Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    IP breaking links, introducing trailing spaces despite warnings

    [edit]
    BLOCKED, AND BLOCKED AGAIN
    If they resume after the current one-week block expires, a new report can be filed and they get a sit-down for longer still. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Despite three warnings on their Talk page, 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:34D5:E60E:9C6:247F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on introducing trailing spaces before footnotes. Robby.is.on (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Robby.is.on,
    I see warning notices on their user talk page but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong. They just warn them about "disruptive editing" which could be anything. How about forgoing the templates and write out a personal message explaining to the editor what is problematic about the way they are editing? I don't think you can expect them to change until they know what they are doing incorrectly. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong I admit I could taken more time to explain the issues in detail, for example like Meters has done since (Thanks, @Meters:!). But in the first warning I did write "Please stop introducing trailing spaces". I also explained all my reverts in edit summaries except one. After half a dozen reverts, the editor could have stopped editing to ask what was wrong with their edits instead of persisting. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    After Meters' kind explanations, they're still at it, now

    And now at 2a00:23c4:aa80:e201:d0f8:4b19:19d0:edd3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), still breaking links by placing commas inside them: [3], [4]. @Liz:, could you have a look, please? Robby.is.on (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And still, from 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:DC9D:B54A:800B:DC15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [5], [6] Robby.is.on (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What do I need to do to get someone to listen? This is an ongoing problem ([7]) and wasting editor resources ([8]). Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz (or other admins): Please block this IP range. Have a look at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AA80:E201::/64. Over 1100 edits since 14 February 2025. Some parts of these contributions are useful, but roughly 90% of them had to be reverted or cleaned up. The most egregious disruptions are the broken links – the IP habitually changes [[Foo]] to [[Foo.]], turning working links into garbage. Another habit of the IP: replacing {{death date and age}} by the text generated by the template, often breaking dmy/mdy date format. Less disruptive, but still annoying and useless: Inserting spaces before <ref>. It looks like these habits have been getting worse lately. The IP has been warned again and again and again and again and again and again etc. etc. for six weeks, but never reacts to any talk page messages and never changes this behavior. Unfortunately, this is a case of WP:ICHY and WP:CIR. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP kept going with the disruptive edits, was warned again, and was blocked for 31 hours. Let's see how it goes. (I wonder who or what is behind that IP range. Why would anyone break dozens of links – I guess around 50, maybe more – in a single edit? Is the IP running a script that moves punctuation into links? Strange.) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The vandal came back in full force as soon as the block expired. All edits had to be reverted. Reported at WP:AIV. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked again. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    For future reference: Because it so consistently mangled so many links, I thought the IP might be running a script to do that, but here it changed [[Bodas de odio]], to [[Bodas de odio],] – a script wouldn't make such a mistake. Looks like manual labor. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding actions by User:Remsense

    [edit]

