Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Long history of copyright infringement

Our relevant policy underlines that copyright infringement "should be treated seriously," as such cases "not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues". Consequently, persistent copyright violations by an editor indicate a general pattern of disruptive behavior and demonstrate that the editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.

• Norfolkbigfish's copyright violation was detected by myself ([1]) and by AirshipJungleman29 ([2]) during the review of Crusading movement already in April 2022. As my linked remarks show, in a case Norfolkbigfish copied text from a book but verified it with a reference to another book, thus making the detection of copyright infringement very difficult.
• During the FAC review of the same article in April 2024, I detected several cases of copyright violations, and opposed the article's promotion. In response, Norfolkbigfish took me to ANI proposing an IBAN. The case was closed without action and Norfolkbigfish sent me the following message: "Borsoka-I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that. Will work through this from the top, line by line, and ping you when complete" on 9 April ([3]).
• I opened a GAR, and emphasised the dangers of copyright infringement in the opening section on 8 April. On 10 April, Norfolkbigfish stated that "I am in the process of clearing the article of any remaining hint, although it apperas to be only fragments of sentences now." On 19 April, I closed the review and delisted the article, because it still contained several cases of copyvio ([4]). He again took me to ANI, stating that I "have a blind spot when it comes to working in a consensual way". During the process, Star Mississippi proposed a block of Norfolkbigfish "for on going copyright issues which remain an issue despite their ongoing promises", this proposal was supported by Serial Number 54129, but the process was closed without any formal decision.
• The GAR was reopened on procedural basis (I am really stupid when procedural rules are to be followed). Norfolkbigfish proposed that the article should still be listed, stating that "all issues identified have been addressed" ([5]). On 26 April, I mentioned that Norfolkbigfish obviously did not take copyright violation seriously ([6]), and AirshipJungleman29 mentioned that they are "increasingly concerned about" Norfolkbigfish's "perception of the issue" ([7]). I returned to the review on 29 April, and still detected several cases of copyvio, including two cases when Norfolkbigfish copied text from books but verified them with a reference to other books. On this occasion, it was me who took Norfolkbigfish to ANI. During the process, Star Mississippi and Serial Number 54129 confirmed their previous indef block proposal, and it was supported by Ravenswing, but the case was again closed without any action.
• A couple of days ago, Norfolkbigfish requested a peer review. They began to edit the article and their new edits again contain copyright infringement.

I think the long history of repeated copyright infringement proves that Norfolkbigfish is not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked After reading the evidence, with multiple admins and experienced editors expressing concerns, I have indefinitely blocked Norfolkbigfish from mainspace, pending an explanation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Careless rather than intentional @Ritchie333, always clearly sourced (although subsequent editing may have moved the text from the cite) and quickly remediated when pointed out. Always happy to have my errors highlighted so I can fix, hence the current Peer Review and the many other reviews this article has been through. I was hoping that knowledgeable editors would join in and kick it along but it hasn't happened. Worth noting that the OP has been trying to get me banned for years. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't appear that Borsoka has being trying to get you banned, rather they have been trying to stop the encyclopedia containing copyright violations. Looking through the ANI threads, I see multiple call for a block, or for some sort of serious course correction to avoid copyright violations, with several people remaking that has been several years since it was first suggested. It's a standard procedure to block from mainspace when large amounts of copyvios are encountered, so editors can take a step back and evaluate the situation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Happy to evaluate the situation @Ritchie333, what do you suggest the next steps are? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  You always seem to try to explain away copyright violation by saying things like that the content is uncontentious or that everything is sourced. Those things don't matter: copying phrases is still copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  I know it is wrong @Phil Bridger, the point I was making was that there is no attempt to do this by subterfuge and that in future I will be more careful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  there is no attempt to do this by subterfuge

  Well, that's worse. It means you're intentionally doing this, which means you should never be editing Wikipedia t all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  Something I note in going through the long slog in this matter is that you're just dandy at genial replies: you're "happy to evaluate," willing to fix, admitting fault, will be more careful, etc etc. And then you go and keep on making copyvios. This is a situation going back years, it keeps recurring, and it's very hard not to conclude that you're either incapable of or unwilling to change. Ravenswing 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  Well politeness goes a long way and it is always good to engage with constructive editors @Ravenswing. Most of the sources on Crusading movement are available on Wayback machine so it is unlikely that any deliberate attempt to plagarise would remain unidentified for very long as the recent incident demonstrated. That said the root of that was the use of LLM/AI rather than the copying of sources. It didn't know the tools I was using would act this way, but do now and won't do that again should I get my editing rights back. See, I may be incapable, but I am not unwilling. The challenge is making the text close enough to the source that the OP doesn't flag verification failed, but far enough away that it isn't flagged copyvio. I forget the exact incident but on one occasion I had something like will of God flagged as close paraphrsaing. Now, I am not sure what to do about that. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you quickly remediate when pointed out? You took me ANI twice instead of fixing the problems. You have also failed to clear "your" other articles. For instance, I found two cases of obvious copyvio at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Angevin kings of England/1 after a very short review, and you have not edited that article for three months. By the way, when discussing the reassessment with an other editor I clearly stated that "Yes, I am close to take [Norfolkbigfish] to ANI but instead I give them (again) a last chance. I do not want to get rid of them, but to persuade them to start to improve WP instead of disrupting it with plagiarism, unverified statements and typos." This contradicts your statement about myself. Borsoka (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this entirely restricted to the Cruasding movement article or should we look at a potential CCI (possibly added to our backlog of cases to open because of the block) for all of their edits? Seeing Norfolkbigfish copied text from a book but verified it with a reference to another book has me inclined to presumptively remove all of their additions to Crusading movement. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I can learn something here. It is a good example. The OP writes Norfolkbigfish copied text from a book but verified it with a reference to another book. Now the sources (Asbridge, Jotiscky) are writing about different events 20 years apart. Asbridge and my edit were explicitly about Gregory VII, whereas Jotischky was talking about precursors to the First Crusade. Close but different. Now the line in question is In 1074, Gregory VII planned a display of military power to reinforce the principle of papal sovereignty. This pretty much matches Asbridge's meaning as I read it and is pretty straight forward in terms of wording. Jotischky writes A display of military might in the eastern Mediterranean, such as had been proposed by Gregory VII as early as 1074, would also bring the opportunity to reinforce the principle of papal sovereignty. So now we are talking about an overlap of 2 fragments and 10 words talking about subjects 20 years apart (ignoring names and dates that I presume arn't going to be called out). So clumsy I admit, but what could I have done differently, short of deploying a list of sysnoyms? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Your above comment clearly demonstrates why you represented a constant risk for our community before your block. First of all, you try to present your blatant plagiarism as an issue between "the OP" and yourself. Several editors are cited above who have detected your plagiarism and informed you about the risks of such a behaviour several times. You have ignored all of us. Secondly, you should have read our basic policies about copyright violations and close paraphrasing soon after the first warnings because you should have understood and applied them. After several warnings by several editors, you cannot demand explanations on specific issues. By the way, your above text is a clear example of copyright violation. Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to answer the question, I attributed the statement to yourself because it was you who wrote it? I am genuinely interested in where the line between 4/6 word fragments, using general terms, about different but related topics is. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Not general terms, but specific words describing a specific event (Gregory's 1074 plan) were copied without any change into the article without any reference to the copy and paste method. Sorry, I do not have time to continue this discussion, because there were nearly a hundred examples of close paraphrasing and copyvio in the article. (Not to mention your other GAs and FAs. They should also be examined, as I suggested you nearly a year ago, but as usual, you ignored my advice.) I wish you every success in real life. Borsoka (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Read the question again @Borsoka, you misunderstand. The two sources were writing about two different themes 20 years apart, one was was writing about Gregory, one was using it as simile for the upcoming First Crusade. Appreciate English is you second language so this may be difficult for you, but you could at least try to understand. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I do not misunderstand. We understand the texts in the same way. That is why you chose the same wording. Actually, we share some weaknesses: sometimes both of us need external support to write English sentences that make sense ([8]), and none of us is always able to understand unusual technical terms, in your case especially in the field of history ([9]) Please, do not ping me again. Borsoka (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is just incredibly condescending, Norfolk. You should really stop digging. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Why do we waste so much time on people who obviously either can't or won't follow the most fundamental, simple rules? EEng 14:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  • They've been going on about "being careless" for years now. Their modus operandi is a very convincing blend of absolute indifference covered by a thin mask of humility. The current peer review for Crusading movement shows the true colours: despite comprehensive sourcing problems identified shortly before, they say "despite all the noise there hasn't really been a detail objective list of issues in some time". What can you say to that nonsense? When Norfolkbigfish states "I was planning to combine sourcing with any comments with the review in one hit" what they really mean is "I was planning to do sweet FA about the sourcing because I'm so careless! Oh, woe is me!"
    But no, we should focus on how quickly they fix their errors when other editors do the donkey work of finding them. How gracious. God forbid they work on their perennial problem before asking for others' assistance. Support block, in case that was unclear. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Bludgeoning, POV-pushing, personal attacks and incivility from M.Bitton

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s behaviour at the WP:NPOVN#Geography_map_dispute is what brought me here. I'll note that this user was warned about casting aspersions and reminded to be civil a couple of months ago.

In terms of bludgeoning, M.Bitton's over 80 edits to the discussion yield plenty of repetitious arguments, such as "The US isn't the center of the universe" [10][11][12][13][14], or assertions about, or exhortations to read NPOV, without ever specifying what in NPOV is being referred to: [15] [16] [17][18] [19]

There is also plenty of casting aspersions [20][21][22] [23] and just general rudeness: [24] [25] [26]

M.Bitton is pushing a POV. The POV itself is not objectionable to me - I have no bones to pick with, for or against Western Sahara. However, when I wrote what I think was a gentle reproach on their talk page about the above behaviour, my comment was deleted and M.Bitton accused me of harassment on my talk page. When another user cautioned them about bludgeoning, they deleted that too with the edit summary: Thanks, but like I said, I won't let anyne get away with repeating false claims. M.Bitton also templated at least one other user in this dispute for "personal attacks" and then refused to specify (when asked) what the offence was.

This kind of behaviour is incredibly off-putting, is part of a pattern, and hasn't abated since the user was warned about it recently. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Note: this discussion with Samuelshraga leaves no doubt in my mind about the OP's intention with this hollow report. My response to their last comment in that discussion says it all.

Samuelshraga, who thinks that As long as it's sourced, there is no WP:NPOV concern, clearly doesn't understand what NPOV stands for. We have an article about the policy that editors should read and understand, especially if they intend to "share their views" (assuming that's what their comment was, and not simply an attempt to undermine mine).

I stand by what I said: I won't let anyone get away with repeating false claims about me and what I did (repeatedly correcting them is a byproduct of their repetition of the false claims). I'm not going to waste time addressing the rest, but if someone (other than the OP) wishes me to explain any of my comments, then I will happily do so (in context). M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Question: I asked repeatedly for you to explain the template message about personal attacks on my talk page, and on Talk:Geography. You responded "I will do so when this goes to ANI (which it will if you continue to cast aspersions)." What exactly was my personal attack? As I said, I am happy to strike anything I said that was a personal attack, or explain anything that I believe was misinterpreted. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I see that the OP left this odd message on your talk page. No comment necessary.

Your personal attacks include, but are not limited, to accusing me of being a POV pusher and, despite being reminded to comment on the content, you continued to do so deliberately and even insinuated that I have an agenda (after deciding all by yourself what "I like" and "don't like"). So my rhetorical question is rather simple: if the editor who is enforcing the NPOV policy is a POV pusher (according to you), then what does that make you? M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finally telling me what lead to your accusations. I apologize if I was uncivil in discussion with you, and I do see where you're coming from in that choosing a source for a map showing international boundaries is going to be controversial. I particularly apologize for use of the word "agenda," as that can certainly have very negative connotations. I have struck through that part of my reply. My response about what you "like" was to your comment "You are yet to even try to give a valid reason for publishing something that is factually incorrect," to which I replied "It isn't factually incorrect, you just don't like it." My reason for publishing the new U.S. map was stated very early on in this years annual discussion on the topic, "Regardless of opinions on this, if the source for 2023 was legitimate then, and has changed the borders, we should use the updated map." I believe that your reason for blocking the updated version is your POV on the update and/or the person who made the decision to change the border. That's fair, that person makes me struggle with NPOV at times as well, but I try to approach changes to maps under him in the same way as a change to a map under any president.

To elaborate on my argument that you are pushing a POV, based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, I do think you are pushing a POV, and that your argument is grounded in political views and trying to Right great wrongs. My view isn't just from the discussion this year, but built on an observed pattern I've seen since 2024. I believe you stated your own opinions as facts, and stated seriously contested assertions as facts. I don't believe you have a NPOV on this and are quite passionate about the Western Sahara issue for whatever reason. It is okay to have a strong opinion on a topic, but my opinion on updating the boundary has nothing to do with the reasons those boundaries were updated. Your accusations, word choice, and manner of arguing has made me believe you are not neutral on the issue of Western Sahara, with an interest in using the most accurate and up to date sources. I've generally felt belittled, and that there has been little assumption of good faith from you in addressing my reason for wanting an up to date map. Since stating it, that my opinion has grown. Your edits and comments on the talk page feel like strategies listed in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, including "Accusing others of malice," "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources," "Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors," and "Righting great wrongs.""

Some evidence of you stating your facts or seriously contested assertions as facts:

• During our discussion on maps, you have declared the U.S map is inaccurate, and repeatedly stated it is inaccurate because "a whole country missing."
• You have asserted that the derived map you created using 2016 boundaries is "more accurate" then the 2021 boundaries from the same source.
• You have literally called U.S. government maps "inaccurate" because of their official stance on an issue, and asserted your preferred boundaries are "more accurate" (if the U.S. government is contesting something on it's official map, I think that is fair to call it "seriously contested.")
• You stated: "What the US stands for is irrelevant to the fact that its view on WS is super fringe. That's an undisputed fact!" (if the U.S. government is contesting something on it's official map, I think that is fair to call it "seriously contested." I don't believe a countries official recognized borders are "fringe," much less one of the members of the U.N. security council.)

Evidence of your accusations/word choice that make me think you're not neutral from this year:

• You've accused me of trying to "impose Trump's POV because, according to you, the US is a superpower (to which we must bow)" on the discussion, after quoting my statement "The United States is a Superpower" 7 times in a way to dismiss me. This felt like a False narrative, and I said I never mentioned Trump, but stated:

"The United States is a Superpower, which "are states so influential that no significant action can be taken by the global community without first considering the positions of the superpowers on the issue." The opinions of the US government in international politics are not "fringe." I read what you wrote, it doesn't change the US opinion, just that you think it was a better opinion in the past so we should not update maps to reflect changes to it."

• You've accused me of wanting to "inject US politics into geography," when all I want is to use the most up to date set of boundaries that are in line with our source.
• In a comment that you have since revised (although you ignored my request to strike through rather then delete it entirely), you called my opinion "irrelevant."
• You've accused me of trying to publish inaccurate information.
• You've accused me of casting aspirations.
• You've accused me of bludgeoning. (In retrospect, this might be fair and I will work to improve. I tend to want to discuss and have a back and forth with people who disagree with me, and that is not the best approach I guess. However, you have commented more then me on those threads, so the accusation feels a bit "do as I say, not as I do.")
• You templated me, but didn't explain it when asked, until now. This felt like a threat to get me to end discussion with you, and seemed to be
• You stated "That's right, unlike those who, for reasons that reason cannot explain, have a very strong POV for non compliance with NPOV." when referring to others who disagree with you.

Evidence of your accusations/word choice that make me think you're not neutral from last year:

• You accused me of "trying to promote a fringe POV".
• You accused me of "making baseless claims."

Additionally:

• Other editors have noted on the NPOV Noticeboard that this is not the only place you've been involved in heated discussions involving Western Sahara.
• You've repeatedly turned conversations away from addressing how we handle other disputed borders and focused on Western Sahara. The 2016 map has multiple highly disputed borders. The insistence we only talk about Western Sahara when looking at alternative map options seems particularly odd to me.

