge the best way forward.R Prazeres (talk)23:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
R Prazeres, this is one of the longer and more detailed complaints I've seen posted on ANI recently. I'm not optimistic that there will be many editors willing to spend the appropriate amount of time to assess this all. I think you would have more success if you had simplified this all and just focused on one or two issues with just a handful of the most important diffs.LizRead!Talk!02:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand. If helpful, the first part (the first bullet list) is what's important for ongoing behaviour, the second part is just context. Would you recommend I edit the above to condense it, re-post a shorter version below, or something else? It's not exactly easy to write a perfectly succinct report for behaviour of this type, but the sheer amount of time wasted on dealing with this elsewhere is unsustainable.R Prazeres (talk)02:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Just is thus my opinion and experience on ANI. But I think you should keep your entire report but "hat" it. Then add a summary report that just covers the most important points that you want to make sure folks don't miss. Anyone who is then interested can go back and read the full report. I think this will more likely get some response from your fellow editors and I think that is the goal here.LizRead!Talk!04:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Prazeres, though I still stand by what I said above, I know these disputes can be vexing, and we've been through aplenty; the fact that you still see the positive in me however is appreciative; just wanted to add this.Snowstormfigorion (talk)19:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Forgive the profanity, and a digression which will not serve to address the conduct issues here (which I don't mean to dismiss or endorse at this juncture), but I genuinely feel the need to ask and don't know a better way to say it: What the fuck is with stone monuments featuring lions en repose causing so much conflict, on project and off? It's not a broad culture thing, because you see it right across the western and eastern worlds. Seriously people, stop pulling the lions into your petty bullcrap.SnowRise let's rap08:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm just saying, lions famously don't give a shit about your issues: especially the ones made of stone. But no, all jocularity aside, this is a real phenomena: The Court of of the Lions referenced here; theLion Capital of Ashoka was the site of the largest single-article dispute I have ever seen on the project; there's a couple lion monuments in Europe that are flash points for neo-facism; and (having just looked to see if there were any others than those I was aware of), apparently one in the United States that was part of a controversialConfederate memorial.SnowRise let's rap11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't know the original discussion but this user insists on a repeated word that theTemplate:Infobox royalty saysomit this field if any one "succession(X)" field would be identical to it
[423]not repeated nor is a reason to remove (it's repeated, and there is a reason to remove)
[424]not a reason to remove; parameters can state content within the article (what?)
[425]Nonidentical, incongruent; see talk (it's literally identical. what's next adding "King" to every British king's title section, or sultan to every sultan? and there is nothing on talk)
I warned him on his talk page, reverted me, instead he placed a warning on my talk page.
Beshogur, you're the one who reverted the warning I placed on your talk page, the warning you left on mine still stands; not that any of this matters, of course. Concerning the points you mentioned; it's not repeated as the phrasing differs and thus there is no reason for its omission, parameters can state peripheral content or text within an article without it being redundant, and again the wording is differing. As for the reference to the talk page, it was concerning the IPs removal of the death date and place parameter. Regardless, this more so belongs in the appropriate article's talk page, and can be discussed there.Snowstormfigorion (talk)16:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Placing a warning on my talk page after you reverted 3 times is playing. I could've easily reverted you, but I didn't. And "sultan" is pretty much redundant since below on the succession it mentions him being a sultan.Beshogur (talk)16:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
IP, if you see policy-based edits as unconstructive, then feel free to voice this in the article's talk page as opposed to partaking in edit-warring, the very thing thing you're presenting a case against in your edit summary.Snowstormfigorion (talk)18:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm still hoping to get admin input here. Looking at the edits atBelly dance, it's somewhat remarkable that even after this report was filed, Snowstormfigorion continued this in yet another article:[426],[427],[428],[429]. Even if the IP could be reproached for mirroring some of the behaviour (though less so if they're a new user), this is textbook edit-warring again. If it doesn't get resolved in this thread, the behaviour will obviously continue and will almost certainly come back to ANI another day.R Prazeres (talk)03:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Editor appears to have some specific grievances theywant addressed across multiple articles.