    This user has been making major edits to Wikipedia pages, especially those pertaining to Chinese military history, in an attempt to "enforce" the Wikipedia "rules". He has reverted my (and other users') constructive edits by claiming that they go against the rules of Wikipedia. I do not believe that my edits are explicitly breaking any rules, only that they are contradicting what this user's own interpretation of the Wikipedia rules entail. Most recently I attempted to make a constructive edit to the First Sino-Japanese War page to make it more consistent with other Wikipedia pages, to which the user quickly reverted. When I tried to confront the user on this, they decided to go to my own account's talk page and comment on another user's post on that page to denounce me personally. As such I feel as if this was an action of wikihounding, as the user went out of their way to harass my account personally, and I feel that this user should be dealt with accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNightingale175 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment Please notify the subject (which, by the way, you'd be looking for Remsense (talk · contribs) rather than [[User/Remsense]]) and also please sign your complaint. Furthermore you'd need to provide diffs demonstrating that Remsense was, in some way, systematically misinterpreting Wikipedia policy with regard to Chinese military history in order for this complaint to be actionable. I'd caution you that anything to do with 20th and 21st century Chinese history is about as fraught as you're likely to find on Wikipedia outside of official CTOPs and, as such, it is sometimes a bit of a challenging space to edit within. I do regularly participate in that area and would say I'd be quite surprised if Remsense was actually misinterpreting policy here as they're usually pretty good at that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Not engaging with this one unless someone else has questions they want to ask. AFAIK, they don't know how their edits went against any rules because they don't care to know any rules—as they were linked to them, and the issue with their edits was explicitly outlined for them. FWIW, infantile vandalism of the kind we generally only see from middle school IPs is well worth denouncing when it inexplicably gets emitted by an established editor. It's much easier to do right by the rules when articles you don't care about for whatever reason seemingly aren't protected by rules at all.) Remsense ‥ 论 19:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding to this, I ran the Editor Interaction Analyser and the picture it paints absolutely is not consistent with the wikihounding accusation. [9] I don't think there's even smoke here, let alone a fire. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Diff/1264583054 Special:Diff/1283025131 Talk:First Sino-Japanese War#Infobox flags — I am a bit confused, Remsense. Do you want the infobox flags or not? Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the hopes of getting them to stop trying to get edits in edgewise one day, I've adopted a 100% WP:BMB tact with BlueDIAMOND20s, except if I'm restoring blatant errors or BLP vio somehow. I'm not sure flags are really material to the issue here, but I generally avoid them if they're not necessary. Remsense ‥ 论 21:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does mean that the article has been flapping back and forth for the past 3 months with you apparently on both sides of the talk page issue. And if HawkNightingale175 were that sockpuppeteer, that would have been discovered by now, given how many CheckUser investigations have been run. So blanket reversion on those grounds seems quite wrong, especially when your edit summary instead says that you are making an article adhere to "site policy". Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I wish I would have been able to get this and many other articles into a more polished state by my own positive effort—I haven't expended none, but again that seems mostly immaterial here—but I understand how that pattern can be mistaken with this one.
        They are distinct situations, though: here, I had and gave specific, fairly ubiquitous and uncontroversial reasons as to why their additions were wrong—it wasn't blanket reversion at any point. I can't help that this article also happens to be a favorite target of one of the more insistent LTAs onwiki. Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Cant have this type of editing over multiple pages. looks like multiple talks need to be started. Moxy🍁 01:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @HawkNightingale175 has shown no interest in engaging with site guidelines that I can detect. Rather, I've only seen indications that any they haven't seen are of no interest to them—(I do not need to adhere to your own interpretation of what the rules entail.)—but if they indicate otherwise I'll try to rearticulate them. I'm not going to chase them down and beg them to listen when they've already told me flat out they don't care what I have to say. Remsense ‥ 论 23:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can something please be done about the egregious bad faith behavior that @HawkNightingale175 somehow finds tenable to express towards every other editor who's disagreeing with them across these articles? This is the worst such conduct I have seen so far from an editor with some level of experience—seriously, I'm capable of it, but that's not hyperbole. Remsense ‥ 论 02:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • @HawkNightingale175:, your commment here is utterly incorrect. The Wikipedia rules are not designed for users who are new to editing, and content that is [not] biased or factually inaccurate can still fail policy. They are designed for everybody. You are required to follow Wikipedia policy, and wilful refusal to do so can lead to an indefinite block. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not sure why you claim that I am refusing to follow Wikipedia policy, because as far as I am aware, I am not explicitly breaking any site rules, and I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users. The editor that you replied to was the very editor that engaged in multiple actions of wikihounding against me and just openly admitted that they are capable of engaging in misconduct, and as such their arguments should be taken for question. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-administrator comment) You are WP:EDITWARRING on First Sino-Japanese War, along with your WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS of Remsense WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Also, your statement I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users is incorrect, as you stated and do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @HawkNightingale175: Forgot to ping. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You are clearly misinterpreting what I am saying. I did not say that I did not need to follow the site rules, I merely said that I have enough experience editing on this site and as such do not need beginner's guides to learn how to edit. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That was not a beginner's guide. It was the manual of style (MOS:IBX). It states Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. People have been blocked for ignoring the manual of style. Are you saying you can ignore it? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They certainly have acted as if their view trumps that of multiple editors who have cited it as pertains to whatever article, while providing no meaningful justification why there should be an exception in that context. That's key here—whether they choose to acknowledge site guidelines as representing generalized editor consensus, they certainly choose to ignore evidence of direct consensus they think they know better than. Their knowledge of "the rules" is seemingly obtuse enough to ignore the primacy of consensus altogether. Remsense ‥ 论 04:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I am aware, I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited by the "manual of style". I do not know why you are so insistent that my edits are supposedly against the rules because I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Only if you choose to assume everything it says supports your prior intuitions with no friction or further introspection. That is,

      The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

      isn't a problem for you because you've already decided you're right and no one else can dispute your notion of what are "key facts". I suppose there's still the explicit problem that you're intent on including material that isn't mentioned anywhere in the actual article, but at this point I don't think you'd admit that that's a violation either, even though it's a pretty clear deduction for most other editors who read this guideline. Given you've already declared no one else should dare challenge your own interpretations of policy, what else am I supposed to come away with here? Remsense ‥ 论 09:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      While I usually feel that you are not worth responding to due to the fact that you engaged in actions of wikihounding against me, I do not see at all how my edits supposedly violated the rule you listed in the above reply. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am willing to explain, if you're willing to potentially accept my interpretation of what the rules entail. It is also worth reiterating that if you equate any third party noticing and commenting on your poor conduct – which you freely expressed in public and still have yet to even acknowledge – as wikihounding, that is likely not a mindset that is viable for an editor in good standing to maintain in perpetuity. It's your fault that you did bad there, not mine, and it's not harassment for someone to connect the dots as regards your character with the purpose of informing community expectations going forward. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 16:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You explicitly stated you do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing, with regards to the Manual of Style. Also saying I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited...I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them is Wikilawyering. And you continue to cast aspersions regarding "wikihounding". Consider this a warning: do not continue to unfoundedly accuse Remsense (or anyone else) of Wikihounding. Continuing to do so is a personal attack and a violation of policy that can result in a block. Also agree to respect consenus even when it against you. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not sure why you are accusing me of personal attacks when the primary reason I posted on this page was because the user in question personally attacked me by going to my user talk page and responding to an unrelated thread. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (1) You haven't provided a diff that I can see of this (2) that's not a personal attack or wikihounding. The content might be (without a diff, not saying that it is or not), the action is not (3) "They did it so I get to" does not fly here and (4) you weren't accused of personal attacks. You were warned that continuing to accuse Remsense of wikihounding without evidence of actual wikihounding would be a personal attack. Also by posting here your conduct is open to scruitny as well, not just the editor you accuse. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This edit constitutes my entire wikihounding campaign on their talk page – aside from the ANI notice I posted afterward, which I presume they're also counting since they themselves have been too polite to hound my talk either time they filed a report about me here. Remsense ‥ 论 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought so. @HawkNightingale175:, that is not a personal attack and it is not Wikihounding. I strongly suggest you withdraw this ANI complaint, as continuing as you have here cannot end well for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You are excusing improper conduct from someone who claims to be a strict follower of the Wikipedia manual of style. Notice how they pointed out that I was too polite to hound their own talk page. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A single comment to your user talk page does not constitute hounding. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I would genuinely feel a bit bad if this wasn't made clear to you: too polite to hound my talk was me expressing my distaste that, as one item amid an expanding collection, you twice ignored the plain, highly visible instructions on this page requiring editors to post on others' talk pages when reporting their conduct here. Your talk page is for others to have public communications with you; it is not acceptable to treat others' appearances on it like invasions of your private space. You're not entitled to that, just like you're not entitled to reiterate improper conduct when, like many other things seemingly, you simply cannot be bothered to justify yourself in what policy actually says. Remsense ‥ 论 15:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      HawkNightingale175, consider this a last warning: stop Wikilawyering and drop the stick. There was no hounding. If you continue to insist that there was, that is a personal attack and - as you have been thoroughly advised of this and accordingly warned - will result in your being blocked from editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethnic Assyrian POV-push