You've framed yourself as an arbiter of NPOV, but it does not appear to me that you are at all neutral on this topic. It is entirely possible I don't understand what it means to push a POV, but based on my understanding of the relevant essays and policy, it is my conclusion. Again, I apologize for not being as civil as I should/could be. On my talk page, you threatened to try and get me blocked from editing by reporting me, well here. That is never a fun thing to hear, and I don't appreciate that or the fact you refused to elaborate. That said, I don't want you banned, or punished, and definitely didn't want to end up commenting here. Just chill out a bit so we can pick a good version of the UN map or something historic to include and move on. I really just want to have some set of guideline so I don't have to have this discussion with anyone again, so I hope we can find a set of boundaries that are more universally accepted, from a source that we can take updates from without needing to think about the broader implications of the content within the update. Everyone basically agrees on the UN map, with some theoretical issues surrounding the "there is no neutral map" problem inherit in the traditional one map solution. This has been a multiyear tedious discussion on a page I care a lot about and have invested a lot of time in, over an issue I consider to be routine maintenance of figures, that I thought was resolved last year by swapping in a UN map. I started the conversation with my experience from last years discussion framing my view, which was not the best way to restart this conversation, and I've definitely replied to you a few times while frustrated, which is not the best. In the future will try to step away from the computer and shut the hell up for a bit and take my dog for a walk or grade papers. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

You've accused me of casting aspirations. you have (from the get go) and you are literally doubling down on them.

I do think you are pushing a POV since you're the one who has been trying to impose a fringe view, then you fit perfectly the definition of the label that you're projecting onto me.

I don't believe you have a NPOV that doesn't make any sense, and frankly, just reading it gives me a headache as it reminds me why I ended up correcting you (in vain) more times than I care to remember.

I have no idea whether you really don't understand the NPOV policy or are simply pretending not to. Either way, the RfC will settle the dispute. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I have explained my opinion, that you are pushing your POV on the international border, cited which parts of relevant policy/essays I believe apply, and presented what I believe to be evidence. I noted I might not understand the essays on POV, if I'm wrong then I'd likely need to have the policy explained. If that isn't adequate for you, then I don't think anything would be. I'm sorry if I've been uncivil or given you a headache. I'm trying to give benefit of the doubt regarding your tone on this and previous messages, but it is really hard. As said above, I don't want to see you penalized or punished, and definitely wouldn't have started this conversation here, but do wish you'd be less hostile to people. Regardless of POV, your tone consistently comes off as pretty aggressive and threatening in my opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Despite your continued uncalled for personal attacks, I don't want to see you blocked (for reasons that I don't expect you to understand). M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait: I was the other user offering the feedback about approaching bludgeoning. Beyond a gentle trout whack, I do not recommend further action at this time. I or others will open an RfC soon on the NPOV issue in question and that will be a good opportunity for @M.Bitton to demonstrate discussion consistent with our community guidelines. I think there have been mitigating circumstances in the discussion so far among a limited number of editors. I think imprecise language has been misconstrued, I’m optimistic that the quality of the discussion will be improved. Dw31415 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dw31415, while I see @M.Bitton started litigating the map issue here, I'm reporting them here for their behaviour, which is part of a pattern that clearly extends well before this discussion. The future course of the map discussion won't address this. I'm not asking for anything dramatic, but a recognition from M.Bitton that the behaviour is problematic and an undertaking to do better would be something. Their response so far has been to accuse me of bad faith and undertake to continue the same behaviour, so I think something needs to change.

Also, this report includes behaviours well beyond bludgeoning. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion sums you up. Please refrain from pinging me from this board. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Since you've now linked to that incident twice, let me address it.

Yes, I inadvertently broke the 1RR rule on that page, and you quite reasonably noted me on it. I undid one of my reverts. In the other, as I explained, the content had already been re-added in the correct section. The fact that you proceeded to bring an admin to threaten me so that I had to duplicate the content (with it now appearing once in the wrong section) was classic Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. The content I had re-added then had to be taken down by the editor who had originally added it to the wrong section. You were clearly Wikipedia:NOTHERE, and it was yet another instance of the Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND and bullying behaviour that in this instance you've shown towards @GeogSage. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you planning to continue targeting this editor or any other editors active in the PIA topic area? Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

There's an accusation here that I reject. I'm not sure why you get to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith in such a specific way here, but that's your prerogative. For clarity, I don't intend to target anyone at all. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe a conversation on the Char Bouba war page I had a few months ago [27] ties into the POV pushing mentioned above. I was asked to attribute the claim despite no other statements on the page needing attribution with the dispute not being resolved until I did [28]. Given Oumar Kane was a respected historian and Senegalese professor [29] I fail to see why this had to be done, although given the accusations above it seems this text did not favour his POV (this being of Moroccan involvement in modern-day Western Sahara or Mauritania) and was thus inclined to oppose its inclusion.

This unrelated conversation from October also contains behavior similar [30] [31] to what Samuelshraga has identified above. I agree that this kind of behavior is off-putting, it is discouraging when someone is treated like this. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Question: for @Asilvering and any other experience people here: All of this aside, the problem on the geography page persists, and I'd rather fix the problem (including having the NPOV template removed) sooner rather then later as it is a high volume page. I think addressing the issue should include a summary of M.Bitton's perspective for leaving the current map (which is their work), at the very least. Is there any way we can get an statement or input from them if it goes to RfC before block is up without violating rules, maybe by requesting on their talk page and verbatim copy pasting the quote? As frustrating as it might be, maps are extraordinarily controversial, and while I'm not super thrilled with their method of communication, I do appreciate that they ware trying to make what they thought was the best choice. They represent a view that is (highly) likely more widespread then a single editor, and even though I disagree with their solution to the problem (In my understanding, selectively updating a 2016 map with content from the 2021 map, rather then just using the 2021 map in its entirety), they identified a problem (that the U.S. official stance on borders is not really any more universal then the Chinese or Russian). I just want a good map for the geography page (as well as other pages using the same figure) and a way forward that allows us to update other maps without having this problem every time, and don't want to have that solution be biased by an editor representing a POV being blocked. Thank you for your help and advice. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I considered the effect a block would have on the RfC before I made it, and determined that a) participants really need a break from the back-and-forth, and b) at this point, every participant is quite aware of M.Bitton's views on the subject. If the editors who have been involved so far can't write an accurate, good-faith summary of M.Bitton's position, well, there's a much bigger problem there than I thought. But if the folks who are preparing the RfC agree they want a newly M.Bitton-written statement for the purposes of making a neutral RfC, I will not personally try to stop this. Please keep in mind, though, that this puts M.Bitton in a really tight situation. They've already been dinged for block evasion once (and someone else tried to joe-job them for it, too), and their behaviour will be under a microscope. And for your own sake, given your involvement thus far, I think you personally should avoid direct contact with M.Bitton, and avoid directly referring to their position to the maximum extent possible while stating your own. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and advice! I don't think I am a good person to write the summary (because I don't think I would view that summary as non-bias coming from another editor in my position), so if it goes to RfC I'll ask if anyone else can, and I won't reach out to M.Bitton myself. I wanted to make sure anything I did involving this question was said in the open to avoid any perception of back channel discussion (I just learned the term joe-job from reading talk pages discussing this). I'll link this reply in a request for others to summarize if it is needed. Sorry for the trouble. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I have had similar experiences with M.Bitton at Battle of Algiers (1956–1957) see [32] and Algerian War see changes. Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm amazed to see you link to a discussion that highlights your deliberate violations of the WP:OR and WP:NPA policies in order to whitewash a war criminal. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

And there you go once again pushing your POV, just proving everything that forms the basis of this complaint about you. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion that you linked to speaks for itself: it exposes your deliberate policy violations (WP:NPA and WP:OR) (in order to whitewash a war criminal). M.Bitton (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Vague accusations are not proof, meanwhile you accusing me of "whitewashing a war criminal" is a clear breach of WP:NPA. Mztourist (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Your entire edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes, particularly around topics surrounding Korea and Vietnam. You should be reported and banned. Orocairion (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that is an accurate statement about @Mztourist. I didn't go through their entire edit history, as it is quite extensive with 72,888 edits since 24 December 2009. I struggle to believe that they have made it 16 years "whitewashing and denying war crimes," although it might be theoretically possible. I don't see any strong evidence that they have engaged in such behavior, and see that their talk page has not flown under the radar in a way that might disguise such blatant POV, and see their behavior has likely been assessed by several admin/editors. I personally think you should strike that text and apologize, but that is only my opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@GeogSage There are instances of his edits revolving around removing any mentions of war crimes or massacres carried out in Korea and Vietnam by ROK or US forces, using the argument that if the US/ROK didn't admit to them, they really didn't happen and are hoaxes. They are on record for trying to delete the Tây Vinh massacre article, his whole argument basically being "US sources good, non-US sources are propaganda always and bad". Imagine going as far as trying to dispute My Lai.

If that kind of argument was made with regards the Ukranian war, people wouldn't hesitate to ban any such editor. It wouldn't take much effort to hide what basically amounts to vandalism and denialism in a mountain of inoquous edits, either. Orocairion (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Issues around military history and massacres are extremely hard to sort out. I'm not sure about any specifics, but disagreement on what makes a reliable source and interpretation of historic events is something we deal with across academia. Different interpretations of source material, or opinions about what constitutes a reliable source, are not a moral failing. I don't know what exact disputes they've been a part of, but it does not look like their "entire edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes," and while that might be hyperbole, accusing someone who you disagree with of trying to cover up war crimes does not really seem like assuming good faith. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Orocairion, I agree that making this kind of statement really does not seem like assuming good faith. Please do not make further statements like Your entire edit history is about whitewashing and denying war crimes unless you are prepared to back them up with evidence that is much better than what has so far been brought up in this thread. If you do have such evidence, though, please start a new ANI thread (or a WP:AE thread if relevant) about it, since it shouldn't be ignored. I strongly recommend that you avoid hyperbole like "entire edit history" if you do so. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Its interesting that User:Orocairion, who has made a total of 30 edits and who I have had no interactions with, has such a strong opinion of my edits and chosen to join this discussion. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Had the misfortune of bumping into a Twitter thread documenting your edits and your efforts to whitewash and deny mass murder and war crimes. It is people like you who give Wikipedia a bad rep of being a gamed website and I'm trying to make sure your user account gets noticed by the powers that be.

@Asilvering @GeogSage

Stuff like this would get anyone outright banned if it was done on articles related to the Ukraine war. Why should it be tolerated in this instance?.

(threat redacted) asilvering (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

https://x.com/jorfolle/status/1897417554630729843 Orocairivon (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Orocairion, please start including diffs with your accusations or you could be blocked for casting aspersions. And we don't care much about Tweets here. Link to edits on this platform. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I care about them when they contain implied death threats. I care about them kind of a lot. @Orocairion: you've been told to take your evidence to a new ANI thread if you have anything further to say about Mztourist. Again, I hope you have better evidence than talk page comments that appear to show Mztourist behaving perfectly normally. If you post more links to threats against specific Wikipedia editors, I personally will eject you from this website. -- asilvering (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Orocairion: don't let involved editors intimidate you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Gaslighting is part and parcel of your modus operandi, so no surprises there.

The absence of any mention in the RS means it is sourced only an incompetent editor or a system gamer would say such nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Who are you accusing of gaslighting? Once again such accusations are a personal attack. You keep digging your hole deeper. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I closed a content dispute at DRN about Western Sahara on the map at the Geography article, because this conduct dispute is also pending here about the same article and subtopic. When this conduct dispute is closed, survivors should discuss the draft RFC on the article talk page, and then take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The content being spread across so many pages was hard to manage and moving faster then I could keep up with. Really looking forward to read the RfC, I'm a bit exhausted on this topic and hope we can have an answer so we can have a consistent path forward for how to handle updates and such. The discussion has gotten way out of hand and I'm not thrilled it ended up here, and hope it can be resolved with a Minnow wack if anything, as @Dw31415 said. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The self-victimisation is just unbelievable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

How am I self-victimizing, exactly? The two lines I think could match this are: "The content being spread across so many pages was hard to manage and moving faster then I could keep up with," and "I'm a bit exhausted on this topic." I'm just tired of talking about this at this point, and having it spread across 3 or 4 talk pages was not easy to keep track of. I can't see how this is any different from where you said "just reading it gives me a headache as it reminds me why I ended up correcting you (in vain) more times than I care to remember" above, except I'm not trying to direct the cause of my exhaustion at you, but at the discussion. There are more editors involved then just you on this, and even if it was an entirely civil and positive experience, I don't have that much energy or time in my schedule for Wikipedia now a days, and this has eaten into that time. I just want it resolved at this point so I can focus on other things. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• For Pete's sake. I'd gotten about 2/3 of the way through looking at these diffs, but in the time it's taken an admin to respond here the personal attacks and general incivility continue in this thread, even after a logged AE warning about aspersions and failure to be WP:CIVIL. Gaslighting is part and parcel of your modus operandi, The self-victimisation is just unbelievable, etc, and, just as the editors bringing the complaint have noted, and refusing to specify when asked (I rest my case.) I will set a tempblock, but I'm not at all convinced there isn't grounds for further community action here. The idea that Talk:Battle_of_Algiers_(1956–1957)#Teitgen's_claims shows MzTourist deliberately violating OR and NPOV is astonishing. -- asilvering (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I find it very interesting that the moment Mztourist commented on M.Bitton's history, Orocairion - somebody who has never edited Wikipedia: space before, who has never edited articles on Korea and Vietnam, who has as the closest thing to "war crimes" previously only made two edits to Talk:Augusto Pinochet, and who had not edited since 25 February - suddenly appeared to personally attack them and declare they should be banned for whitewashing and denying war crimes, particularly around topics surrounding Korea and Vietnam. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for responding @Asilvering. In terms of further community action, I didn't bring this here looking for a specific remedy, just for M.Bitton (who has asked me not to tag them) to change the behaviours in the complaint. They were able to recognise that trying to evade the block was wrong and apologise. I don't care about an apology (maybe others do), but just recognising the problematic behaviours and committing to change them would be the minimum I'd hope for to not end up straight back here when this user is editing again.

  I'd also note that just the act of filing this report led to some kind of evidence being compiled against me that I am a sock of IceWhiz. I raise this here for two reasons:

  1. I'd like some acknowledgement that opening this thread was a reasonable and appropriate thing to do. I know that I'm not a prolific editor, and M.Bitton is, but the standards apply equally.

  2. I'd ideally like for that evidence to be turned into an official investigation (rather than a dossier circulated amongst people who evidently have taken me as an enemy), so that I can be cleared. I don't know how one proves their innocence in an SPI, but I'm not a sock and I assume that it's possible to demonstrate this to neutral observers' satisfaction. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  On 1: yes, it was a reasonable and appropriate thing to do. If it wasn't, M.Bitton wouldn't have been blocked, and you'd have been told to knock it off.

  On 2: on this I'm afraid I can't be as reassuring. It's tough to prove a negative. However, it's also tough to prove someone is a sock of IceWhiz, so you've got that going for you. All I can really say is that, if you're not a sock, the more constructive edits you make, the less likely people are to believe you are one. It looks like you have that conversation under control, but if people keep making vague insinuations now that you've explicitly told them to put up or shut up, that's aspersions/harassment territory. -- asilvering (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

asilvering given this: [33] I believe that a longer block is warranted. Mztourist (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what that would achieve, apart from merely punishing the editor in question for this... especially since in that diff you yourself linked, the admin mentioned they thought of extending the block, but specifically decided not to unless they give them a reason to. M.Bitton has acknowledged that this particular action they did was wrong, and apologized for it (which, if we WP:AGF, and unless they have a history of doing this that I'm not aware of, at least should indicate they won't try a stunt like that again).

I think it's reasonable to question, based on an editor's behavior - in this case, what we have in this thread on top of what seems to be their block evasion - whether said editor is compatible with the project overall. But I don't know if I agree that it's reasonable to extend blocks for arbitrary amounts of time as more wrongdoings come out, as though we're in court and trying to add up prison sentences based on a punitive logic.