"I propose that this ... be removed due to sexist and chinese revisionist and extremely nationalistic tone."[430]
"It also has a sexist/culturally Han chinese chauvanistic tone."[431]
"We need to clean up this sexist and culturally nationalist tone from chinese authors."[432]
"You edit wikipedia to fit a cultural revisionist and chauvanist Han chinese perspective"[433]
"It appears to be a chinese ultranationalistic and revisionist editing tactic."[434]
"Why does Wikipedia allow a culturally insensitive and bigoted ultranationalistic Chinese point of view?"[435]
"There is han chinese revisionist editing happening throughout wikipedia, that reflects the historical point of view of communist ccp chinese toward Asian neighbors and their own ethnic minorities in a very insulting and bigoted way."[436]fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)20:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I've invited them to come take part in this discussion. They are a relatively new editor but don't seem to have adapted well. We get too many newbies who treat Wikipedia talk pages like they are newspaper forum pages where anything goes.LizRead!Talk!04:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I have made cited edits to balance out theYuan Dynasty page which is rife with han chinese historical revisionism. These edits have been constantly reverted back to a biased accounting of this period of chinese history. For example, the reality of royal international interactions that were present between the Uighur royal family and Mongolian royal family are deleted which is unfair since the han chinese royal family ceased to exist during that period and therefore had no such interaction. This is important for context. The editors likeQiushufang push a narrative that han chinese (the conquered and majority group during that period) are somehow immune from enslavement that chinese editors highlight for non-han chinese ethnic groups within china. especially as it regards to a sexual nature. This editor is biased and the page needs to clean up its revisionist nationalistic chinese bias.AstanHun (talk)18:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't really have anything to add or suggestions for what should be done. My only interaction with them is noticing their edits atYuan dynasty and reverting them. The first time I saw Tongolss' edits I thought they were the sock of another user but I no longer think this is the case.Qiushufang (talk)09:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
It's worth explicating here that AstanHun made contested changes to the articleagain immediately after replying here. They have not engaged with any of the specific concerns about their edits on talk, they haven't stopped making personal attacks on other editors (like they have in their reply above), and they don't seem to get they need consensus to make the presently disputed changes.
I don't see the point in articulating the issues with their additions in further detail until they acknowledge the basic requirements site policy expects of them, as they're likely to go in one ear and out the other. To put something up though, given I haven't expressed any specifics myself yet, their additions are plain unacceptable. They are
citing unreliable sources for specific, highly charged, otherwise redundant invective –[437] e.g. a passage about the Red Turban Rebellion generally has been shoehorned to cite a (substantively redundant!) passage. What's more, the citation lists the publisher as Cambridge UP, but a quick search reveals the ISBN doesn't match, and title does not exist, though it resembles a title published by the vanity pressNova Science Publishers about a different dynasty.[438] this is potentially sheer negligence regarding copy-pasting LLM hallucinations, or intentional deception – but it's likely both.
removing reliably sourced material without any justification concerning sources cited –[439]not applicable to Mongol ruled China is deliberately obtuse to cited sources with titles includingNortheast Asia under the Mongols
They need to own up to this and stop willfully wasting our time pronto. Otherwise, I see absolutely no evidence they care about our policies, or anything other than pushing unsourced expressions of their grievances onto our articles.Remsense 🌈 论18:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Considering what I know about the formation of the Uighur national identity I suspect I understand the POV they're trying to push. Some of these citation issues that Remsense has brought up also have the hallmark of LLM hallucinations. (A suspicion I see I share with Remsense.) I agree with Liz that we certainly shouldn't be biting the newbies but it does seem like a sockpuppet investigation would be wise here.Simonm223 (talk)18:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
On the contrary, it seems farcical for other editors here to offer up further opportunities to get bitten themselves.Remsense 🌈 论18:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm quite sure I would not see eye to eye with this editor. But if they're not socking then hopefully this trip to AN/I will be sufficient to wake them up that they need to handle disagreements better rather than the present state of faulty citations and calling people who disagree with them racist or chauvinist.Simonm223 (talk)18:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Is a sock investigation warranted? Tongolss and Sumaiyahle are almost certainly the same person as AstanHun but it's not against the rules I believe to have different accounts, especially separated by several years. It's plausible they simply forgot their account credentials. I'm also not seeing any immediate socking going on and I have many related pages monitored. Imo it's either a warning from an admin and they stop their behavior, or they eventually get banned. I don't see how this ends any other way.Qiushufang (talk)04:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
(Maybe this will help others keep things straight—to be clear, I'm not among the editors who've expressed concerns about socking. This is one of those cases where it's seemingly moot whether the user is socking or not, given their present behavior is sufficiently egregious as-is.)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Was unsure if I should make a report here or at AIV, but hopefully this will do. Got sent an advertisement for some sort of account retrieval service through mentorship questions which had a WhatsApp number attached ([440]). Would appreciate if this could be rev del'd as well.Rambley(talk)09:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The accountUser:JAHOVAH,TUTUNKHAMAN doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Their only edits that aren't talk page comments have been reverted as vandalism and their userpage appears to be promotional and can't be nominated for speedy deletion for some reason. I wasn't sure if I should report them to AIV, so I reported them at ANI instead.
You can't tag that page for speedy deletion because it is their global user page at meta transcluded here since they have no local userpage. I have no idea what it is intended to be if anything so it probably does fall withinmeta's CSD, but I think most sysops there would prefer to simply blank out most of it if anything at all is salvageable. Sometimes blank userpages have been created locally when a global userpage was a significant problem, but I don't really see the need in this case.