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

    • I haven't gotten into the weeds yet to determine whether this discussion is strictly redundant, but it's clearly at least related to the discussion about Wlaak fka User623921 above. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but there are clearly some issues here. This change to Assyrian is clearly not in line with the citation (which says Aramaic). This one says Syriac, not Assyrian. The rest of the OPs diffs are adding Assyrian categories when Assyria is not mentioned in the articles. The user says on their userpage that "My goal on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation is to increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people". Unfortunately, if you're going to follow your "goal" without actually sourcing these things, then that's a problem. Nominating an Aramean magazine for deletion, is typical. This is POV warrior behaviour, and regardless if the rest of their edits are useful, this sort of thing needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Should this be its own section then? Merging with the above conversation could make it get lost. Also, I agree that this is POV-pushing. Conyo14 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A separate section does seem warranted after all, then. It may nevertheless still be helpful for some participants to refer to the other discussion, or at least to be aware of it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rosguill, I agree with youthat a separate section for this issue is appropriate. The persistent edit-warring, systematic removal of Syriac/Aramean, and the addition of Assyrian without proper sourcing clearly show that Surayeproject3 is pursuing an agenda in violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality principles.
      As Black Kite correctly also pointed out, there are multiple instances where this user has made edits that do not align with the cited sources. Adding Assyrian categories to articles where Assyria is not even mentioned, as well as nominating an Aramean publication for deletion, demonstrates a consistent pattern of POV-pushing.
      Wikipedia has clear policies that are being violated here and the user at least violates 4 of them, namely:
      • WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view) – Surayeproject3 is making unilateral changes without neutral justification.
      • WP:OR (No original research) – The user introduces claims that are not supported by reliable sources.
      • WP:DISRUPT (Disruptive editing) – The persistent edits create conflicts and edit wars without any attempt at discussion.
      • WP:NOTADVOCATE – Wikipedia is not a platform for activism or the promotion of a particular ethnic or political perspective. The user explicitly states on their user page that their goal is to increase Assyrian visibility, which confirms their lack of neutrality.
      Given these repeated violations, a block or at the very least a topic ban on this subject seems to be the appropriate action. The pattern of recurring vandalism shortly after my edits is also suspicious and should be further investigated. Kivercik (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like I'm going to have to write another wall of text with linked diffs, but oh well. Anyways, I highly suggest that everyone involved read through the other ANI that involves this issue [17], as it contains a lot of points that are related to this discussion especially since Kivercik was indirectly involved with the content dispute portion. For much needed context, the community of Syriac Christians who call themselves "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Syriac", or "Aramean" are currently in a naming dispute regarding what is the most appropriate name to call themselves, but they are all recognized to be the same people. Throughout the history of English Wikipedia, there have been previous and similar arguments related to the naming dispute, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Assyrian is the default that reflects the community, as well as their history and origins. Additionally, please note that "Syriac people" default redirects to the page for Assyrians, and the Arameans page is dedicated to the ancient Arameans and not the modern Aramean identity (this is a copy+paste from above but it details basically what is involved here). The ANI dispute above noted that a solution to the issues of content regarding the dispute would be to edit other articles that discuss Assyrians/Arameans to offer better inclusion, but as of now this has not been started (I personally would like to in the near future, though). For now, let me get into the points of this new ANI.
      On March 20th and earlier today, Kivercik linked several diffs to articles where he proposes I was pushing a certain POV and causing disruption and edit-warring. As a result, I have personally went ahead and manually expanded most of (if not all of) them with new information from pre-added sources as well as new sources, while adding or modifying content to better align with them.
      Of the articles mentioned, here are the ones that I have edited.
      • The user who was the primary subject of the previous ANI, Wlaak, put most of the same diffs that Kivercik linked on March 20th, of which he linked the following articles: Gütersloh, Isa Kahraman, Syrians in Sweden, Al-Jazira (caliphal province), Syria, Place name changes in Turkey, Haberli, İdil, Öğündük, İdil, Ethnic groups in Europe, Örebro school shooting, Shamoun Hanne Haydo, Ignatius Aphrem II, Södertälje mafia, and the naming of Sayfo/Assyrian genocide. I have went over my reasoning for all these articles and my edits on them in detail above, so please be sure to read through it and potentially consider looking through the diffs too (though I understand it may be a lot). Please note that I may not have reviewed all of the articles to expand them or change/add content.
      • I'm honestly at a loss for words that a disambiguation page is being used in an argument like this, but I'll address it here. I admit that previously, I made an edit on the WCA disambiguation page that had the Assyrian name, however I recently defaulted back on this and removed it while adding more entries to the page. The user Wlaak created a disruption over the inclusion of the label "Syriac", since it was included in the name of the organization and what I can infer to be his arguments that Syriac corresponds to Aramean. However, I earlier today added the organization to the WCAS (disambiguation) page which includes this label, so this should serve as a firm compromise.
      • Typically, articles on villages in southeastern Turkey that have a history with the Syriac churches are categorized under "Historic Assyrian communities in Turkey", and I did the same on Düzgeçit, Midyat. However, after reviewing the available sources on the village, I could find no mention of Assyrians/Syriacs, just Mhallami and population data. Seeing this, I have removed the category from the page.
      • In the article Midyat Guest House, the edits I made were renaming the page to add capitalization, and adding Assyrian categories. I expanded this article as well but there aren't many available sources for it; though the article mentioned an Aramean family with the last name Shabo, none of the sources directly used the Aramean label, only one with "Suryani/Suryaniler". This was also a point of contention in the previous ANI, but the word can be used to mean both Assyrian and Syriac, so I have included both labels in the article and have kept the categories.
      • For the article Deq (tattoo), I added the Assyrian culture category and WikiProject Assyria assessment since the article mentioned Syriacs (noting above that "Syriac people" redirects to the Assyrian people article). After Kivercik's post, I went ahead and expanded the article with content from the existing sources and new sources, and in relation to this dispute, I mostly found only "Suryani/Suryaniler". However, please note that this source [18] has a quote reading "Siverek lost its importance while Turkish ethnic groups and Suryani (Assyrian) people left the area", which affirms the connection between the two labels.
      • I have not reviewed the article for Mike Josef, but I did not initially see the "Aramaic Christian" label in the source linked for his ethnicity so this was an oversight on my part. I will look for more sources regarding him and edit the article soon.