M.Bitton has been blocked with email access revoked for now, and have stated themself that they wish to take a break, which might presumably be a good opportunity to reflect on their attitude and their actions (including this latest block evasion attempt they have already been confronted with). If they resume this behavior when they come back, or keep up at it while they're blocked, then a more severe sanction should definitely be on the table; but right now, unless someone can explain to me what extending this block does, it does not seem constructive or productive to me. NewBorders (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @NewBorders, you've saved me from typing that all out. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

M.Bitton was blocked here, then immediately set out to evade the block and was promptly caught out. Sure M.Bitton apologised, but block evasion should have consequences. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

So, just confirming that this reported "block evasion" happened through emailing editors, not through the creation of a sockpuppet or editing logged out via an IP account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Apparently some kind of meatpuppetry/canvassing. User:Orocairion with 31 edits turned up above to attack me. Another example may be User:Descartes16 with 39 edits turning up to edit a page they have never editted before: [34]. Mztourist (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

If you have further evidence of block evasion, take it to WP:SPI rather than spreading innuendo. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I would but unfortunately the evidentiary threshold and onus for getting a CU is too high for Users with so few edits. Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocks ideally aren't made with an infraction/punishment framework, they're made to prevent problems. Email use was revoked, as a preventative measure against further such block evasion/canvassing. The wider question raised by NewBorders, "whether said editor is compatible with the project overall", is also about prevention. The issues that directly led to the incivility prompting this thread and the subsequent blockevasion/canvassing, from Talk:Geography#February 2024 through to WP:NPOVN#Geography map dispute, as well as other similar instances mentioned here such as Talk:Char Bouba war#October 2024 and Talk:Battle of Algiers (1956–1957)#Teitgen's claims, all directly related to the Algeria/Mauritania/Morocco/Western Sahara area. That suggests the problem lies directly in that topic area, and could be addressed with action there without extending something to "the project overall". The one exception is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive346#M.Bitton, which relates to WP:ARBPIA, however that is an established CTOP where any administrator can take action if needed. CMD (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:RA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sofia Evangelidou -- edit warring over creation of an article; not discussing

• Sofia Evangelidou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Mindvalley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mindvalley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This editor has created the article Mindvalley. It was redirected by Padgriffin ([35]) as promo. Sofia Evangelidou then reverted the redirection ([36]). After another redirection, she reverted again ([37]). I then draftified the article and notified her. She proceeded to recreate the article in mainspace again ([38]). I redirected it ([39]), and she reverted that ([40]). I see no attempts from her to communicate, even though she has been notified of the draftification. Janhrach (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be some COI here, the editor's refusal to communicate despite repeated attempts at doing so are pretty concerning- I feel like an AFD would just result in it reverting to a redirect anyways, the article in its current state is not fit for main. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

AS an interim step, I have p-blocked from article space as they need to communicate Star Mississippi 17:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have found online some good evidence online that this is UPE. I don't know how much can I reveal per WP:OUTING, but Mindvalley is listed as a client at https://growthgirls.com. Janhrach (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Janhrach: perhaps you could bring this to WP:COIN (if you haven't already?) Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 19:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that if there are any concerns regarding WP:OUTING, the information can be sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably not helpful Ms. Evangelidou's case that she even stated in the deletion discussion for mindvalley that she was an employee of a marketing firm. Insanityclown1 (talk) Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that's just a coincidence... Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Surely, per BRD, the correct thing to do would have been to start a discussion after Sofia Evangelidou reverted the first time? She may be wrong here on the content, but it seems pretty poor to re-revert. I note that the article talk page is still a red link. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

As I have pointed out at AfD, I was not aware that the recreations were not identical to each other. I interpreted the lack of edit summaries as a refusal to discuss, so I though a more than just requesting her to discuss was needed. That is why I draftified the article. Janhrach (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

They appear to have disclosed here and said they'll make the appropriate templated ones. Star Mississippi 00:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 85.134.229.147

85.134.229.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content & categories (see WP:CATVER) about cancelled ports of video games to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Content dispute. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  This doesn't seem like much of a content dispute so much as it is disruptive. Especially considering that the OP warned them of their actions four times. Conyo14 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that persistent addition of unsourced content with no communication/response to warnings is disruptive and a matter befitting ANI. IP is continuing to add unsourced content to articles: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  There are a bunch of warnings that includes four "final" warnings, combined with zero communication. I say it's time for a block. 2600:1012:A023:426A:FD23:4BD8:7369:B7B (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  User continues to make edits that have been reverted. 2600:1012:A023:426A:A6E8:ED70:3459:CD (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

User:JustAChurchMouse: edit-war, use of sources considered as unreliable by community consensus

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

User:JustAChurchMouse has been edit-warring at the page Sedevacantism, reverting me numerous time, along with once @Pbritti:. See: [41], [42], [43]; [44]

JustAChurchMouse has also added sources that are unreliable, along with sources declared unreliable by the community (WP:CESNUR).

The user has ignored the consensusus on their sources at Talk:Sedevacantism#Reliable sources.

The user has been imposing their changes, despite other users objecting to them. JustAChurchMouse has disregarded all opposition to their changes in a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT way, and has repeateadly added their changes back.

The user has been made aware of WP:BRD twice ([45], [46]).

The user was warned of the lack of reliable sources they provided for their claims (User talk:JustAChurchMouse#February 2025), and for their edit-warring behaviour (User talk:JustAChurchMouse#March 2025). They have chosen to ignore those.

Therefore, I believe sanctions need to be taken against the user. Veverve (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

JustAChurchMouse, just stop edit-warring. You did the right thing by starting a talk page discussion, but absolutely the wrong thing by reinstating your edits before the discussion has completed. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I am frustrated with this JustAChurchMouse, mostly due to the name-calling they engaged in, which was followed by peculiar comments about my nationality after I warned them about on their talk page. They also engaged in apologetic POV edit warring on the Catholic Church article back in January ([47], [48], [49]). My appraisal of their editing is that they are a staunchly Catholic editor (as I am) who is unable to understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a tool for evangelization or apologetics. While Phil Bridger's advice is sound, I think there's more going on here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

They have resumed edit warring: [50]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried reporting them to WP:ANEW? But I see multiple editors edit-warring here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

They haven't broken 3RR (24h limit passed) and ANEW is a tad fickle if that specific rule isn't broken. I'm assuming Veverve reported here for that reason. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I requested that they come here to discuss the situation but when I post these messages, I only have about 50/50 success. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. If they haven't replied by the time I wake up, I'll also encourage them to respond here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti and Liz unfortunately no reply but they've resumed editing. I don't know if the recent changes are the same as before but they're still using the same sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I'm now involved as I just reverted JustAChurchMouse. Having looked at their changes I agree they seem to be problematic and until there's at least a partial block or maybe page protection (especially if it's not their preferred version being the wrong version that wins) it seems they're just going to continue to largely ignore concerns and give some minimal replies which include personal attacks. Perhaps seeing multiple editors will convince them to talk more before some administrative action, perhaps not. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold out too much hope. They are conspicuous here by their absense. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I now add to my complaint personnal attack, refusal of WP:FAITH:

• calls me a "non-content contributor deliberately trying to frustrate article development in bad faith" ([51])
• says: You are deliberately trying to obstruct the development of this article because you have a bias or bee in your bonet against the subject matter and are trying to hide behind obscurantist Wikilawyering. This is not in the interests of spirit of what Wikipedia is for at all and does not aid in any constructive way in developing a quality article here ([52])

On top of this, a new WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT: You are not proposing any serious constructive content additions to this article at all, so I am just going to carry on developing the article. ([53]) Veverve (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from article space entirely as they need to communicate. I am not against a larger block if the communication doesn't indicate an understanding of the issues raised here. Star Mississippi 15:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

So I am mostly interested in researching and building underdeveloped articles on religious topics. At present, I am attempting to take the rather sorry state the sedevacantism article is in and gradually drag it up to a decent level. I don’t check my talk very often, not interested in using this as an avenue for socialising and am just interested in researching and building articles in the little spare time I have, so forgive me if I am not monitoring my talkpage 24/7.

I was working on the article sedevacantism, when Veverve wholesale reverted all of the work added, with the vague editor summary “not RSs”, with no message on the talkpage whatsoever. So I started a Talk:Sedevacantism#Reliable_sources questioning why these had been removed.

One source was from the journal of an organisation associated with this movement, which plots out a comprehensive international history of the earliest individuals involved in it. There is no suggestion that the material it is being used to reference is contentious or somehow disputed. I pointed out according to WP:Secondary such sources do not even require to completely independent. I tried to tease out of Veverve, how this was supposedly an unreliable source, what evidence we have of their unreliability or why he thinks we could not use a source from a group within this movement for non-contentious mundane content, but couldn’t get a solid definitive answer from him. Its basically just his subjective opinion. It just devolved into circular deep Wikilawyering and there was basically nowhere further go to with the discussion as he wasn’t challenging any actual content, just mass reverting based on his subjective opinion of this source.

The second source which be brought into question is Center for Studies on New Religions, a group which published studies on academic works on new religious movements. I have since added another source from an unrelated academic work anyway. But this literally was, again, used in a completely uncontentious manner to reference that an organisation exists in Japan and what year it was founded. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say we cannot use this organisation as a reference, some people do not like the group because they don’t actively lobby against new religious movements, just describe their beliefs. But again, used for completely uncontentious material.

Within the initial post here, Veverve claims to have a "consensus" on the question of the sources, this is simply not true. Nobody other than him has actually addressed the reliability sources themselves on the talkpage that I opened. My main irritation is Veverve rather than merely tagging these two specific references he has a problem with in the article with an appropriate tag, requesting they be augmented with supplementary source, starting a talkpage entry and inviting scrutiny of a source by a non-involved parties in a collaborative project mindset (all of which I would be more than willing to participate and collaborate in) but simply wholesale reverting, frustrating and apparently delierately obstructing any real effort to actually push forward and development of the progress of the article itself. How does this actually benefit Wikipedia or aid in developing it at all? I am willing to collaborate on content, of course, but the other person has to be as well. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe you have objectively described the situation; this can be seen when checking the article's talk page, and in looking at your behaviour in this article (edit-war, shifting the burden of proof, personnal attacks against me, etc.) of which you have said nothing and instead focused on me (despite the admin on your talk page previously advising you to WP:NOTTHEM). Furthermore, from what you wrote here and on the article's talk page, I do not believe you have properly understood what a RS is and how primary sources can be used. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

JustAChurchMouse, no one is seeking to socialize with you, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing platform that requires editors to communicate with each other, especially when differences arise, often over the quality of sources. No editor can work in isolation. This is an interactive platform that requires editors to be responsive when other editors question their work. Hence, your article-space block. I'm glad you decided to show up here and participate in this discussion even though it doesn't look like there is a resolution here yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

As Liz pointed out, Wikipedia is not a social network. Your talk page is there for communication, not socializing, and communication is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

If the community has said a source is not reliable point blank, as they seem to have done for CENSUR then you should not be using it as a source for anything except perhaps presenting this sources views on something which is very rare. It doesn't mater if it's uncontentious. If you later found a different source that's great but it doesn't change that their are legitimate concerns about your understanding of WP:RS in general if you used this source in the first place, and even greater concerns if you continue to assert it's okay. This being a collaborative project we accept sometimes we need to correct the mistakes of other editors, but editors should still try not to make such mistakes in the first place and using CENSUR was a major mistake on your part and one you should ensure you don't repeat. Anyway if this was just about that single source, that's one thing but besides that you keep adding material with other poor sources, primarily primary sources and other such extremely problematic sources. As noted on the talk page by multiple other editors including me, you need to find better sources before adding most of it. You cannot expect editors to tag each source especially when you are adding so much of it in such a short space of time and almost completely ignoring concerns over your sources. I'm sure our article Sedevacantism can be improved a lot but not the way you're going about it and you have to accept that just because you're adding content does not mean you're improving the article from En.Wikipedia's PoV. It's possible some of the material you're trying to add simply doesn't belong if better sources cannot be found, this isn't a bad thing. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:CESNUR. It's not a case of some people do not like the group because they don’t actively lobby against new religious movements - which is treading awfully close to WP:ASPERSIONS, I'll note - but a case of consensus being that they are an unreliable source, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

On the question of WP:CESNUR, the page this is on states at the top that this is not policy as such but a guideline. Which made me think we could use it for mundane non-contentious information. Our own article CESNUR presents a far less contentious overview of the organisation than this internal guideline would suggest. Regardless, this source isn't really a hill-to-die on for me anyway with this, because it was only used in the article for a reference to say that a group in Japan exists and when it was founded (nothing beyond that) and I have subsequently provided another source for this. So there is no need for that to be used anyway now.

The main issue is Ververe contends that another source, which lays out more extensively the early history and figures involved in the aforementioned movement, is inherently unreliable to use as a reference (even for non-contentious information) because the journal was written by a priest who belongs to an order which is broadly part of said movement. We have no community guidelines and no existing consensus to say that this specific Catholic journal cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia for this kind of content. In any case, I am happy to re-engage and collaborate on the talkpage of the article and not restore that aspect if unblocked, until a consensus has been found on that. What I do ask is that somebody who is not involved takes a look in regard to that specific reference and casts some scrutiny on its suitability, because at the moment its just Ververe's opinion vs. my opinion on that one. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

JustAChurchMouse, you are currently not blocked from engaging on the article talk page. You should engage there prior to seeking an unblock from the mainspace (articles). ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring with possible meat- and/or sockpuppetry

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

---

• NewGuy2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Edits: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]
• Bear3424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Edits: [59] [60] [61]
• 80.229.13.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Edits: [62]
• 80.43.61.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Edits: [63]

These four accounts have been involved in edit warring at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, all of them removing the same content under the same arguments (when they actually use the edit summary to explain them, which is not always the case) within a very short timeframe. The thing is: most of these accounts just appear to conduct that revert, then vanish into thin air just in time to avoid breaching WP:3RR independently. NewGuy2024 is an exception as they also regularly post in the talk page, but their contribution history shows that they are a single-purpose account with a very narrow set of articles (just that one and the one for the 2024 election). The Editor Interaction Utility shows a very strong correlation between these four accounts' edits, and very particularly between NewGuy2024 and Bear3424, a behaviour which sounds like a duck quacking in terms of WP:MEAT and/or WP:SOCK. Impru20^talk 21:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

From the talk page it's a dispute over including polls from companies that are not part of the BPC. Secretlondon (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

That’s the gist. There are several/many/lots? of very keen and singular editors who are really keen on a BPC only page, even though it has to ignore wiki's general view on reliable sources. One of the phrases was, "WP:whoknowshwat", which I rather like.Halbared (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I have added a new edit by NewGuy2024, as they keep edit warring. Impru20^talk 22:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for a week. The edit warring that has been happening on this article is absurd. It ends now. Warning posted on the article's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Good call. I can’t believe how so much fuss is being made over such a relatively trivial matter. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Leopardus62 and Eucratides I

Leopardus62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding a particular piece of content to Eucratides I; talk page discussion has consistently opposed this material, but this user simply refuses to engage with the talk page and reverts every attempt to remove the material, accusing me of vandalism. The course of events:

• 19 June 2024: Leopardus added the material (among many other additions which were constructive): diff
• 18 December 2024: I removed the material diff (and I admit that my edit summary could have been more constructive)
• 19 December 2024: Leopardus reverted: [64]
• 19 December 2024: I took the matter to the article talk page: [65], laying out my concerns about the material (WP:OR, WP:RS, consistency with other articles). I add a ping Leopardus on the talk page asking to discuss [66]
• 21 December 2024: No response on the talk page, so I removed the material from the article once more: [67]
• 24 December 2024: Leopardus reverts: [68], accusing me of vandalism "You will be reported if you continue disrupting the improvement of this article without reason"
• 24 December 2024: Leopardus replies on the talk page [69], laying out counterarguments and stating "Just leave the section and more citations will soon be added, something that is commonly done in many other articles."
• 24 December 2024: I repeat my concern about OR: diff.
• 27 December 2024: No response on the talk page, so I remove the material once more [70], pointing out in the edit summary "Removed section as WP:OR; if editors wish to restore this material, the WP:BURDEN is on them to find WP:RS for it."
• 16 February 2025: Leopardus restores the material once more diff; Leopardus posts a message to the talk page entitled "Eucratides name final" [71], threatening to report me, gatekeeping "you are completely ignorant about this subject. Stay in your realm. I have studied Ancient Greek history," expressing a refusal to engage in dialogue "If you remove my edit, I will continue to remove your edit forever and ever. I will make sure you understand, because I am right about the information, and you are wrong." and accusing me of acting in bad faith "You are bringing your ego into this, rather than knowledge and truth."
• 16 February 2025: I reply, stating that there is still no citation for the key factoid in dispute and suggesting that we seek arbitration through WP:Third Opinion [72]
• 16 February 2025: User:Manuductive offers a Third Opinion of "strong support for removal" of the content diff
• 18 February 2025: No response from Leopardus on the talk page, so I remove the material once more diff
• 28 February 2025: Leopardus reverts diff
• 28 February 2025: I revert [73] steering Leopardus to the talk page.
• 1 March 2025: Leopardus reverts diff
• 1 March 2025: I call Leopardus to the talk page once more [74]
• 2 March 2025: I request comment from WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome [75]
• 2 March 2025: User:StarTrekker and User:XabqEfdg post on the talk page. Both support the removal of the information [76]
• 7 March 2025: No response from Leopardus on the talk page, so I remove the material once more [77]. Leopardus reverts within two hours [78] with the edit summary "Undid revision again, citing vandalism and disruption to improvement of Wikipedia article without valid reason".
• 7 March 2025: I notify the talk page of the situation. User:XabqEfdg posts to Leopardus' user talk page requesting that they engage diff

Throughout the times when Leopardus has refused to engage on the talk page, they have been editing other articles. User:Leopardus has been very active on WP since receiving that message, but has not replied on their user talk page or on the article talk page. This refusal to engage now seems to be a persistent pattern. The other involved editors are Manuductive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) StarTrekker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and XabqEfdg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who suggested taking the matter here. Furius (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I know nothing about Greco-Bactrian kings and their names, but I know that Wikipedia has dispute resolution procedures, and their outcomes decide what goes in articles rather than one person's view. If Leopardus62 can't accept that consensus is against them they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. By force (blocking/banning) if necessary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Leopardus is a bad editor overall, but they need to stop the edit warring. Not supporting a block as of this moment but might (a block with a limited time) if they continue this.★Trekker (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from article space. Communication is not optional. They retain access to the talk pages and to participate here. Star Mississippi 23:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to come here and waste time talking about this topic again. The issue was first started by the user Furius, they first started making rude and unwarranted statements about my edits in the edit descriptions. They instantly removed my edits, using completely made-up, wrong and nonsensical reasons. I already had a citation, and owing to my knowledge of this topic, and Ancient Greek, I put a great deal of effort into the edit.