I agree the edits carry the odor of NOTHERE, however for the moment they seem to have stopped editing outside of their user talk page. So on the one hand the odds of the account ever contributing constructively are very close to zero and we almost certainly lose nothing from a block, on the other blocking unused accounts is usually not worth the bother. The usual approach would be to monitor and then report to AIV if disruption resumes, but I suppose we're already here.184.152.65.118 (talk)20:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Overdue or not, this is probably no better a place to report this. Yadda yadda chronic intractable behavioral problems. I know you know this, I won't lecture you.GabberFlasted (talk)18:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Er, "urgent incidents" requiring an admin (as no one else can solve it)? Please don't lecture me when you are wrong, indeed.Fram (talk)18:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
In fact, it was pulled 24 minutes after I raised it here, one minute before your unhelpful remark. Seems like this was the right venue procedurally and in practice.@Eddie891:: thank you!Fram (talk)18:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:142.189.254.248 continuously adding poorly sourced material
Blocked for 1 month. Prior 3 day and 7 day blocks had no effect on their behavior. Also placed an additional warning on their talk page should they demonstrate a willingness to continue the disruptive behavior. If you see this behavior being exhibited by another IP or an account, there's a likelihood ofsockpuppetry. Please re-report if seen. Thanks,--Hammersoft (talk)14:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yikes.WP:SYNTH with inadmissible sources such as 19th centuryBritish Israelism and lipstickalley.com forum posts,[444] justified asIt's not random because I am combining the different sources together to give a balanced viewpoint as Wikipedia ccalls it.[445]NebY (talk)13:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neither editor has made any edits. Is this a point of curiosity because at the top of the page it states clearly that ANI is forurgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems and this question is neither of those.LizRead!Talk!01:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know ifUser:Dozybriccs,User:PokemonWeekly andUser:Blocka 25 are sockpuppets, but they are all editors who only edit occasionally on Wikipedia, and over the last 12 hours, have all been changing what appears to be the more accurate release date (January 25, 1989) back to what has apparently turned out to be the false release date (August 8, 1988) of theN.W.A albumStraight Outta Compton without discussing the matter on the album'stalk page. Even contrary to original copies of the album stating 1988 as its date of publishing and copyright, a number of sources provided by both me andUser:GloBoy93 (ordiscussions brought up on thetalk page by me,User:Infamous30 andUser:SuccessBrandOil) all point out that the album seemingly didn't exist at all until at least early 1989. Even one sentence onEazy-E's page, which reads "Both Glen Boyd from theSeattle Post-Intelligencer andMTV's Jon Wiederhorn claimed thatEazy-Duz-It "paved the way" for N.W.A's most controversial debut album,Straight Outta Compton...", indicates the accuracy of the release date of 1989 and not 1988 asEazy-Duz-It was released late that year.UndergroundMan3000 (talk)13:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Content decisions aren't determined at ANI but this notice does bring more attention to this article. It looks like the release date is being discussed at the talk page (Talk:Straight Outta Compton#Release date 2) which is what should happen. I don't know why editors are arguing this point based on their opinions instead of basing it on what reliable sources state was the release date. If sources don't exist, or you haven't been able to locate any yet, then the release date that you are guessing at should be removed.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2600:1700:23D2:2180:::: range genre warring on American hip-hop pages
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP range (IP 1 andIP 2) is constantly changing genres for hip-hop songs without any reference or explanation, often multiple times after being reverted by others. Has not responded to any attempts to discuss.Weirdguyz (talk)03:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Range thus far appears to be2600:1700:23D2:2180:0:0:0:0/64. If I'm remembering right AT&T users tend to stay on one /64 over short to intermediate periods, but if it broadens you can use{{IP range calculator}} to get a better feel for it. They appear to be drawing Boom Bap from Discogs. Regardless genre-warring is unacceptable so I've left them an edit warring notice. Hopefully they start participating on talk pages and leaving edit summaries, and if they do there shouldn't be further issues, if not we may need to p-block from mainspace. Any unsourced genres should simply be removed.184.152.65.118 (talk)04:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP in 1974 Summit Series
IP blocked for edit warring for 3 days. IP told to initiate discussion on the article's talk page when they return. Hopefully they heed the advice. --Hammersoft (talk)23:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP in 1974 Summit Series
IP blocked for edit warring for 3 days. IP told to initiate discussion on the article's talk page when they return. Hopefully they heed the advice. --Hammersoft (talk)23:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mbulite (talk·contribs) left legal threats against another editor at[450]. See also their message on my talk page. Apparently it's because of some issue regarding the information on Cameroon GCSE's but I have absolutely zero knowledge of that topic to begin with; the person just talked to me about it on my talk page since I'm amentor.»Gommeh (he/him)02:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a footnote, the page in question (Cameroon GCE Board) was copyvio...and hasbeen copyvio for as long as it's existed, having checked several "before text was added" diffs, going back a ways (and noting that a big chunk of its early history was revdel'd as copyvio already), and the addtions only always increased the % of copyvio that the Earwig tool flagged, so it's been G12'd. Good grief. -The BushrangerOne ping only07:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
IP blocked for edit warring for 3 days. IP told to initiate discussion on the article's talk page when they return. Hopefully they heed the advice. --Hammersoft (talk)23:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CheckUser is not forfishing. -The BushrangerOne ping only06:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
This user is pathological liar. After promising several times to write manually, it generatedSex differences in altruism,Angus Smith (soldier)Lakshmi Priya (Tamil actress),Gaurav Dewasi (actor). --Altenmann>talk14:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Moved fromWP:AN § User:Kansascitt1225.svg){kind=link}
Resolved.jpg){kind=link}
_(3).jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