      Kivercik is making the claim that I am systematically replacing Syriac/Aramean with Assyrian without discussion. On none of these articles were there any history of editing that could be considered edit-warring; according to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, examples of such involve tenditious editing and inability to satisfy verifiability, engage in consensus building, or take note of community input. However, the edits that Kivercik linked did not engage in any form of disruptive editing or Wikipedia:Edit warring aside from the WCA (disambiguation) from Wlaak's end. Kivercik is also stating that I am vandalizing the articles that he edits shortly after; however, looking through Wikipedia:Vandalism, there is no form of vandalism that I can correlate with my edits that would allow them to be classified as such. Instead, these were one-off instances of editing, and on most of these articles linked above, having the new sources and information added shows limited to no presence of the Aramean label, while Assyrian and Syriac are more frequent. Additionally, though he claims this to be a highly contested issue and I have refused to engage in discussions, Kivercik has never attempted to create discussions on the talk pages surrounding the content of these articles to affirm a consensus that could be agreed upon in their writing, instead just jumping straight into the talk page posts and ANI. I have been involved with discussions and negotiations regarding the content of these articles with the other user above, which can be seen on some of their talk pages (though I blanked the talk page for WCA (disambiguation) recently). Kivercik's claims of continuous edit warring are inaccurate, and my recent edits now fall more in line with the issue of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:OR by adding new sources and content (both primary and secondary).
      It's also important to mention that Kivercik isn't exactly innocent in his own path of editing as he has previously been the point of concern in some instances. Allow me to detail:
      • Many times now Kivercik has appeared to employ the use of large language models/AI when drafting responses or blocks of text regarding articles in talk pages or elsewhere. This can be seen on his talk page [19], in several replies on the talk page for Arameans [20][21][22][23][24], and in his above replies. In a previous sockpuppet investigation against Kivercik (which by the way, he was investigated for being a sockpuppet), he also seemed to exhibit these AI tendencies, which I noted in the linked post [25]. It's clear that the use of AI is not allowed on the site, yet Kivercik has continuously appeared to have used it in his comments.
      • Kivercik is primarily accusing me of having an Assyrian POV, however who is to say that he doesn't have his own POV for an Aramean identity? He has already previously advocated for a separate article discussing Aramean identity, not to mention he edits on the Dutch Wikipedia using the Aramean label [26]. His account is still fairly new, but he had a gap in editing between January on the article for Salwan Momika until March 17th, when he started to contribute on the talk page for Arameans to support the argument for a separate article. The argument that Kivercik has his own inherent POV cannot be discredited in this discussion when it is apparent from his previous editing history.
      • Above I mentioned that Kivercik was investigated for sockpuppetry, but I added my points because I had reason to investigate potential meatpuppetry as well, which can be seen on the respective link. Most recently, Wlaak created a draft for an Aramean people article, of which the second edit was a reinsertion by Kivercik of a previous fork that was made by several blocked accounts [27][28][29]. The sock investigation also notes several edits on other articles which Kivercik restored that were previously made by blocked accounts, which not only bolsters the argument of a POV, but also shows a level of disruptive editing as well.
      Before I conclude, this discussion is certainly linked to the above with the other user (Wlaak) since it is about the same topic. Therefore, I invite other users who have participated in that discussion (@Shmayo @Robert McClenon @Mugsalot @Asilvering) to voice their opinions about the conduct and content issues present. It is only my intention to contribute positively to Wikipedia as I have done up to the present. This may unfortunately be a point of contention for a while, but Kivercik is prematurely accusing me and overexaggerating allegations of edit-warring, POV pushing, and violating other Wikipedia guidelines while neglecting recent developments in relation to this topic and having a POV of his own.
      By the way @Black Kite, I messaged one of the admins of the previous discussion privately on Discord with some concerns I had about the ANI case, and I figured I should message you about it as well since you're an admin and it is relevant to the discussion. I noticed on your talk page that you have email open, mind if I send you everything? Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      TL;DR Kivercik is accusing me of POV-editing, edit warring and vandalism when the edit history of the articles he links, as well as the sources I've included from editing them, not only show no signs of editing struggles but also affirm my previous edits by including new and reliable sources. Reviewing the pages for Wikipedia's guidelines that he linked also don't seem to affirm any of the points that he's made. Kivercik claims that I am replacing "Syriac/Aramean" with "Assyrian" systematically without discussion, but this hasn't been the case with other users and Kivercik himself hasn't previously made any attempts to engage in such discussions. Kivercik's actions on Wikipedia are also suspicious on their own right, including a potential use of AI, his own POV for an Aramean identity, and restoring edits that were previously made by blocked accounts Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kivercik care to say anything on the AI accusation? I don't see any correlated use of AI, but they should advocate on that. However, Surayeproject3, why didn't you take action to the six points you made in your essay about checking the sources thoroughly before adding the categories/changing the races? Surely you'd know by now this is a very contentious subject that you're editing. Conyo14 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surayeproject3, this is ridiculously long, I don't think editors are going to spend the time to read this long, long statement. Maybe you didn't have to address every single aspect of this dispute in one statement. Maybe hat most of this and offer a concise version of the most important points? Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: They did: diff - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought that was a continuation, I didn't recognize it as a summary. But by the time I got to the end of the statement, I was just skimming. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its quite funny actually that I'm being accused of using AI. Nah, this is 100% human rambling, no robots involved. But hey, if anything sounds too polished, I’ll take it as a compliment I think :) Kivercik (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite, @Rosguill, this DRV came up in the other ANI thread and is a pretty succinct look at the general problem, if you need one. -- asilvering (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    previous ANI got closed to centralize the discussion and instructed us to see this one instead, so i'll go ahead and just paste in what i wrote of Surayeprojec3, which would fit in this dispute also, where he is accused of edit-warring and POV-pushing
    speaking of "no-consensus" and edit-warring and POV-push, Surayeproject3 changed these without reaching consensus (substitute "you" to Surayeproject3):
    • Midyat Guest House, a newly created article where you only changed the Aramean name to Assyrian, seems as you also tried to get "Assyrian/Syriac" in, and by your logic, that consensus was only reached in one article, now you are spreading it to other. [30]
    • again Midyat Guest House, you tried applying Assyrian culture category, with no consensus or mention of Assyrian. [31]
    • on Düzgeçit, Midyat you added Historic Assyrian communities in Iraq. [32]
    • same done for Yünlüce, Lice. [33]
    for dialects, you put in a infobox about a people... for languages... with no consensus.
    doesn't stop there, you also did so on Churches!
    i could keep going and bring up more example where you've put changed the article, not corrected what's stated about sources but you get my points with the examples of the languages and Churches, the difference between us here is that i am only correcting what is stated on the article in contrast to the source, while you are literally inputting a Assyrian POV infobox on all articles, UNRELATED articles, a language? a Church? they've been stable for years, and you're now injecting a Assyrian infobox on them all? even though some have explicitly said they are not Assyrian, such as the Syriac Orthodox Church, see source. Wlaak (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Noticed that I was tagged above. Edits such as this [52] (example of linked diff here) is not POV pushing, in my opinion. I find it strange that users involved in the previous ANI discussion would continue to link to the article "Arameans" when referring to the modern group. The modern group with many alternative names - Assyrians, Syriacs, Chaldeans, Arameans, etc. - is currently described in this article. Shmayo (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Aspersions by Kivercik against Surayeproject3