Also the short "Name paragraph" I added is found in many high-quality articles relating to Hellenistic Greek figures. Featured articles about the similar Seleucid kings all include information about their names. The are a common and important part of becoming a good article, and not a stub. Also I know that many people want to know the meaning of Eucratides' name. I have looked at the results and many people search the meaning of Eucratides' name on Google, and there are no good results. Many people do want to know about it.

Furius did not listen to anything that I said, and I told them: I have a citation, but just leave a "more citation needed" note and I will definitely add more citations very soon, which is a normal thing to do in Wikipedia. But they quickly removed my edit again. Also, the information in my edit was correct, it was right, and also relevant. I checked it. I also then added two good citations to back the information. It's literally just a small paragraph as well. But they still removed my edit, without good reason. I gave up reasoning with them, because they were uncooperative.

I am the one following the rules of Wikipedia editing, using high-quality information and citing reliable sources. They are not. They just want to make sure that they win, it makes them happy. Even though the article ends up worse. I'm busy improving Wikipedia the entire time, while they dwell on this ridiculous situation. We should all want to make this article a good article. But Furius doesn't want to. That is not acceptable, because it does not improve Wikipedia as a whole. Leopardus62 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Even if the information is correct...right, and also relevant and has two good citations, if the consensus is that the content should not be included, the content should not be included. Also this is absolutely unacceptable, and this - calling something vandalism that is not vandalism - can be considered a personal attack. Also I have looked at the results and many people search the meaning of Eucratides' name on Google - how do you know this? {{citation needed}}. It doesn't matter if adding more citations very soon...is a normal thing to do in Wikipedia - unreferenced content can be removed by anyone at any time, and content that talk page consensus has determined is poorly or insufficiently referenced - which it does appear is the case here - can also be removed at any time. When multiple editors agree that content is not desirable in the article, you do not edit war to keep it in the article, no matter how much you believe the reasoning is made-up, wrong and nonsensical. You absolutely have to waste time talking about this topic again because you are editing against consensus; communication is required. And They just want to make sure that they win, it makes them happy is casting aspersions and a personal attack on Furius. Consider yourself warned not to make futher personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It's very ironic that you are complaining about other people being uncooperative when you are the one who is refusing to join in the discussion on the talkpage and threatening to continue to remove your edit forever and ever.

If consensus is to exclude something from an article which you think should be included, you have two choices: either you can discuss the issue on the talkpage and attempt to achieve consensus for inclusion, or you can accept that consensus is against you. What you cannot do is to repeatedly revert against the talkpage consensus. If you think that continuing to discuss the topic is a waste of time, there's absolutely no obligation for you to do so - but in that case you must accept the consensus, which in this case is clearly not to include the claim that Eucratides "may possibly have had a grandfather or another male ancestor named Eucrates". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The irony of saying "I am the one following the rules of Wikipedia editing" while completely and actively ignoring one of its most fundamental principles is quite funny. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistent POV Editing on Kashmir Related Article

I am reporting user Saandd for repeatedly making politically motivated edits on multiple Wikipedia articles related to Kashmir. The edits include:

1. Kashmir Stag (Hangul) The user falsely changed the classification of the Kashmir stag from being a subspecies of the Central Asian red deer (Cervus hanglu hanglu) to the Tarim red deer. They also reworded content in a way that introduces bias.

•Diff: Last stable version vs. their edit

2. Shab Deg Multiple edits removing references to Kashmir as a broader region and instead framing it as an exclusively Indian dish.

•Before: Version before edits

•After: 1 2 3

3. Kulcha Changed the region from Punjab to India, removing Pakistan and Punjab from the associated cuisine section.

•Before: Version with Punjab and Pakistan

•After: Their edit removing Punjab and Pakistan

4. Other Kashmir-related articles The user has consistently replaced “Kashmir” with “Kashmir, India”, despite , despite Wikipedia’s policy to maintain neutrality due to Kashmir’s disputed status.

I request administrators to review this user’s editing history and take appropriate action to prevent further disruptive and tendentious editing.

Thank you. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you are required to alert the user of this report on their talk page, I've done it for you. I also gave them a notice about the relevant contentious topic, as they might not be knowledgeable about it before. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

User PvPvE Boosting breaching WP:PROMOTION policy

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

---

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

This user has edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boosting_(video_games) to advertise a game boosting service. I have notified this user on their talk page. Speedyblupi (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You did not notify the user of this ANI discussion, which is what the process requires. I don't think this ANI post was necessary. You should have removed the promotional material, left a message telling them it is not allowed (as you did), and then waited for a response. ANI is for urgent, chronic and intractable behavioural problems only. I don't see evidence of that. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

(ec) @Speedyblupi, that editor hasn't edited since last September. The promotion has been reverted. Nothing needs to be done. Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Speedyblupi (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Lvivske and slow edit warring

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

Lvivske has been slow edit warring at Ukrainian Insurgent Army since 21 November 2024. They removed Nazi Germany as allies in the infobox, claiming that this is "false info", even though there is an entire section about this. They removed this again on 16 January, writing "fake/debunked". On 25 February, they removed this again, writing "fake", again on 8 March, writing "rv edit warring", and they reverted me again now with no explanation.

This is not the only recent case of them edit warring and having no willingness to start a discussion. See for example history of Russia where they made an unsupported change to the lead and then proceeded to restore it three times.[79][80][81] In this edit summary they accused me of "trolling". I should also note that they already have a topic ban from Azov Brigade due to edit warring and a violation of a revert restriction. Mellk (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

They also accused me of "disinformation" in this warning on my talk page now. Mellk (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You have a long track record of this kind of disruptive editing, forgive me if I'm cutting to the point. To illustrate a new example of this MO, you said above the unsourced claim I removed was despite "even though there is an entire section about this." Of course, that section doesn't support the claim - but you knew that, since you brought it up.

It is not bad conduct on my part for removing unsourced or disputed content that I stumble upon. Compiling a list and going to Admin noticeboard the second you started edit warring however, is fully in line with the bad faith attitude I pointed out. (thanks for briging up your edit warring on the other article so I didnt have to look it up again, as I said, long track record of you doing this)LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The infobox listed Nazi Germany as both an ally and opponent. It said "varied". This section says: After the front had passed, by the end of 1944 the Germans supplied the OUN/UPA by air with arms and equipment, and so on. Instead, you decided to write unhelpful edit summaries like "fake" with no care about discussing why this is false. You have a userbox that says you remember "the heroes of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" and you demonstrate once again that you cannot edit such topics neutrally and without resorting to personal attacks. Mellk (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Ever think that maybe since it's a topic I'm knowledgeable about, that's why I corrected the false information when I saw it and moved on, not thinking someone was going to revert it immediately? You literally highlighted yourself above reverting that I added the word 'colonial' to an article on an imperial concept, tell me again who can't be neutral. If there was an actual citation you could have just added it instead of spending hours writing up a complaint.

You also brought up an ancient topic ban on a page that in the end changed to the neutral version I was proposing after consensus was needed. But what do facts matter. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 01:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

That is why you made only six edits in the time between that topic ban was imposed in November 2015 and early 2022. I see you did not learn from that topic ban. Mellk (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just because it's a topic I'm knowledgeable about it doesn't make your contributions to the page more worthy than Mellk's, or anyone else's. Even experts can be wrong. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually we should rely on experts to write articles, thats why we use reliable sources. Not insert unsourced or debunked content into articles to push an agenda. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"Not insert unsourced or debunked content into articles to push an agenda."

The irony, lmao. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

No, we rely on Wikipedians to write articles using reliable sources. Sometimes that does mean that Randy from Boise gets to edit, but that doesn't change the fact that being an expert in a field gives you no special privileges with regards to the topic (and in fact can make it more likely to be scrutinized). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Having a section of pages on their userpage titled "These are mine. Don't touch (or else)" also seems uncollaborative. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 00:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh man, lighten up. You can't be serious. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

They are. I would advise reading WP:OWN.

The only page that is "yours" is your userpage. You don't have any more authority over the listed pages then anyone else does. While it's fine to have funny things(within reason of course) on your userpage, the threat in the section header (the "or else" part), isn't funny, its vaguely threatening. This isn't appropriate behavior from an editor who seems to have been around for this long.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

To be completely fair, WP:OWN is the first thing listed there. But I agree that the "or else" could have a chilling effect on editors less versed in Wikipedia standards. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Just relaized that, thank you. They should ABSOLUTELY know better then. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought implying I own the article WP:OWN was a self explanatory joke. Alas... LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these takes are brazenly anti-humor. It's very clear that the intention is humorous, especially since WP:OWN is linked right there. A new user would realize the humor, an experienced user would just instantly get it. Hunt some other game, that section header is fine. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 16:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise, I'm sorry I didn't get the joke immediately and for assuming bad faith that the heading was meant seriously. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 22:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The page in question is not on that list. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"I should also note that they already have a topic ban from Azov Brigade due to edit warring"

That topic ban should apply to Ukrainian insurgent army, since Azov is known to use UPA flags and symbols, e.g. https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/ukrainian-nationalists-of-regiment-azov-and-right-sector-news-photo/614688616 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bataillon_Sainte-Marie.png TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

That's such an absurdly biased reach. You linked to completely random and unrelated pictures to shoehorn your point in, too. Come on. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Unrelated? I posted a photo of an Azov rally with a massive UPA flag. I also posted a picture of an Azov battalion that uses the red-black UPA flag in their insignia.

There's also this: "Regarding Stepan Bandera, Azov soldiers regard him as a Hero of Ukraine and a symbol of the struggle for Ukrainian independence, according to Dutchak." source: https://svidomi.in.ua/en/page/myths-of-neo-nazism-and-bandera-how-azov-became-the-target-of-russian-propaganda TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, unrelated. You posted two different groups of people adjacent to one another, which is irrelevant to anything here. Also they do not use that for their insignia, you posted a link to an Orthodox Christian unit. Its all just a soup of random. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

even though there is an entire section about this
The first thing the section says is The relationship between Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Nazi Germany was complex and varied on account of the intertwined interests of the two actors, as well as the decentralized nature of the UPA. Given the infobox should contain only undisputed info, this is not enough justification for having Nazi Germany as allies. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Then they should not listed as opponents. But this is something for the talk page of that article. Mellk (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I opened the discussion there. I mean, did UIA and Nazi Germany have agreed to enter some military alliance, or something similar to USSR - Nazi Germany agreement of I think 1939? Do we have Nazi Germany listed as an ally to the USSR? If not, why Lvivske's edit is so controversial? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, this is an issue with behavior. But despite the warnings given to you about WP:FOLLOWING you just do not listen. Mellk (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

despite the warnings given to you about WP:FOLLOWING
Wait a moment, so you are following me in an article you never edited undoing my contributions [82] and blame me of following. Thank you for victim blaming. And no, "the warnings given to you about WP:FOLLOWING" is also false. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist. You would see during this period I was going through my watchlist and this was among the first edits of the day. This edit just before the revert you mentioned followed someone else's edit to the article that was made around 8pm GMT on 28 February. This is around the same time you edited the article neo-Nazism. But you happened to show up here soon after I deleted Lvivske's warning from my talk page.[83] Good job trying to derail this. Mellk (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. Now, if we don't have Nazi Germany listed as an ally to the USSR, why Lvivske's edit is so controversial?

And the question is valid, because there is a history of you abusing WP:BRD and sabotaging the consensus building, deleting content referenced with academic sources, for example Talk:Neo-Nazism#BALANCE violation in Ukraine section , Talk:Neo-Nazism#Konotop mayor with BLP violation still in the article, and so on, also Talk:Nikolai Gogol#Ukrainian , where consensus has been reached, which you haven't participated in the process of, yet arrived there with reverts and tags. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I have told you to stop following me and you want to continue derailing this discussion with whatever content dispute you can remember and misrepresent. Mellk (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know no source exists to support what he kept re-inserting into the article and it's just based on original research. There's no reason why he was justified in instant-reverting everything for no reason, and if justification existed he could have a) added a citation, b) used the talk page. Instead he deleted my warning and here we are. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think the best way out of this mess is to topic ban both of you from Ukrainian Insurgent Army and related topics, broadly construed, as well as emplace an interaction ban between the two of you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposed, as I think it's the only thing that won't end up with a site ban for both.

Star Mississippi 00:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• I will admit that I lost my cool after I read the message they left on my talk page. I have spent some time to process this. I assumed they had seen my initial edit summaries on why I reverted their change (as I had believed that the section on Germany supported this and that this was the long standing version), but it seems there was a misunderstanding on my part. I would prefer to settle our disagreements on talk pages in future, if it would still be possible. But I will avoid editing the article Ukrainian Insurgent Army since I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic. Mellk (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: I had a quick look at the article in question and it's not good. From the lead, the reader will understand how bad the article subject was, but when answering the "what is it?" question, the article only informs us that "The goal of the OUN was to drive out occupying powers in a national revolution and set up an independent government headed by a dictator", distorting the source, which say - Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists - it was A Ukrainian political movement dedicated to the establishment of an independent Ukrainian state, and This goal was to be achieved by a national revolution led by a dictatorship that would drive out the occupying powers and set up a government representing all regions and social groups, and this is only According to its initial declaration.
  Now, it looks like unsourced "Nazi Germany ally" gets removed, thanks to Lvivske's "slow edit warring". But if the editors who care will get banned, who will clean the rest of the mess? Shouldn't there be more productive mechanisms and tools. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NONAZIS

  UPA was a fascist, racist organisation that sought to exterminate Jews in Ukraine and it cooperated with Nazi Germany to do so. These are facts, and no amount of "just asking questions" and "but they were actually freedom fighters" will alter those facts or history. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Too biased, one-sided. Combined with personal attacks in talk. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing of Nazi crimes . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  WP:FALSEBALANCE TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

SPA IP 75.143.218.14 harassing users in relation to Yasuke

75.143.218.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account in question has two edits so far harassing myself and Coresly on our talk pages in relation to Yasuke.

• [84]
• [85]

Given they started twenty minutes ago, they may continue posting on other pages after this is posted. Relm (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

After posting I noticed that Coresly has been blocked already as WP:NOTHERE with only two edits to Yasuke. Fun. Relm (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

IP blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from IP range

IP range 2600:1011:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been disrupting many B-52s articles such as Love Shack, Roam, and Good Stuff by removing the apostrophe from the band's name, which they did not do until 2008; therefore, the range is introducing historical inaccuracies. This range changes their IP address with nearly every single edit they make, so I think we need a rangeblock. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

A /32 is a huge range. Do you have a smaller one? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that technologically inclined. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they're more specifically in 2600:1011:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40. Still quite a wide range, although pretty far from a /32. For context, a /64 is usually assigned to a single device, and the range doubles in size each time the number goes down by one, although most addresses are not assigned. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Historyk.ok disruptive editing

Historyk.ok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent WP:DE by this user on Battles of Nabróż article by making changes the user believes are correct, ignoring the source, warnings and agreement at the talk page of article.[86][87][88][89][90]

I gave user a warning for initial behaviour.[91] I started a discussion at article talk page and explained to him why I gave him this warning. I've explained what he was doing wrong, asking him many times not to engage in WP:EW and other disruptive behaviour. We had a discussion about content of the article. Conversation stalled on how result should be, so I pinged another user. After this, we had a majority agreeing (Dushnilkin,[92] Grechkovsky[93] and myself) who took part in the discussion, that result should be Ukrainian victory. Despite this, user continued insisting on his own changes by changing the result and I gave this user a final warning.[94] However, this user continues to ignore the warnings and makes changes he thinks are correct, accusing me of lying on majority agreeing for result box to be Ukrainian victory,[[95] and before that stated "Per consensus at the talk page." in his edit for where he changed result to "See Aftermath", which clearly isn't the consensus.