    [edit]

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

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

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

    To clarify the situation, prior to March 20th, I had already posted a warning on Surayeproject3's user talk page, here, including the relevant diffs to highlight my concerns regarding the edits I observed. After March 20th, I provided additional diffs following the warning, some of which I have already posted here on the ANI page, please take a look at them again.
    • [53]
    • [54]
    • [55]
    • [56]
    • [57]
    • [58] (On the 3th of April, Surayeproject3 removes a just edited page by me referring to the people (as stated in the source) as Syriacs, only two days later Surayeproject3 removes the Syriac term once again and replaces it with Assyrian)
    • [59] (Once again removed Aramean and replaced it with Assyrian/Syriac and removed Aramean architecture and replaced it with Turkish architecture YESTERDAY 4th of April)
    I believe it is crucial that immediate sanctions be applied to address Surayeproject3's editing behavior in order to safeguard the integrity of Wikipedia’s guidelines! Kivercik (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, sort of, User:Kivercik. Apparently my question wasn't clear, although I thought it was. I said that you, User:Kivercik, had identified at least two loosely related problems. The first is that Surayeproject3 is pushing POV, such as by changing 'Aramean' to 'Assyrian' in an almost robotic fashion. I agree, and they replied to you with a long rant rather than reasoned disagreement. I didn't think that I was asking you for diffs about the POV-pushing, but you have provided more of them. The second problem was that you said that the articles that you edit are then being vandalized, and that you think that Surayeproject3 is involved in the vandalism. I looked for evidence of that pattern, both before I started this subthread, and after you replied. I don't see what you are reporting. Maybe you are describing their changing of 'Aramean' to 'Assyrian' as vandalism. If so, it is not vandalism, and that characterization is an aspersion. The changing of the ethnic description is POV warring, not vandalism. Do you have evidence, even circumstantial evidence, or are you throwing spaghetti at the wall? Throwing spaghetti at a wall is wasteful. Pasta should be eaten, not played with. Small children do both at the same time. You are not a small child. You have made a serious allegation against Surayeproject3 that goes beyond the POV-warring that we know about. Support it, or wipe the walls. Vandalism is a serious claim to be made seriously, not thrown out in passing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My report mainly concerns the systematic removal of terms such as 'Syriac' or 'Aramean' in official sources, which are then replaced with 'Assyrian'. In addition, I’ve indeed noticed another pattern, namely: nearly every page I have personally edited is shortly thereafter edited, often in a disruptive or biased manner (by removal of Syriac/Aramean and replacing it by Assyrian) by the user Surayeproject3. That is why I specifically stated that I’ve observed a pattern of targeted interference, as I stated in my report the timing and pattern (of Surayeproject3 his edits) are highly suspicious and suggest a possible connection.
    My impression came from a pattern I thought I was seeing, such as [60], [61], [62] and [63]. These are all pages that he had never edited before, but suddenly began editing only after I did, as can be clearly seen in the page history. So yes both of the two things have to do with eachother.
    Lastly, my intention wasn’t to make baseless accusations, but to voice a concern that seemed to be escalating, thankyou. Kivercik (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kivercik, that is not vandalism. Please see WP:VANDAL. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed: WP:NOTVAND. And making unfounded accuations of vandalism can be seen as a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I may have used the wrong term, I'm new to Wikipedia so still eager to learn more. Thanks for providing the WP:Vandal link it's clear to me now. I am referring to disruptive editing in this case, which is going on for several months now looking at Surayeproject3 his user contributions. Kivercik (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Kivercik - Being new to Wikipedia does not excuse sloppy use of the term vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Contrapositively, if you have not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism, then you have not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism. It is especially a problem to use an edit summary stating that you are reverting vandalism when there is no vandalism because edit summaries cannot be reverted except by admins. Review what is and is not vandalism while you are waiting to resume editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon I'd like to defend myself on your first point. While yes, me writing a long response may be annoying, it shouldn't be taken as evidence or confirmation of POV warring. Kivercik made claims that I felt would be hard to address in several responses because that would inevitably clutter the discussion, so I addressed them in one response. Please take at least a little bit of time to read over it as I address many parts of my editing there.
    Kivercik is linking an AfD for Bahro Suryoyo as a means to assert me having a POV, but this is not the first time I've started an AfD. I've started them on other Assyrian articles, including Jacob David [64], Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party [65], Assyrian Medical Society [66], and a page called Radya Caldaya [67] just to name a few. The fact that I requested a deletion for Bahro Suryoyo is based on my reasoning on the AfD itself, and is just a coincidence based on timing (editing this post response, if you look at the page for AfD itself you'll see that it previously had an AfD years ago in 2008, so this isn't the first time a potential deletion was brought up)
    By the way, two of the articles were ones I edited after the ANI posting to include more sources and information, Deq (tattoo) and Midyat Guest House. The sources added in relation to Assyrians mostly used "Suryaniler", and one for the former even used the Assyrian label in relation to that, see these diffs [68] [69]. Almost all of them did not even mention Assyrians at all. For Midyat Guest House, Aramean architecture is not an established category. Kivercik blanked the whole of my edits under the guise of "Ethnic POV-vandalism" yesterday, even though they were reliable sources [70] [71]. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, @Kivercik, @Wlaak: please immediately cease changing between Assyrian, Syriac, Chaldean, and/or Aramean, on any articles, anywhere, without talk page discussion beforehand. This is obviously all part of one much larger edit war across many, many articles, and any further undiscussed changes of this nature will receive a block for edit-warring. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks Wlaak (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, thanks for the input. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on Conduct and Content