For more context, the user initially wanted to have a "full results" box kept below the result with outcomes of different attacks in this clash.[96] However, there should only be one result such as "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Otherwise, terms like "See Aftermath" linking to section explaining details, if terms like these don't clearly describe outcome as per MOS:VICTORY. Later, he started insisting on putting "See Aftermath" as a result,[97] but this isn't one of these clashes with unclear result or where these terms do not apply, I even provided a direct quote from a cited source for Ukrainian victory result that states the fighting ended in a "Ukrainian triumph" (I.e. Ukrainian victory) at one of my edits[98] and talk page.[99]

In the most recent response, this user replied: "...as a result I do not think that the Ukrainians lost, but I still think it is better to stay, as I said earlier, and I saw that you even used it in your articles Crimean Campaigns (1668)". Contradictory to everything I mentioned above with persistently trying to remove "Ukrainian victory" from result or add additional results in the infobox, which this user even done 10 minutes before responding to me with this message on the talk page.[100] Also, I didn't insisted on keeping results like these anywhere, and in the article he brought up these results were restored by another user.[101]

Last month, I reported this user for WP:NPA.[102] This user was blocked for disruptive editing and made promises not to break rules again.[103] In general, plenty of warnings related to disruptive editing.[104][105] StephanSnow (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm surprised that WP:HID wasn't applied the first time. Lessons weren't learned, it would seem. Maybe at TBan would be the best course of action... King Lobclaw (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Just saw this. I don't think the constant reverting by him is good, but I don't think your point is either. He is right in saying that you shouldn't have changed the result, after all, it shouldn't be based on amount of votes, as per WP:MEAT. And you do seem to have randomly ended discussion and ignored statements for whatever reason? I'm sorry, but this personally seems ignorant to me for no reason. I get Historyk.ok has been rude in the past (which is why he got a previous ban), but this seems far too forceful. Setergh (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't have to report this here if Historyk.ok didn't ignore his final warning (continuing reverting) and responded to it inappropriately by calling me a liar.[106] (at least without involving Ukrainian Jews this time)

Our previous discussions also "randomly ended" and "based on the number of votes",[107][108] except no one reverted my changes so it was obvious the discussion ended, and should've been obvious to Historyk.ok after I reverted his change that this wasn't an agreed change, instead of reverting back to how he wants to be after his last warning and accusing me of lying.[109] The result Historyk.ok put wasn't the consensus that for some reason wasn't clear to this user even after I reverted this user's other edit.[110] The change Historyk.ok put doesn't even make sense, why don't 1 and 2 also have the result as "See Aftermath" despite only last attack & siege ending in victory for their respective sides there? You also didn't have a problem with agreeing that the result is determined by how the last attack/siege ended in the proposed "Sieges of Bar" article alongside Historyk.ok.[111]

Also, you mentioned WP:MEAT. You didn't say this is the case of meat puppetry, but I will address this preemptively since that's a serious allegation. All the users I tagged were the ones I interacted with at some point which weren't all in agreement, my first interaction with Dushnilkin was him tagging me over an issue with result of another article I put.[112] There's no guarantee that any of the users I tag are going to agree with the points I make, nor I ever asked them to do so. In the case of Siege of Bar (1648) discussion, they agreed with your and Historyk.ok's points. As I already mentioned in the conversation,[113] users I remember being in our discussions haven't edited on Wikipedia for a while[114][115] (Rxsxuis edited recently, but didn't respond to a tag) so they likely wouldn't have responded, so I pinged Grechkovsky who I remember edited my articles and was recently active. Of course, these people are interested in similar topics as me, that's why they edited my articles at some point and why I think they're appropriate to ping to these kinds of discussions, since they would be the most likely to respond. StephanSnow (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, Historyk.ok shouldn't have continued the fighting. And I suppose I get what you mean, although the way I handle things and the guidelines I learn about does change overtime.

As for your debunking of WP:MEAT, I have no clue why you did this as nobody accused you of such a thing. Setergh (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I did not ignore the source you provided; I even explained why that source has a different significance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279097217 So claiming otherwise is nonsense. Secondly, the user completely ignored other messages from another user. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279410362

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279402699 When they were asked questions by another user, they completely ignored them and did not respond. Additionally, there was another user who supported changing the outcome, which this user did not mention.

Thirdly, the user ignored what I wrote on the discussion page. They did not provide any response; instead, they tagged other people who had nothing to do with the discussion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279263931

And fourth, I told the user that I did not see how my changes violated the rules. Instead of explaining how my edits broke the rules, they gave me a warning. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1278902692 Historyk.ok (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

At the root of this discussion is a content dispute about which side "won" this battle. I have no idea about that, but I know that having such an infobox parameter leads to a lot of bad blood between editors. Battles in modern wars do not usually have an undisputed winner - it depends what timeframe you use to assess it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes it's true Historyk.ok (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Who won isn't logically disputable in this case.

At one of our discussions, it was proposed to rename Siege of Bar (1648) article to "Sieges of Bar" where the first siege ended with Cossack victory and second with Polish-Lithuanian victory, but overall result would be Polish-Lithuanian victory since that was the result of last siege. Most users supported it, including Historyk.ok[116] (discussion ended differently, but that's unrelated to the topic).

Same thing applies to Battles of Nabróż, result of the last attack is the logical result which most people in the discussion also supported. Historyk.ok merely doesn't like the result on specifically this article, repeatedly disrupting it in process (which is why I report this here).

In this case I think there could still be a note in the form of {{efn| cited at Battles of Nabróż to result with outcomes of different attacks like it was also proposed at the discussion of Siege of Bar (1648),[117] another user in our discussion,[118] and it would appeal to MOS:VICTORY, but it shouldn't undermine the overall result.

I wouldn't have had to report Historyk.ok for WP:DE in here if this user wasn't ignoring warnings and continuing to put the changes this user thinks are correct to the point of WP:EW. StephanSnow (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

1. You are ignoring the source by changing the result to how you want it to be. You know this. You know the logical result is the result of the last attack, you agreed to this being the result in previous such discussion.[119]

2. "Completely ignored another user", I pinged other users to get their thoughts since the conversation with you and Setergh stalled, with only Dushnilkin agreeing with me on how the article should look (2:2) and Rxsxuis not responding. Setergh responded with the same opinion that they held previously to which I responded. Later, it was 3:2 in favour of the result you constantly revert on the article. 2/5 people disagreeing with this result doesn't give you consensus, I mentioned people agreeing with this result (majority in the discussion) which you repeatedly revert. The "See Aftermath" you put in result is your invention that wasn't even mentioned at the talk page. You know from previous discussions that majority opinion decides more on how the article should look in this case.[120][121]

3. I responded to you previously and later pinged other users to help resolve dispute when our opinions were unlikely to change. Something we done many times in previous discussions.[122][123]

4. I explained why I gave a warning and you were also explained the problem with your edits by another user.

Also, I fail to see how any of this is supposed to justify your WP:EW behaviour in the article which is clearly disruptive. Your explanations such as "Per consensus at the talk page." for reverting don't even make sense and you were asked before to refrain from further edits since there is a discussion. Changes I made were based on majority opinion at the talk page that you constantly reverted despite being asked not to. You should know how this works from previous discussion like this.[124] StephanSnow (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

1. I did not ignore any source, and I even explained to you what problem I have with that source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279097217

2. Well, yes, it was the majority vote, but still—was "See Aftermath" my invention, as you described it? I doubt it, because Setergh had doubts about stating the outcome as either a Ukrainian or Polish victory. So, when I noticed that you ignored two of Setergh's responses, I decided to change it in line with his reasoning.

3. Well, you didn’t respond to my second reply, so I assumed you just ignored me.

4. I refrained from further edits because, as I mentioned, you ignored another response from Setergh. I specifically waited until you were active to make sure you had actually seen what he wrote. When I saw that you didn’t reply, I concluded that you had no problem with changing the result. Do you understand now? Also, I want to remind you that you had already used this in your articles, such as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zahoriv_Monastery, and you only removed it when you suddenly didn’t like what was in the Battles of Nabróż article. Historyk.ok (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Author in his 1999 book describes these battles in detail, in his 2022 book he summarizes all the fighting in a nutshell by saying it ended in a Ukrainian victory. He referred to the last attack, but the result of last attack is the logical result which was already mentioned by another user,[125] you didn't dispute this in another discussion which I already mentioned,[126] and the fact that the author in his 2022 book uses the result of last attack to summarize how the fighting ended only confirms what have already been told about result of last attack being the logical result. You attempt to make it look ambiguous, when it really isn't, you clearly only have a problem with it in this article specifically.

2. So, how was I liar than for making changes based on majority opinion? No one in the conversation suggested putting the result as "See Aftermath". Declaring neither said won doesn't even make sense with the points I mentioned above. By your logic, 1 and 2 articles should also have "See Aftermath" result since only the last attack and siege ended in victories for their respective sides.

3. I changed the topic name to "Result and Losses" as you suggested[127][128] then pinged other users to give their opinion after you said "For now I will leave the result you added until the discussion consensus...".[129] I didn't "ignore" you. Pinging other users to give their opinion was the normal process we had in previous discussions.

4. Except I reverted your edit, so it was clear there was a problem and that wasn't a consensus as you previously claimed.[130] Despite this, you reverted it back to how you want it to be and accused me of lying.[131] Setergh expressed same opinion he did before to which I replied,[132] but also said it can be changed to Ukrainian victory if the source directly says May fighting ended in a Ukrainian victory "If your source directly says "may fighting ended in a Ukrainian victory", then put the result as a Ukrainian victory, although I understood it as only the third clash was a Ukrainian victory." and it does, by the way, ""May saw heavy fighting between the Home Army and UPA over Nabroż, which ended in a Ukrainian triumph."". Problem was that you attempted to interpret it differently referring to the author's 1999 book talking about these attacks in more detail, but where does the author say the fighting ended "inconclusively" or that "neither side can claim victory", while I gave a source from same author supporting Ukrainian victory narrative. As I already mentioned, you only had a problem with basing the overall result on last attack (which is the logical result) only in here, not in previous discussion.[133] Setergh didn't dispute it there either.[134] So, why is only basing the result on last attack is only controversial here but wasn't in proposed "Sieges of Bar" conversation? Dushnilkin was consistent with that the result should be based on the last attack/siege.[135][136] For Zahoriv Monastery, I removed it after Dushnilkin explained this box doesn't appeal to MOS:VICTORY so I corrected the article.[137] StephanSnow (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

1. I wanted to prove to you that I did not ignore your source, and secondly, I do not think that the Ukrainians did not win the third attack. I believe that overall, they won, but I wanted to add: 1st Attack – Polish victory|2nd Attack – Polish victory|3rd Attack – Ukrainian victory" and only later did I include "See § Aftermath".

2. Apparently, we misunderstood each other. What I meant was that Setergh suggested that neither side won or had such a belief https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=127941036, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279266378. Of course, he did not say explicitly to apply "See § Aftermath", but honestly, what conclusion can be drawn from this message? And yes, the majority still voted for a particular result, but I just noticed that you did not respond to Setergh's message https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279410362 so I decided to change it. Well, that was my mistake.

3. Yes, here I have to agree with you—it was my mistake.

4. Setergh initially did not agree with calling it a Ukrainian victory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279266378)). Later, you responded to him, and then he sent another message, which you did not reply to, where he asked a question that remained unanswered https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279402699. But after a while, he wrote again and explained why he had doubts about listing the result as a Ukrainian victory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Nabr%C3%B3%C5%BC&diff=prev&oldid=1279410362. Again, you did not respond, despite being active, since Setergh's message was sent at "11:37, 8 March 2025", and you were still active later that day at "23:52, 8 March 2025" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Campaignbox_Khmelnytsky_Uprising&diff=prev&oldid=1279506370. This proves that you simply ignored the questions he asked you. As for Zahoriv Monastery, yes, he even mentioned that you later removed it. And regarding the Siege of Bar, that was some time ago, and back then, I had a slightly different opinion on the matter. Historyk.ok (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I'm content with closing the discussion since you admitted your mistakes (though that's the process only experienced editors and administrators that weren't previously involved in discussion can do here).

Admittedly, I was quite pissed when you responded to me by calling me a liar. Responding the following way[138] and reverting the edit with the same response[139] (after being given final warning) simply isn't the best course of action. That's combined with previous cases where you argued for opposite of these same changes ([140] and [141]) so that just seemed incredibly hypocritic.

As for "ignoring" Setergh, to me this didn't look like a message that required a response since it was the same point that he made previously to which I responded before, so I thought there was no need to respond again since my opinion hasn't changed. StephanSnow (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? by User: Mynxfg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MD Edit 123 is trying to create a local account here

MD Edit 123 is trying to create a local account here despite an IP block. They say that have tried the procedure at Wikipedia:Request an account but got no response. It is possible they are trying to evade a block/ban but if that's not the case, an administrator should try to help. Thank you.

Here is the discussion: simple:Special:PermanentLink/10125657#Central_Auth. TagUser (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:ACC recommends several steps when a response isn't received, including checking spam folder, etc. Their not getting a response at all is implausible. They can also try WP:UTRS. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

A local account can be created on the user's behalf but it needs to be vetted by a checkuser first. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Chronic vandalism from 82.112.90.81

This IP has been vandalizing for years, albeit at a slow pace. They left a message on their talk page:

This is an IP for a middle/high school. You're probably better off blocking it from editing permanently.
— User:82.112.90.81 09:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that. They've been more hassle than it's worth: practically all of their contribs for the past few years have been reverted.

I checked the IP range too, 82.112.90.0/23 (82.112.90.0 - 82.112.91.255), and there's plenty more vandalism. So it's probably best to just block the whole range.

P.S. do I need to notify an IP user with {{subst:ANI-notice}}? (Edit: Done.)

For easy access:

• 82.112.90.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.112.90.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
  • 82.112.90.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 82.112.90.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— W.andrea (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC) edited 15:47, 15:54, 16:01

(non admin comment) You do need to inform a "anon IP". I would support indefinite block, the contributions show that these users are not to here to contribute to wikipedia. ✏️ C809 ⌨️ (let's chat) 03:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Aren't IPs generally not banned or indef blocked? Just blocks that can be long (sometimes years) and renewable? 2600:1012:A023:426A:A6E8:ED70:3459:CD (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite IP blocks do exist/happen, but they're extremely rare. Usually indef blocks for IPs are handed out because maybe it's known to be permanently leased to an open proxy service, an IT administrator behind the IP has requested so, or because of a seemingly endless long record (e.g. 20 years) of a pattern of disruption, with no constructive edits inbetween (which might imply that it's a static IP).

The general everyday practice used by admins when blocking IPs is to set a temporary block of a reasonable length (e.g. 1 week, 1 month, 1 year) taking into account the prior history of disruption from the IP, any previous blocks, and the severity of the disruption. A "one-time vandal" IP with no prior history of unconstructive edits may be only given a 31-hour block, while someone who's been at it for nearly a year with four previous blocks will be handed out a considerably longer block (e.g. 1 year).

The expectation of a temporary IP block is that the vandal will eventually get bored and find something else to do after enough increasingly lengthy blocks (a lot of times, a 31-hr block is all that's needed to stop the "casual" type of vandals).

For the 82.112.90.0/23 range, I'm going to guess that it'll receive a block of 1 year's time or more. Several of the individual IPs in that range such as 82.112.90.101 and 82.112.90.161 have received blocks that are 3+ years. It's worth noting that we could narrow the range further down to 82.112.90.0/24, as there are pretty much zero edits from 82.112.91.x in the /23 wide range. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

It's worth noting that we could narrow the range further down to 82.112.90.0/24, as there are pretty much zero edits from 82.112.91.x in the /23 wide range.

Thanks for noticing that. That range is 82.112.91.0/24 and the last contrib was in 2009, so we don't need to worry about it. We can focus on blocking 82.112.90.0/24. — W.andrea (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Several of the individual IPs in that range such as 82.112.90.101 and 82.112.90.161 have received blocks that are 3+ years.

Good find. 161 is currently blocked for 5 years. So, I would support a 5-year block on the whole range 82.112.90.0/24. — W.andrea (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Vic Park

Since 2022, editors have been asking Vic Park (talk · contribs) to address chronic patterns of disruption in their editing, which mainly consist of (1) purely cosmetic edits, and (2) intentional violations of WP:OVERLINK and WP:NOTBROKEN. They have, in short, flatly refused the idea they are doing anything "against the rules" despite being told in several instances spanning several years that this just is not the case, and that their personal theories as to why they're right and policy is wrong—or that this is "just my personal editing style"—are non-starters. They actually already received a final warning from Randykitty back in November, which went unacknowledged and did not affect their behavior at all as far as I can tell. I bumped into their personal editing style for the first time today, saw what was up, and made my own final attempt to get them to acknowledge the validity of anything they've been told, but no luck.[142][143][144][145] Remsense ‥ 论 06:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't do WP:Overlinkings anymore, I have accepted the good advice other people gave me. If you check my edit history, I sometimes delete excessive links too. Vic Park (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't really move me that you've adopted individual arguments from others that you happened to be personally compelled by, while still totally disregarding any and all guidelines you happen to dislike or disagree with. Remsense ‥ 论 06:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

To be honestly with you, I still don't know what the problem is. I am a perfectionist with OCD. I like to keep things in order. For example, if I see the {{Short description}} template not being placed on top, I put them on top. I like to keep the source codes in sentence case so they don't look messy. I like to arrange templates in the order as stated by WP:MOS. I like to arrange entries in the "See Also" section by alphabetical order. As far as I know, I am making positive contributions here and I didn't break any rules. If someone gives me a good advice, I will accept it. What else I should do to make people like you happy? I have been editing in Wikipedia for a long time, if I am harming the project, then I would get banned a long time ago. If a few of you are not happy with me, just tell me the exact cause, I will make a change if it is rational. Vic Park (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't do WP:Overlinkings anymore. Proceeds to overlink in the above comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I only added three links, which one is an WP:Overlink? I can remove it if you want. Vic Park (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Perfectionist and especially alphabetical order are such well understood general terms it's unclear why you felt the need to link them. Definitely in article space they are extremely unlikely to be useful links no matter the number of links. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

BTW as this is not article space, then please don't edit your signed post to e.g. remove your links, after people have replied. Just try to understand what overlinking is since it isn't primarily about the number og links. Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I get what you mean. I linked those words to show emphasis. I will make sure that I don't do that when editing articles. Vic Park (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Most editors use bold or italics for emphasis but that by itself doesn't really matter. It's great if you now understand, but do you understand why editors are concerned that in your defence against overlinking you added links which would clearly be overlinking in article and when challenged on it, you didn't immediately explain something like 'oh I get the links to perfectionist and alphabetical order would be unnecessary generally but I just added them here for emphasis' but instead didn't seem to understand the point being made? Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

May I suggest you something? Yes you may make cosmetic source code improvements, but please only make them when you're also making changes that actually improve the article to readers (e.g. fixing typos or missing spaces). Don't just make edits that purely only make the code look 'neater'. In other words, combine code tidy-ups and real improvements in edits but don't make those tidy-ups only by themselves.

I am also another one of those people who are bothered by untidy source code and like to clean them up, but this is the particular way I've been doing it for probably two years now, with no complaints. When I write edit summaries for such edits, I usually only focus the edit summary on the stuff I changed that's visible to readers of the article, as cosmetic code improvements are so trivial that honestly it just doesn't matter to almost anyone.

At the end of the day, what really matters to readers (the vast majority of the Wikipedia user base) is what's visible on the page (i.e. the body text), and not how tidy the code behind the scenes looks. As long as it works, y'know... For that reason, I usually don't spend a lot of time and effort doing the code tidy-up. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your brilliant reply. Wikipedia needs more quality editors like you. If every editor is as enlightening and open-minded as you, Wikipedia will be a much more harmonious place where everyone can collaborate with each other. I will definitely take note of that. When I make edits, I do tend to make some corrections whenever I can, but from now on, I will make sure that I will make at least one correction in my edits so they won't be classified as "insignificant" by some people. Vic Park (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The trouble with perfectionism is that different people have different ideas about perfection. For example, for one person it may be to have all templates starting with a capital letter, and for another it may be for them to start with a small letter. That could lead to an edit war if Wikipedia didn't discourage making edits that don't affect what the reader sees. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

In that case, whoever "started the edit war" should get warned and if still not cooperating, banned. Wikipedia is a place for mutual collaboration, not conflicts. Whoever creates the conflict should be the one to get punished. Vic Park (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

So you agree you should be banned for creating conflict by making unnecessary edits when plenty of editors have told you they are unnecessary and therefore not co-operating and refusing to collaborate and risking starting dumb edit wars to boot? Can't you just voluntarily refrain from editing rather than asking us to ban you? Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I suspect you won't understand the point I'm making with that reply, so I'll explain it clearer. What Phil Bridger has emphasised is that in a lot of matters when it comes to stuff readers don't see, there's no community norm, and definitely not anything in a guideline or policy on what's right or wrong. Should a template start with lower case or upper case? If you feel it should start with upper case that's fine, you're welcome to that view just as others are welcome to the opposite view. So you're welcome to use upper case when you add a template to some page. Unless for some reason there is some particular agreement for consistency in that page or with that template that you violate, then no one should be changing what you did. They especially should not be changing it if they're only making edits like that which are unnecessary. This editor who changed what you did, can be said to have "started the edit war".

However it's clear from this thread this isn't what concerns people. What concerns people is you are often this other editor. You are the one who is making such unnecessary changes and is continuing to do so even after you've been told not to. You are therefore the one who "started the edit war" if any edit war develops because you are the one who made these changes even when you've been asked not to and where there's often no community norm to justify your version being correct. The fact you think it's better or more perfect is irrelevant since other editors disagree and there is no consensus nor any desire for any consensus. The fact you're often only making these edits greatly compounds the problem.

As AP499D25 mentioned if you make such non visible changes along with visible clear improvements you're likely to find yourself in less strife. But still this will depend a lot on what you're doing. If you're fixing a single typo along with making a lot of cosmetic changes you'll probably still find editors don't feel that's helpful since while your typo fix is helpful all the other edits just unnecessarily confuse the diff.

More importantly even if you're making them along with other good changes, are your cosmetic edits actually something which are clearly an improvement cosmetically? Again goes back to what Phil Bridger said. Some cosmetic edits the community would generally agree are a clear improvement even if unimportant. But some cosmetic edits like whether to capitalise the first letter of a template will be stuff with no community agreement.

Therefore all you're introducing is your personal preference and there's no reason you should be going around changing stuff to your personal preference. While dumb edit wars are dumb edit wars, you're still the one who can be said to have "started the edit war" by making these unwarranted changes along with your helpful one/s. Collobration and cooperating with others means you should be following the advice others have given you a so many times and stop making these edits, especially if you are only changing stuff to your personal preference. It does not mean other editors need to agree with your personal preferences when there's no community norm that it's better, or allow you to change stuff to your personal preference unnecessarily.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Adding a missing negative which mean my reply didn't quite say what was meant. Nil Einne (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course not. When you say plenty of them, there were really only two of them who were very unhappy about my edits. The rest of them just made some friendly suggestions and never participated in the discussion again. For the person who threatened to ban me, I just politely asked them to leave me alone since they had made false accusations against me. I do consider their threats to be overreacting and unnecessary as I have not violated any policies here. Most importantly, I have not fought back against them, so there were no edit wars. If one party is not engaging with the other party, how can there be an edit war? Furthermore, it is them who started the conflict, not me. I know these people are engaging in edit wars everyday, so it is best to stop interacting with them and let them take control of the articles. Vic Park (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that this seems to be an editor who will not take advice, or even recognise that there is no need for anyone to be very unhappy about their edits to give advice worth taking. There are far more than two people on your talk page who are unhappy with your edits, whether you class them as very unhappy or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me like a block of some kind is in order, at least until we can be satisfied that this editor will actually listen to advice and (constructive) criticism from other editors. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably, but I suspect a block is only likely if Vic Park continues to make such edits. It doesn't seem likely they are going to listen but as common with these sort of cases, I suspect editors will still want to give them that chance and wait for them to continue their problematic editing. Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this editor has a habit of not including edit summaries, and seems to justify it by saying they only include one for major edits, even though this is also against policy, so far as I know. This makes it very difficult to see at a glance what exactly they've changed. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Not using edit summaries is not a violation of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that, thanks.

Still, as I said, the lack of edit summaries makes it very difficult to tell what exactly has been changed without individually going to every diff (of which there are a lot). Even if this isn't against policy, I still think it would be prudent to at least give a short explanation of what they're editing. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I didn't include edit summaries because most of my edits were minor edits. I will try to include as many edit summaries as possible in the future, but I feel I wasn't being treated fairly here because there are a lot (it is literally a LOT) of editors who made minor edits have not included any edit summaries at all, but I will respect the policy and do the best I can to help the project. Vic Park (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Just write "ce" or "c/e" in your edit summaries as a shorthand for "copy edit". This usually covers minor changes like fixing typos and the like, and it takes almost no time type such a short edit summary. Nakonana (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I refer the honorable Wikipedian to my essay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Mnazini: close paraphrasing and AI generation

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

This user has created and expanded numerous articles on the history and culture of the Chaga people: very worthwhile contributions. However, their additions exhibit close paraphrasing and quite likely AI generation too. Below are examples from three articles they created in the past week (originally posted on their talk page).

Tables demonstrating close paraphrasing

Kingdom of Mbokomu Stahl 1964 Mbokomu, often referred to as "old" Mbokomu, is distinguished by its ancient aura and unique geography. The area consists of a prominent high ridge that descends steeply to the west into the deep valley of the Msunga River and to the east toward the Kisaringo River. Additionally, a second ridge extends further east to the valley of the Msaranga River. A notable landmark of Mbokomu is a spectacular waterfall (Materuni falls) located high along the Msunga River, visible from a considerable distance as a dramatic cascade of white water amidst the lush mountain greenery. Adjacent to this waterfall is the steep cliff of the Msunga ravine, cloaked in forest. Above it lies Kwampung’u Hill, the highest vantage point in Mbokomu, providing expansive views over Kilimanjaro and beyond to the plains of Meru, Monduli, and the Blue Mountains. Exploring Mbokomu offers a perspective akin to that of a general surveying the landscape from a natural citadel, as the steep terrain allows for broad visibility of the surrounding Chagga states. The area's cultivation occurs in small patches on the steep slopes, illustrating the adaptation of the local population to the challenging geography. The attraction of Mbokomu is the aura of age which surrounds it. It is known on the mountain as “old” Mbokomu. The area comprises one long high ridge falling on the west in a clear drop down to the deep valley of the river Msunga and on the east down to the river Kisaringo, together with a second ridge in the upper part only which takes the chiefdom a little further east to the next valley, that of the river Msaranga. From the plain Mbokomu is identified by a great waterfall high up in the river Msunga which can be seen from afar, a huge white roar of water in the midst of the greenness of the mountain. At the side of the waterfall rises the incredibly steep cliff of the Msunga ravine, covered in forest, and above it the hill Kwampung’u, the best look-out point in Mbokomu: from this hill the observer looks far and wide over the other chiefdoms of Kilimanjaro and beyond the mountain over the plain to Meru, Monduli and the Blue Mountains. To tour Mbokomu is to become like a general reviewing his military dispositions from a natural citadel, for the lie of the land is so precipitous that ... each turning gives a vantage point for surveying the rest of Kilimanjaro. Cultivation is in little patches on the steep slopes. You should note that the article's other citations for these paragraphs, to Dundas 2012 and Krapf 1858, are irrelevant. Kirua Stahl 1964 His son, Singila, later unified the chiefdoms of Lego and Mrumeni through a combination of conflict and subterfuge. Singila's annexation of Lego followed the impounding of his cattle by its inhabitants, while his conquest of Mrumeni involved marriage to the sister of its chief, who helped orchestrate her brother’s downfall. Thus, Singila established a ruling dynasty that has persisted through the various challenges faced by Kirua from the late 18th century to the present day. After Singila's reign, the Kirua Kingdom encountered ongoing external threats and often became a vassal of stronger powers. The newly arrived Maasai migrants from Kenya conducted sporadic cattle raids in the 1820s, prompting Kirua's inhabitants to retreat to higher elevations. From the late 18th century to the 19th century, the primary threat came from the Kilema Kingdom, leading to Kirua's subjugation under Mangi Kombo and later Mangi Rongoma. This period saw Kirua divided into three parts: Kirua, Mrumeni, and Lego. Following Rongoma's death, Mangi Orombo of Keni asserted dominance over Kirua, which was passively accepted by its leaders. His son Singila, a little later in that century, annexed Lego and Mrumeni: he took Lego by way of compensation after the people there had impounded his cattle which they were farming on his behalf; he took Mrumeni by stratagem, having married the sister of the chief there and having persuaded her to betray her brother... He founded a ruling dynasty which, through all the subsequent vicissitudes to which Kirua fell prey, has continued from the late 18th century down to the present time. After Singila’s time, Kirua fell victim to outside raiders or existed as the submissive vassal of stronger powers. Masai ... spasmodically raided Kirua for cattle; to evade them people moved higher up the mountainside into the top mitaa. From the late 18th century until well into the 19th century the main threat was ... from the neighbouring chiefdom of Kilema... [Kirua] was conquered and made vassal by Mangi Kombo of Kilema and ... Mangi Rongoma. During this time Kirua was split back again into three parts: Kirua, Mrumeni and Lego. After Rongoma’s death, Mangi Orombo of Keni ... asserted his supremacy ..., though this meant little to Kirua beyond meek acceptance. Draft:Kilema Stahl 1964 Oral traditions indicate that Kilema was originally known as "Kitandu." The name "Keema," meaning "Impenetrable," was given by the Kibosho people, referencing its deep protective ravines. This name evolved into "Kilema." The earliest settlements were located in the upper mitaa, particularly in Nkyashi, Kimararoni, and Ruwa, with Nkyashi being the most densely populated area. According to Mtui, Kilema comprised two chiefdoms ruled by the Mbuya and Mosha clans, with the Mbuya clan having migrated from Kahe in the plains. Ngowi, father of Mremi, ruled Marangu and initially defeated the Mbuya clan, extending his influence over part of Kilema, but not its most populated area, which was governed by Mangi Masuo. Ngowi attempted to raid Masuo but was ultimately unsuccessful. Following a raid by the Shambaa people, Ngowi and Mremi fled to Kilema, allowing Mremi's brother Riwa to assume leadership in Marangu. Riwa accepted Ngowi back in Lymarakhana but threatened Mremi if he returned. According to oral traditions the old name for Kilema was “Kitandu”. It was nicknamed “Keema”, “Impenetrable”, by the Kibosho people on account of its deep protective ravines. Hence arose, out of “Keema”, the name “Kilema”. The oldest settlements were in the upper mitaa: in Nkyashi, Kimararoni and Ruwa, of which Nkyashi was and has subsequently remained the most densely populated area. According to Mtui, Kilema consisted of two chiefdoms ruled by the Mbuya and Mosha clans, of which the former had come in from Kahe in the plain. Mremi’s father Ngowi ruled Marangu. Ngowi fought and defeated the Mbuya clan of Kilema and extended his tule over part of the country, but not the highest populated part. The latter was under its chief named Masuo whom Ngowi raided but could never beat. Then the Usambara folk ... raided Marangu and Ngowi and his son Mremi fled to Kilema. After this battle and their flight, Mremi’s brother Riwa seized the chieftainship in Marangu. Riwa accepted his father back in Lymarakhana, but he intimated that he would kill his brother Mremi if he tried to return.

These examples seemed very reminiscent of AI-generated text to me, especially the addition of "illustrating the adaptation of the local population to the challenging geography" at the end of the first example; not verified by the source, it is highly similar to previous examples of AI-generated promotion I have seen. I have put the quoted three paragraphs from Kingdom of Mbokomu through three different LLM detectors, and each has given a result of 100% AI generation.