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

    Proposal

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    While seemingly noble, this statement is ideologically loaded. It reflects a very specific, nationalist vision, namely, to unite all Arameans/Syriacs/Chaldeans under the "Assyrian" label. This is not neutral. This is not encyclopedic. This is a personal political vision, and it has no place on Wikipedia.
    Yet somehow, instead of addressing this disruptive behavior, this proposal suggests banning me and User:Wlaak, both of whom have simply attempted to maintain balance and policy-based accuracy in a highly sensitive topic area.
    Yes, I am a new user. But being new does not mean being wrong. I’ve been working hard to respect WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS. It is frankly astonishing that my attempts at constructive editing are being treated as a reason for restriction, while the user engaging in ideologically motivated editing is framed as the experienced party.
    With respect, a "no-fault" TBAN would send entirely the wrong message here. It would suggest that new editors are automatically at fault for challenging the actions of someone, even if that someone is just as new, but more aligned with the status quo. That is unfair, unproductive, and a disservice to Wikipedia’s core principles. Kivercik (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking your edits at Deq (tattoo) into consideration, it is clear that you do not "respect" UNDUE. Semsûrî (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits I have made were submitted with several different sources provided. You can't just revert it without discussion on the talking page, which I asked you to do so. Thankyou Kivercik (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kivercik, I think the concern isn't that you're trying to ignore policies. Rather, Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, and you might not have had the chance to absorb the oft-byzantine policies and guidelines. That's why edit counts were brought up; Surayeproject3 may have started editing within the last two years (n.b.: their earliest edits are 4 Feb 2024, not 25 March 2024) but they have over 5,000 edits. That's an order of magnitude more than you. It's reasonable to suggest that they may have a better grasp of policies due to their extra experience editing. The "no fault" T-Ban would let you get that experience in an area where it's easier to learn. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I am new to WikiPedia, that is correct, but stating that I only joined in order to be involved in this topic should in that case also apply to Surayeproject3, if anyone, who's literally stating in his profile that he is on here for this purpose.
    You've already given us a warning, all of us. Both me and Surayeproject3 can be accused of POV-pushing, however, only one of us is pushing a preferable name. I do not see how correcting statements contradicting references sources is wrong, however, out of respect for the warning and the guidelines, I am willing to follow.
    As @Robert McClenon stated, the best option would most likely be creating a Aramean people page, which then can be subject for AfD, which could use some help from more experienced editors involved in this matter, I can go ahead and ask them on their talk pages if they'd be down to help out. But issuing a topic ban for only me and Kivercik seems unjust, as all three of us is doing wrong, not just me and Kivercik.
    For the record, Surayeproject3 is not that experienced, he joined WikiPedia last year and has been a participant in numerous disputes and accusations.
    Warning has been taken for all of us three, I hope all of us can respect it from now on, if not, a block would make sense. Wlaak (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Having been personally involved with this dispute, I can't underestimate just how annoying and stressful it has been to deal with several content disputes, two ANIs, and one DRN in just the last month alone. This is getting to be ridiculous. What I want to take away from this is genuine steps towards solving this issue via any of the suggested avenues, research from reliable sources, and input from neutral or well-versed (on this topic) editors. Both User:Kivercik and User:Wlaak have their pre-established opinions on this and have edited on this topic without experience in Wikipedia policy or editing for longer than a month at least. I understand what is being said in regards to me having a POV in editing and will apply that consensus in the future, but I can't even begin to imagine how many more articles I'm going to expand and edit, only to see diffs that are solely changing the name of the people, and then deal with talk page disputes over and over and over again because that is battleground editing.
    Noting everything previously discussed, I am greatly lacking in confidence of both Kivercik and Wlaak to handle this issue until a consensus is achieved. Kivercik has already been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Wlaak has previously edit warred. Wlaak has also been blocked before on the Swedish Wikipedia as I've mentioned previously, and in talk page disputes, if they don't receive a reply for more than 24 hours they take that as being a final consensus and edit the page the way they want anyways. Both have so far accused me of various infractions against Wikipedia's policies that are unfounded and/or while they're at the same carrying out those infractions themselves. I understand that I am just as much under scrutiny as anyone else involved, but in a dispute that has been present on the website since its founding, both Kivercik and Wlaak have not edited or participated in ways that offer viable, long-lasting solutions. I am in support whether a block or a topic ban is chosen. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you mentioned me, I was unblocked after having understood the policies of WikiPedia, and yes, I was told by admins that if not a response for a 24h, implement changes and await a response and take it from there. Wlaak (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I have tried to be neutral in this dispute, and I think that I don't have a horse in this race. The proposed remedy would be biased and non-neutral. It was difficult to figure out from User:Kivercik's long complaint in which they accused User:Surayeproject3 of vandalizing their edits what the issues really are. But I did see that Surayeproject3 was following their edits and systematically reverting Aramean to Assyrian, and that is the subject of the content dispute. Kivercik is also pushing a POV, but Surayeproject3 is pushing a POV. Just calling a one-way topic-ban a no-fault ban won't make it neutral, and neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia. Any sanction should be two-way. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych

    [edit]

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

    I started making some edits to Roman Shukhevych after waiting a long time after a previous contentious discussion with Manyareasexpert. My edits directly cited publicly available sources, with quotes and page numbers often included. [72], [73], [74] Many of my edits have now been jumbled and reverted. I'd normally be okay with trying to resolve this via the BRD cycle, but manyareasexpert's behavior and discussion style has been particularly grating and disruptive.

    First, he is repeatedly asking me to read these directly cited sources for him. The talk page is clogged with walls of texts directly from the sources because I am doing his wikipedia homework for him. Almost all of these sources are free to the public. The reason I believe he is not reading the sources is that his objections keep shifting when presented with the text of the source. First, it was that not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres,[75] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [76] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[77] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [78] He didn't remove the sources, so he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it. So he just stuck my content near the bottom of the page [79] and restored his preferred wording. He broke citations while doing so. I am not sure how to engage with someone who repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits.

    Secondly, I am deeply concerned he is engaging in Holocaust revisionism. [80] He asked to me to view a uncontested historical fact about the Holocaust (the shooting of Jews by members of Roman's battalion) with skepticism. Additionally, the source he provided for his claims, on page 364, says that the Battalion engaged in killings to on "take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians" alleging, on page 363, that "the indisputable fact is that in Ukraine, over the centuries, a significant part of Jews collaborated with the enslavers of the indigenous population" [81] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [82], claiming they "had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." I sincerely hope this is a lost in translation kind of thing.