I recommend a block from mainspace until the community knows they can be trusted to create and expand legally acceptable articles. Pinging Sennecaster and Diannaa as editors experienced with copyright: do you believe a CCI might be necessary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Either way, if we confirm use of LLM combined with false citations and the, at times, basically straight copy paste, makes me inclined that whatever we do will involve PDEL. I'll need more time to investigate this for a CCI, but I can get some of the books cited through my library. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Ganix978 and SCIRP

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

---

• Ganix978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be solely here to whitewash an academic predatory publisher known as SCIRP. They have ignored warnings and repeatedly edit warred, and have inserted their own original research into the article in order to downplay what reliable sources have said about the publisher ([146], [147]). I think they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. This is part of a longer term pattern of SPAs attempting to whitewash the article, so implementing some kind of long term semi-protection may be warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll @David Eppstein @Headbomb Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  I've reported them at WP:AIV a few hours ago. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, can you provide some relevant diffs? You need to point out the problem and if there have been any previous discussions on this. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Previous examples of SPA whitewashing include [148], [149], [150] Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Their entire edit history is whitewashing on behalf of SCIRP. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

But the article does seem to have problems. 8 out of 21 cited sources were published by Jeffrey Beal (the author of the list of predatory publishers). Given that the biggest part of the Wiki article seems to revolve around the statement that SCIRP is a predatory publisher, it might be problematic to mostly source that statement to a single author. So, while the whitewashing is problematic, it might be that Beal's opinion is getting a bit too much "screen time" in the article and that might trigger whitewashing attempts as a form of counter balancing.

The section "Potential owner" in the article seems also to be entirely based on primary sources (which in itself might be ok, but in combination with that header it looks like borderline OR / SYNTH that is further trying to make SCIRP look like a shady publisher without any secondary sources painting the ownership situation of the publisher as problematic, it seems). Nakonana (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The statement that SCIRP is a predatory publisher is sourced to multiple sources, including Cabells' Predatory Reports, one of the foremost authorities on predatory journals. I can easily find other sources supporting SCIRP's predatory status [151] [152]. The problem is that they refuse to communicate and just edit war. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have not questioned SCIRP's status as a predatory publisher. What I have questioned is whether we need 8 (!) publications by Jeffrey Beal to establish that SCIRP is a predatory publisher. This was my first time reading the SCIRP article. My impression was that I learned very little about SCIRP itself, but a whole lot about Beal's opinion on SCIRP. There isn't even a basic history section on the company covering things like the time and place when the company was founded (which might well rely on primary sources). There's hardly any mention of any particular (or potentially notable) journals that are published by SCIRP. There's hardly any info on the publisher itself. However, there are several paragraphs detailing Beal's opinion on SCIRP. Why? Why is Cabell's opinion not getting as much screen time as Beal's (or the other way around)? I didn't count how often Beal's name is mentioned in the article body but I wouldn't be surprised if his name mentioned more often than the name of the publisher itself.

The underlying issue of (at least part of) the whitewashing attempts appears to be a content dispute in the context of WP:DUE. I also have to disagree with your statement that they refuse to communicate. If we're talking about Ganix978, then yes, your statement is true, they did not try to communicate. However, this report is not limited to Ganix978. Instead, this report points out a long term pattern of the same behavior by several different users. And in this context, your statement is not true, as the article talk page is full of multiple attempts to communicate issues with the article. I'm not saying that those attempts were all good. There may well have been made by company representatives and some affiliates. But that doesn't mean that their input is invalid per se. In fact, there's one section on the article talk page from 2016, that pretty much made the same observation as I did regarding the omnipresence of Beal in that article. That other user (cynically) suggested to move the article to the more descriptive title "Jeffrey Beall's comments on Scientific Research Publishing" or that the article be split in "SCIRP" and "Jeffrey Beall on SCIRP". That user was most likely also associated with SCIRP, judging by their edit history. But I am certainly not, and I can't help but agree with them regarding the screen time that Beal is receiving in the article. I got the same impression after reading the article (and before even checking out the article talk page). Addressing some of the due weight issues might resolve (or at least reduce) the whitewashing attempts. I'm not saying that the article should be censored or that Beal should be removed from the article, but I think that, let's say, maybe 2 publications by Beal and a single paragraph on Beal's opinion might actually perfectly suffice to convey that Beal, who's a subject matter expert, is of the opinion that SCIRP is a predatory publisher? Nakonana (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Ganix978 as NOTHERE, for POV pushing / whitewashing. I've not protected for now, as there may be a genuine content dispute here as well. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

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

History Of Yoruba's continued disruption, edit warring, and Yoruba POV pushing after temporary block expired

• History Of Yoruba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A detailed history of this user's behaviour before their initial 60-hour block in October 2024 by Ad Orientem is recorded in this archived thread by Watercheetah99.

What is "Yoruba POV pushing"? In their first edit, they added to the Oyo Empire article that Despite its drawbacks, Oyo managed to amass one hundred thousand cavalry horsemen, earning the fear of many kingdoms and empires across West Africa, improperly citing a work Dahomey And The Dahomans without expanding the citation. You will find, in these diffs, their attempt to praise the Yoruba nation, while sort of defaming Kingdom of Benin: this – this, disrupting a paragraph that once During post-classical times, glass and glass beads were also produced in the kingdom of Benin with a proper citation to Oliver, Roland, and Fagan, Brian M. Africa in the Iron Age, c500 B.C. to A.D. 1400. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 187. ISBN 0-521-20598-0 to become something like During post-classical times, glass and glass beads were produced in the Ife Empire and traded to the kingdom of Benin,Mali Empire and other Sub Sahara African Kingdoms History of glass in sub-Saharan Africa which was not only unsourced but changing the narrative of that paragraph to something else. I don't want to mention the account YorubaHistorian7 which you will find if you go through these diffs, because I am not here to report a sockpuppet account; I know where to go for that if reporting them as a sock was my interest. Their edits so far, being POV pushing and disruption was correctly reverted in this diff but what was their next move? it was to remove the citation and change the Kingdom of Benin to Ife Empire in this diff.

As a cross reference, you might be interested in seeing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Researcherofgreatness/Archive because the next edit to that article was by a now-blocked Wiisstlo who edited exactly that same section by adding an image of "Glass beads of different colors and shapes from Ile-Ife".

Their diruption came to by notice when they moved on to Ehengbuda, an article which I wrote from scratch and took to GA status, see this history of the article. They tried bring the Yoruba POV pushing here too and also attempted to tag the article as using unreliable source, why? well, clearly because it isn't fitting into their narrative. For those following the sock part, you will see the Wiisstlo user here too, but that is not why I am here.

Even though there are over 40 Kings of Benin bearing the Oba title, this user thinks "Oba" is only a Yoruba word (see here too), while making sure they falsify sources as seen here.

Recently, they brought the same behaviour to the Igodomigodo and List of the Ogiso articles, particularly, the Igodomigodo one, changing the narrative again as usual (see this diff), stating that a Kingdom which operated on a monarchical government type was chiefdom, changing the start and end date of the kingdom, and entirely changing the narrative of the article. See the history of the page for further disruptions. Recently, I and two other valuable editors (Kowal2701 and Oramfe) started a conversation (or rather engaged in a conversation originally and disruptively started by this user) on the article's talk page; the user never contributed to the discussion, and even after we achieve consensus on the talk page, this user is still diruptively making the POV pushing edits.

I have other valuable contributions I have to make and I will likely be unable to continue to follow this user up. Warnings have been issues to them, as can be seen on their talk page. I also tried reporting them to AIV but was advised to check WP:ANI out by Izno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderwaalforces (talk • contribs) 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• My initial thoughts would be a topic ban from Edo/Benin history articles, as this where they are most disruptive. Elsewhere their contributions seem minimal but constructive. Don’t know what people think regarding WP:Rope, but the learning curve is very steep on Wikipedia and they might prove to be a good editor in time (that is if they’re not a sock) Kowal2701 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

In November 2024 they also removed Igodomigodo and Benin from List of kingdoms and empires in African history (when they could’ve just changed the date) Kowal2701 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello , I see that you have concerns about my edits, but I would like to clarify a few things:

• Oba as a Yoruba Word

The word "Oba" originates from Yoruba and was later borrowed into Benin. This is documented in linguistic sources, including :

Samuel Crowther (1843). Vocabulary of the Yoruba Language: Part I. English and Yoruba. p. 206. ỌBA, s. king, monarch, lord, prince, liege, master.

Society, Church Missionary; Staff, Church Missionary Society (March 2009). Dictionary Of The Yoruba Language: English-Yoruba, Yoruba-English (1913). Kessinger Publishing. p. 202. ISBN 978-1-104-17000-4. Ọba, n. king; monarch; lord; prince; liege; master; sovereign.

With a breakdown of its etymology in the Yoruba Language. If you claim otherwise, please provide a linguistic source proving its independent Benin origin.

• Ife was a major center of glass bead production, as documented in [ blier, suzanne (2014). art and risk in ancient yoruba: ife history, power, and identity, c. 1300. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139128872. ISBN 9781107021662. Archived from the original on 2022-08-27. Retrieved 2021-11-06.] and [Magnavita, Sonja; MacDonald, Brandi L.; Magnavita, Carlos; Oga, April (20 June 2023). "LA-ICP-MS analysis of glass beads from Tié (12th–14th centuries), Kanem, Chad: Evidence of trans-Sudanic exchanges". Archaeometry.].

The edit simply reflects historical facts, not a biased agenda.

• Benin vs. Oyo Conflict on Oba Ehenguda page.

Please provide a verifiable source proving that Benin fought Oyo and took Oyo's territory. If none exists, then that claim should not be on Wikipedia.

• Ogiso and Ife

If the source used in the Igodomigodo article mentions Ife origins for the first Ogisos, then removing that part while keeping other claims from the same source is selective editing, which violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

• Oyo Edit

Unless there was a citation error, the Oyo 100 thousand calvary edit, like the rest of my edits have solid backings and citations. Here is the full citation here: Dahomey And The Dahomans: Being The Journals of Two Missions to The King of Dahomey, And Residence at His Capital, in the Years 1849 and 1850, by Frederick E. Forbes, Part 5, Page 87.

You can confirm this as i highly await your feedback.

I respect Wikipedia’s policies and am open to discussion, but history should not be edited to favor one side. Let’s focus on verifiable academic sources rather than personal opinions. Thank you History Of Yoruba (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Please @History Of Yoruba, unless you are making super-obvious statements of fact i.e "The sun shines only during the day", most statements on Wikipedia require references (Which I see that you have been sometimes providing). Also, if the topic or segment you are having an issue with is backed up by at least some sourced reference, please try to meet up first on the Article's talk page and reach a consensus by tagging the contributor of the edit and maybe other editors/users, especially if there are two differing or intersecting views on the particular subject matter, otherwise it might lead to a back and forth that won't get resolved or an edit war, which goes against Wikipedia's rules of usage. I see some of the points you are making because of the nature of some of the topics being discussed, for example the word "Oba" and how it became a shared heritage of two ethnic groups. However, like I mentioned earlier, always meet on the talk page to reach an agreement on wording. Also, please populate/develop your userpage so that you can be pinged and you can also get the notifications necessary to keep up to date. Oramfe (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response and guidance @Oramfe. I appreciate the clarification on Wikipedia’s sourcing and consensus-building approach, especially regarding discussions on historical and cultural topics. I understand the importance of referencing claims and using the talk page to resolve differing viewpoints before making edits.

I will make sure to follow these best practices moving forward to maintain constructive discussions and avoid unnecessary disputes. I also acknowledge your point about updating my user page for better communication and will work on that as well.

Thanks again for your patience and advice! I look forward to contributing more effectively. History Of Yoruba (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

History Of Yoruba did you use an LLM (such as ChatGPT) or other AI tools to generate this comment? BugGhost 🦗👻 10:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Oramfe: pings are received even if the editor does not have a user page. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

None of this hides the fact that pretty much all of his edits to Edo/Bini history is from a single POV, and an outsider's POV as well. On Igodomigodo, after we'd reached a consensus on the talk page, he misrepresented consensus by again edit warring his preferred version, in which he calls Igodomigodo a "supra chiefdom" rather than a monarchy. The sources above are from 1843 and 1913, I've already explained to him why we don't use old sources per WP:AGEMATTERS and yet he still used sources from 1936, 1927, and 1937 at Igodomigodo which he again edit warred on (and is still in place). Might be WP:CIR (bit ironic me saying that ik) and his replies here look AI generated to me. I would've thought he'd be more interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Yoruba history rather than disrupting coverage of Edo/Bini history, and hopefully a topic ban would guide him towards that to be more constructive to the project. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Paradygmaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To summarize:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:2601AC47

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

---

User:2601AC47 seems to be causing issues wherever they edit. They are a nuisance at User talk:Jimbo Wales (where I encountered them when they tried to recruit me as a supporter for their obnoxiousness, see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Mark is the PM of Canada now and previous edits they made there), they created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jlwoodwa without bothering to consult the nominee beforehand, and this lead me to check their "normal" edits, which is mainly vandalism fighting. Well, that's what it looks like at first glance, but in reality, I see things like:

• Reverting this as a non-constructive edit, with a warning to the IP editor (User talk:2A01:CB0C:8A2:FE00:90D6:5E59:F17:7BC8) for "Introducing deliberate factual errors"?
• Is this really a factual error? It seems to match what reliable sources say[153], but the IP editor got a warning for "Introducing deliberate factual errors"
• Is this a "non-constructive edit" which again deserves a "Introducing deliberate factual errors" warning? Well, the plot says "Vanya hires Ani for several sexual encounters and offers her $15,000 to stay with him for a week.", so not sure what the "deliberate factual error" is.
• This got reverted as a good faith edit, but again got the editor an "Introducing deliberate factual errors" warning[154], despite matching the source[155] (perhaps too closely, but no factual errors)
• No idea why this helpful edit, with a relevant factual source, was reverted: it seems to be WP:ROLLBACK abuse as it doesn't even have an edit summary
• Factual errors? No idea what this claim is based on, the claim seems to be correct[156]. But of course once again an "Introducing deliberate factual errors " warning

These are just from looking at their latest 21 mainspace edits, and skip other edits where they also were wrong (e.g. see User talk:2601AC47#Revert on Sugar)

I have no idea what they are trying to achieve by their Wikipedia editing, but at the moment they are a net negative. At the very least their rollback right and pending changes reviewer right should be removed, as they clearly are not to be trusted to judge edits correctly or to use the tool correctly. Fram (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that I've been using Ultraviolet to do most of that. But I guess that will take the consequence into stride - and remind thyself to learn from this. Thanks. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Already fixed one mistake I made in which I didn't realize that it was RS. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Using a tool in no way excuses an editor from making bad edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

"My mistake. Just so many pending changes I had to look through this time around." is a concerning approach to monitoring the pending changes queue. I too have noticed them excessively on Jimbo's talk page in my watchlist, more frequently than I expect to see it pop up, and doesn't ever seem to be constructive to the encyclopedia, more of a forum for trying to start conversations with Jimbo. Note Jimbo's comment "I'm getting very close to asking 2601AC47 to go away from my talk page permanently for wasting people's time." If user rights are reviewed, I also wonder if a page block to User talk:Jimbo Wales may be in order. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

While I have never interacted with them, nearly every edit I see at Jimbo's talk page on my Watchlist is from them; they have made 75 edits to his talk page from November 2024 to now. I'd support some kind of page block. — E_F⁵ 20:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll accept being p-blocked from Jimbo's talk page. I also accept responsibility for not being more thoroughly careful with my powers like I promised. However, there are legitimate concerns I have about him and his responses, and I have been watching it for a very long time; first from a distance as a IP, than as the controversy surrounding WMF's legal fight against ANI, tried to give Jimbo information and... Well, I gradually went from reasonably asking him to respond to a threat of a blackout in November, to more bluntly asking him to respond, to saying that I still trust him but things have gone by the wayside, and lastly, to using Gemini to warn him of possible consequences from the Wikipedia community (which I know is a terrible idea, and I also know fully well about that one).

So, yeah, p-block from him. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but to me Jimbo, at least on his talk page, should be treated like just another editor. Pressing someone to the point where they nearly want you to leave is the point where you should disengage. E_F⁵ 20:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I've revoked their pending changes reviewer and rollback rights per the evidence presented here, as well as a review of their other edits (noting I'm the person who originally granted pending changes). @2601AC47:, I strongly suggest you slow down here and generally be more careful; your behavior has gotten you very close to a block. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have deleted the RfA page that was created before any consultation with the nominee. I also am highly unimpressed with the comments on Jimbotalk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

What even is that conversation at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Mark is the PM of Canada now (previously linked by Fram); most specifically this garbage. How is this person still editing here?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

About that dream I had recently... Yeah, I got nothing to actually think so. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 21:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is a sock of someone. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

So you noticed Elder Pleasure, my Fandom user account... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Nor would I. But it doesn't matter because they've done more than enough under this name to be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm finished... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs) Isn't a IP anon 21:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely from Jimbo's talk page. —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've been chiding 2601AC47 for inappropriately clerking Jimbo's page. But this looks much more like trolling intended to solicit a specific meta outcome. Thank you to the OP. Fram and I disagree on lots of stuff, but we are agreed here. I have zero idea what 2601AC47 is trying to accomplish (inside the UCOC) on Jimbo's talk. BusterD (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Trolling? From the one that also said I'm rude. UGH!! I've been accused of trolling by several people across websites for a long time. It makes me angry when someone suggests that. Please stop that, now. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs) Isn't a IP anon 21:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

No, you don't get to decide what people can say about you on a public noticeboard. I happen to agree that you are trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, can someone please block this user for rather blatant trolling? C F A 22:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

(Third)ing a block, given they’ve openly threatened block evasion below (assuming that’s them.) E_F⁵ 22:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Fourthing a block. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Texas IPs representing ban evasion by Rishabisajakepauler

Rishabisajakepauler is banned per three strikes. He has evaded his ban with many IPs from Texas. Recently, he has been very active with a handful of IPs, doing all the things he is known for including requesting redirects to be made so that he can create articles from redirects,[157] and creating articles from redirects.[158][159][160][161][162][163] He is making a mockery of our restriction that only registered users can create articles.

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

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

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

Personal attacks and incivility by Adamant1

Moved to c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Useddenim (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Legal threats by Aravanoswami Nayar

Aravanoswami Nayar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be removing and adding content based on his own research which comes down to WP:OR. I have warned him twice on his talk page. But looks like he doesn't seem to listen. See this [164], here he is threatening other editors on the relevant page to not change content which he deems correct. His involvement and removal of content from Dayanand Bandodkar itself speaks about his quality as an editor. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 11:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The ES "Origin of the word Padye: Correction & improvisation from source material" doesn't fill me with confidence. Narky Blert (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

User:BizzelySindh Disprutive Editing

@BizzelySindh is engaging in unsourced/poorly sourced POV pushing in the lede of the article on Sinti people trying to push the fringe hypothesis that Sinti people are a completely different ethnic group to Romani people and are in fact Sindhi (something already discussed in the article itself with reliable sources). This has been going on for years and every time he has been reverted, he continues the same disruptive edits, accusing his fellow editors of “Nazi Whitesplaining,” subscribing to a “Nazi taxonomic order,” and Whitewashing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinti&diff=prev&oldid=1011945538&diffonly=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinti&diff=prev&oldid=1011947368&diffonly=1

He also wrote on my talk page a message filled with personal attacks such as calling me a “Sinti-hater” and threatening me to stop rewriting his edits but again with no actual discussion of reliable sources or any solid academic evidence that the longstanding academic consensus that he is trying to change and that is supported by all the reliable sources that are in the article should be deemed false.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATagaworShah&diff=1279767531&oldid=1258293675

This editing is highly disruptive, POV edit warring over a span of 3 years without any addition of reliable sources, calling fellow editors who disagree with him “Nazis” and saying they have “White Privilege” and so on. This type of editing is unacceptable and in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. TagaworShah (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

A Sinto and Ethnologist from the University Ljubiljana like Dr. Rinaldo Dirrichardi with a Phd is a reliable source. It is sad to see how Sinti and their right of Sovereignty of interpretation is denied, just because there so few academic Sinti. The perspective of Sinti is not represented in your articles but in the sources which I am sharing. "whites - plaining" is a word which describes exatctly that, when members of an ethnic community are made silent because their academic papers are not seen as trust worthy enough. BizzelySindh (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@BizzelySindh Someone’s ethnicity has nothing to do on whether the source is reliable or should be prioritized, that verbiage is highly disruptive. I highly recommend you review Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see what counts as a reliable source because what you added most certainly does not. For one, it is a self published source ( Wikipedia:SELFPUB); and this Rinaldo Dirrichardi is not a historian or faculty at University of Ljubljana, he is a faculty of theology at a Catholic School and his source has not been cited by any researcher other than himself. He is going against a widespread academic consensus, exceptional claims require exceptional sources especially when there are plenty of actual reliable sources in the article that directly contradict this fringe theory. And this is not the place to discuss content, this is about behavioral issues. TagaworShah (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Nazi crimes

TurboSuperA+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accuses of "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes" [165] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You questioned whether the UPA wanted to exterminate Jews in Ukraine since "there were Jews in the UPA". I'm not even going to defend myself against this ridiculous ANI. Anyone can see what my comment was in response to, that should be enough. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

False.
Including "there were Jews in the UPA" - I don't know about UPA, the page is OUN. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You wrote: "How comes than Jews were among UPA members, according to Gogun" diff TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Gogun writes there were Jews in UPA [166], and you provided nothing except WP:NPA violations to advance your point. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

you provided nothing except NPA violations to advance your point

That doesn't seem accurate. Their first reply to this discussion was very collegial and provided sources with quotes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Overall, looking at the full trajectory of the discussion, I think that TurboSuperA+'s comments are within the realm of civility and collaboration expected by policy. If you have no other diffs of problematic behavior by TurboSuperA+, I recommend withdrawing this complaint. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that my arguments constituted "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes". If proven, I will need to radically change my argumentation approach. If not, those are pretty serious accusations, and it should be decided if such accusations are allowed or not. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that the context was several replies deep into a discussion where your main point of argumentation is that an organization identified by RS to have collaborated with Nazi Germany was not an ally of Nazi Germany, presenting an OR argument based on a source's statement that there were Jewish members in the organization, and also accusing editors working on the article of using Soviet propaganda without providing a clear example of how that was occurring (as far as I can see, you pointed out a source that you said was weak and it may well be weak, but you didn't identify its link to Soviet propaganda), I think that the accusations have some merit.

A better way to have presented your case that wouldn't have drawn such accusations would have been to provide high-quality sources that actually directly rebuke the claim of OUN-Nazi collaboration. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This goes into the discussion regarding article content. Yes, to the unsourced claim about "independence as part of a racially pure Ukraine without Jews", a source was presented about Jewish members in the organization. Instead of sources or proofs, an accusation of "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes" followed. I disagree that this should be characterized as such. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that the two sources below failed verification? Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This ANI wouldn't be here if your message below would be in place of accusations presented above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Your argument is also OR: you're synthesizing a claim from Gogun regarding Jewish membership to make claims regarding the organization's broader goals. Good faith is a collective pool, and I'm afraid in the context of the talk page discussion at UON you've let it run dry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It is an OR, but it's an argument supported by source, raised in the middle of a discussion on a talk page, where OR is allowed, unlike the personal attack which we should be discussing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The context of that OR is that you disregarded sources in the lede that supported an ethnonationalist interpretation of the organization's goals and claimed that was uncited except to a third, lower quality, source and then proposed that the article was impacted by Soviet propaganda without any examples of soviet POV citations. This creates a perception that you are making claims about the article without having reviewed the sources. When those claims are attempting to create distance between this group and the Nazis there's a legitimate concern about white-washing. I do think TurboSuperA+ could have been more diplomatic in their approach, but based on the timeline of events, their concerns have grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

there's a legitimate concern about white-washing
Was OUN Nazi? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There are six sources cited in the lede alone that link OUN to the Nazis. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You are right.

But no, it only says "Its ideology has been ... influenced by German Nazism". See, how some editors are quick to jump from this, to "OUN Nazi", to "create a distance between this group and the Nazis ... is a legitimate concern about white-washing". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I've already given my assessment as an uninvolved admin: the circumstances surrounding the personal attack are sufficiently mitigating such that no action should be taken. Your argumentation here has generally been to the detriment of your own case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

While TurboSuperA+ is coming in a bit hot in this conversation I can certainly sympathize with the frustration one would feel dealing with an editor who wants to remove or minimize mention of antisemitic purges on the basis of an unfounded claim that an article is pervasively influenced by Soviet propaganda.[167] Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

who wants to remove or minimize mention of antisemitic purges
Thank you, but no. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

If I am misunderstanding the situation could you please clarify what you mean by suggesting the article is influenced by Soviet propaganda and what specific changes you want to make to the article? Because your comment in the diff above seems to have been the start of the unfortunate trajectory of this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

what you mean by suggesting the article is influenced by Soviet propaganda
It's described here Talk:Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists#c-Manyareasexpert-20250312113000-TurboSuperA+-20250312112000
what specific changes you want to make to the article
We were discussing What good enough sources regard Nazi Germany an ally to the OUN to justify having it in the infobox. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

OK but I'm not sure that's correct. On goals, the lede currently says The OUN pursued a strategy of violence, terrorism, and assassinations with the goal of creating an ethnically homogenous and totalitarian Ukrainian state. with reference to two academic sources - Wodak, Ruth; Richardson, John E. (2013). Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text. Routledge. p. 229. ISBN 978-0-415-89919-2 and Shekhovtsov, Anton (March 2011). "The Creeping Resurgence of the Ukrainian Radical Right? The Case of the Freedom Party". Europe-Asia Studies. 63 (2): 207–210. doi:10.1080/09668136.2011.547696. S2CID 155079439. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's incorrect, but how would we know, if we start accusing the opponent of the likes above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Generally by reading the underlying sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Manyareasexpert: That could reasonably be described as "atrocity denial and whitewashing of Nazi crimes" although I would have used less loaded language. You might want to reconsider how you make arguments on wikipedia, your name leads people to think that you are an expert in the topic areas you contribute to but as far as I can tell you aren't an expert in any of the topic areas you contribute to... This means that when you're wrong (which is all the time) people are going to judge you much more harshly than if your name was "notanexpertinthisarea" ... People are going to see ignorance but assume malice due to you name, which to be fair is partially on them but also on you because that is your name and you present in a rather pedantic way which matches your name even if your expertise does not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Want to thank admins for their attention and assessment, as well as all of your volunteer work, which we the editors respect very much. Don't want any pressure, realizing it will have no positive contribution, but let's see some future. Opponent adds "source needed" tag [168] as a retaliation to the previous "source needed" tag [169] , while there is a whole "OUN-B's fight against Germany, Soviet Union and Poland" section confirming the tagged content directly (unlike the first tag). Now, what motivation would I have to open the topic in talk explaining the issue and getting shut with personal attack of the like from the opponent? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Fahrenheit666 on Fort Moore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, consensus certainly isn't built by aggressively refusing to move the article to match the actual name of the post.[170] along with everything above, an AP2 TBAN seems apt. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism on Freedom Mobile

I am bringing to your attention a problematic user (@Bugaboo lasagne 0z) who continues to vandalize Freedom Mobile, removing a large amount of content and acting without any particular criteria. This could be a COI since the user only and exclusively edits this page (in fact, he just edited another entry after I pointed this out to him on the talk page). Palledidinosauro (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  I want to clarify my actions and address the concerns raised.

  My edit on the Minister’s page was just a coincidence. I happened to hover over the link, checked the page out of curiosity regarding the leadership race, and noticed a small typo. It originally stated that he did enter the race when it should have said he did not, so I corrected it. There was no ulterior motive behind this edit.

  Regarding Freedom Mobile, I am simply a customer who appreciates what the company is doing. I have no conflict of interest. My contributions are based on a personal interest in maintaining accuracy and clarity on the page. I am active in the subreddit too.

  I believe the article should have:

  • Correct information.
  • Sources that are accessible.
  • A structured timeline, with one capitalized subheading per year for better readability.
  • An infobox that follows Wikipedia guidelines, including proper parent company attribution.

  Could you clarify why you prefer an approach that results in disorganized headings, incorrect information, and sources that are not accessible, while disregarding the infobox guidelines? I am open to discussion, but I believe my edits improve the page. Bugaboo lasagne 0z (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

How did you come to personally create Freedom Mobile's logo and personally own the copyright to their logo? See File:Freedom_Mobile_Logo.png. --Yamla (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That picture is not in the article. I don't know how to get rid of it. Bugaboo lasagne 0z (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact it's not in the article is irrelvant to your claim that it is your "own work", which it very clearly is not. This is copyright violation and we take that very seriously. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Incidents caused by the lack of a modern kingship consensus between Edo and Yoruba people, who once had a united consensus

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

---

Wikipedia guidelines state that it is best to reach a consensus in the talk section before making changes about ongoing disputed issues to avoid edit wars, and I believe the same spirit should be applied in-regards to the diverging political positions between Edo and Yoruba people that as lead to a lot of edit warring on related pages.

There was a consensus at some point in Edo and Yoruba history on their shared kingship origin. Namely that the mythical Ife figure of Oduduwa, through his descendants, founded the Ogiso and Oba dynasties in the Edo kingdom and most Yoruba kingdoms. Despite the individual flavour of many accounts, The first oral histories collected from the most reliable Benin sources by Jacob Egbareva aligned with this, The oral history from Ife aligned with this, and most importantly, the archaeological evidence also aligned with this narrative.

I generally believe that both communities should be left to their own devices in documenting their own history with sources, and as someone mainly interested in documenting Yoruba history, I tend to avoid editing any Edo related pages. When it comes to articles that involve both parties though, it becomes difficult to avoid. One such an issue is the newer contradictory Edo tale of 'Lost Prince Ekaladerhan, son of the last Ogiso' who, somehow, unknown to Yoruba people, is said to have become the Oduduwa that both groups previously agreed fathered the first Ogiso. I believe it only makes sense to use this newer Edo Ekaladerhan story on Wikipedia if there is a new consensus between both groups agreeing to this impossible cyclical tale, but there has never been any such new consensus. This is even more glaring in light of the Egharevba narrative where 'Ekaladerhan' died at Ughoton, with no mention of him going to Ife. Without sticking to the previously established consensus, we may continue seeing edit wars with newer 'sources' being created without any concrete historical or archaeological evidence.

Seasoned and neutral historians such as Dmitri Bondarenko recognised this problem, he was alerted at first by the new stories popping up in Benin, with people on one hand claiming Ekaladerhan was Oranmiyan, and others on another hand claiming Ekaladerhan was Oduduwa. He out rightly dismissed these new narratives as apocryphal tales spun by the "nationalistic minded Benin intellegencia". Likewise I believe any Wiki articles founded on these "apocryphal" stories of Ekaladerhan being Oduduwa, break WP:SCHOLARSHIP rules, one such example would be the Eweka I page created by Vanderwaalforces (talk) and the revisions they made to reinforce this "apocryphal" narrative. I also believe that this political desire for kingship primacy is the root cause of the friction between Edo and Yoruba articles, most especially the Miyanky445 sock accounts frequently disrupting the Ada and Abere, Oduduwa, and Oranyan pages. I feel it necessary to tag some of the parties I've seen near this issue.

@Vanderwaalforces @Oramfe @Kowal2701 @Girth Summit @Dolpina @TornadoLGS @Favonian

My view is that recognising the only consensus ever reached between these two groups on kingship foundation, is the best approach to minimising the frequent incidents of disruption, vandalism, and contradictions across these pages and their like. The narrative that once had a consensus between these two groups just so happens to be the only narrative supported by the archaeological evidence, namely Ife primacy. Sohvyan (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

References

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

User:Mistletoe-alert

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

---

• Mistletoe-alert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since this was closed four days ago, we have the following contributions:

• this trolling (followed by this and this)
• this edit actually preceded the close but was not discussed at the previous ANI; since the close, there's edit-warring accompanied by this charming message.

Since a couple of these followed this final warning from Doug Weller, I propose we jump right to where this is headed and do the NOTHERE block before anyone else has to put up with their trolling. --JBL (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This diff gives User:MidAtlanticBaby (I haven't digged any further so that comment could have been a result of something else), although that's just an observation and is probably unrelated. — E_F⁵ 19:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The WP:NOTHERE block was long overdue for this editor. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

In the last discussion I opposed a site ban as it seemed all rather small-potatoes. But this seems substantially worse than the behaviour identified in the previous discussion. This does seem like sufficient evidence for WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

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

• FWIW they're almost certainly not MidAtlanticBaby, though I think an indefinite block was still the right call. C F A 19:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Years of original research from London IPs

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

Someone in the UK has been contributing for years, making hundreds of edits all of which violate the WP:No original research policy. The current /64 range started in May 2022 with this edit, and continues through today.[171][172] The person has been given a bunch of warnings, including Level 4 warnings,[173][174][175] but has never used a talk page. Can we block the /64 to bring them to discussion?

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