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

    Apologies, the references for the diffs are messed up. Fixed. isa.p (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that this isn't the first time within the past month that MAE's conduct related to this sort of topic has come up - scroll down here to just above the subsection break and from then on. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    This is all clearly a MAGA inspired witch-hunt to silence my dear friend @Manyareasexpert note that if any action is taken against him all hell will break loose in the form of the mother of all sock puppetry and I will persist until sanity comes back. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Blatant sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's victimblaming, where the opponent adds WP:OR and blames the opponent for fixing it.
    he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it - you should not reach the conclusion, it's WP:OR - On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.
    It's actually the opponent who, responding to a direct request to provide a quote from the source they supplied Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500-Carlp941-20250402212300 , responds with the wall of text Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500 from different other sources, combined with WP:PA and accusations of "wikihounding" and one quote from the source in question, which do not support their wording.
    It's actually the opponent who provides misleading claims that "The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative" Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250403175100-Manyareasexpert-20250403162400, which is also factually wrong, given that "Neither Stepan Bandera or the OUN are a symbols of the current Ukrainian government and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not presenting Bandera or other OUN members as national heroes,[1] preferring to not talk about Bandera.[2]" - Commemoration of Stepan Bandera .
    It's the opponent who returns [83] misleading "records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia" , deleting the source which challenges the sentence, and supplying source which do not confirms the sentence, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    content objections aside, your fellow wikipedia editors are not your "opponents." I am really concerned about your approach to editing if this is how you see it. isa.p (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be wp:battleground. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The one who disagrees is the opponent, no? anyway, if editors are protesting, will use something different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not opponents. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Having a disagreement does not make an opponent. We're all here to make an encyclopedia. Why would you think you have a rivalry? Tarlby (t) (c) 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In some languages, an opponent is the one who disagrees, not a rival. Anyway, duly noted, will use something different. Now, let's attend more serious issues of original research and misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources and possible PA raised above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only personal attack I'm seeing is you accusing them of victimblaming. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you see why it is so hard to engage with you? My warning of wikihounding was interpreted as a personal attack - you pinged me for two discussions on the same page, I was warning you to not continue that behavior.
    On your second point, the goal posts have shifted again. Also, citing other articles on Wikipedia to make your point, especially ones you have contributed significantly [84][85][86] to, is poor form. Anywho, the page is about Roman and includes references to sources talking about a nationalist obsfucation of history. It is not about Zelenskyy's policy towards statues of Stepan Bandera and what he alone says about the OUN. You're not even objecting to my sourcing anymore, this is a red herring.
    In re: Vinnytsia, I was trying to follow the BRD cycle, but given that the original source was engaging in obscene holocaust revisionism and was not in English, I had to change tack. I used a high quality english source that referenced the same primary document but didn't include a tirade about Jews oppressing Ukrainians. I then restored the original language. I did my best to follow Wikipedia policy. I certainly did not misrepresent the Ukrainian language source when removing it - I quoted it directly in my justification.
    Lastly, you have not addressed my concern of Holocaust revisionism, that is troubling. isa.p (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get to say things like Now, let's attend more serious issues, especially when this thread was started about you. Everybody's conduct involved is open to discussion, yes. But Insanityclown1 is right - the only PA here was by you, and the concerns that arose about your editing in the last ANI you participated in (linked above) are being observed here too. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Opponent? Oh dear. GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Comment by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, this really might be an issue of English not being their native language. It would probably be helpful if one would give them suggestions for better wording. I think instead of "opponent" something like calling them "the other party" or "the reporting party" would do or just using the username of the person in question (although that might accidentally ping them, which they might not want). Nakonana (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think their English is at a good enough level. See for example this edit. Mellk (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate some non-sock-puppet input here.
    I'm not hoping for any kind of sanction on MAE, if it can be avoided. If the potential holocaust revisionism can be adequately explained, I think we can work on things. isa.p (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact they seem to have come down with ANI Flu doesn't help. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since user Manyareasexpert had me tbanned from Eastern Europe on these very articles,[87] I ask the administrators' permission to bring some of his diffs to your attention. Mhorg (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is a good idea to relitigate your topic ban here. In my estimation, both of your edits in that TBAN discussion were below standards. Getting back into that seems like a distraction to me, but if admins feel like it is useful thing to look into to observe a pattern of behavior, fine by me.
    I have a lot of problems with MAE's editing style, but I was prepared to use a different forum for DR (as I have done in past) until he until he added Holocaust revisionism to the article we were discussing. I want MAE specifically to answer to my question about Holocaust revisionism, and why he seems to have engaged in it multiple times, and why he seems to have come down with ANI flu when directly asked about it. If we work through that, then we can find a way to engage with each other. isa.p (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Socking. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    What nonsense is that, he has not come down with any flu, he just dosen't have the time to be on Wikipedia all day like you. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    sock.... Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure whose, but blatant. Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested a CU against CmsrNgubane. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were correct. Blocked half a dozen of their accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 09:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your IP Block failed dismally old man, I'm way too tech savvy for you🤣🤣🤣. 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block attempts will fail like every other admin before you you may as well just block my entire City 41.144.67.112 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We could continue playing this game forever or we could come to a deal where my original account is unblocked, you should look at the reasons why I was blocked, it was because I opposed manyareasexperts nonsensical contribution to the BRICS article but if you don't want to unblock me then I will continue doing this for many years to come. 41.144.1.188 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I blocked any IPs, just some accounts. I guess a few IPs might have ended up autoblocked. Anyway, I've now put in place a couple of range blocks that might have an effect, and won't have much collateral - that might be more effective, I guess we'll see. Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • MAE, a regular and prolific editor up until now, suddenly went silent when their conduct was called into question here - since February 1, the longest gap in their editing has been a single day, while as of now it's been 9 minutes short of five days since their last edit. This looks very much like an attempt to avoid scrutiny by playing possum until the thread goes stale. Given the severity of the concerns raised above and that apparent vanishing, I've pblocked them from articlespace until they return and address the concerns here. Once they do adequately, anyone can lift the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full disclosure, MAE started an ANI thread against me for "personal attacks" after I told them I do not wish to engage in fascist apologia. Simonm223 (diff) and Rosguill (diff) disagreed with MAE and said that their behaviour could be seen as fascist apologia. But that whole thread is now gone, wtf? ManyAreasExpert tries to hide Nazi links of Ukrainian nationalist organisations: diff thread, diff thread, diff thread.
    ManyAreasExpert's MO is clear, they're the JAQ (Just Asking Questions) type of Nazi apologist. I am not surprised that isa.p noticed Holocaust denialism behaviour, as those are usually also the JAQ types. MAE also likes to "question" sources until other editors get so frustrated that they have to copy paste and italicise and bold the relevant sentences because MAE often refuses to see the argument, WP:IDHT.
    Other editors have also noticed this behaviour, here is an example.
    All in all, this is a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor who displays WP:NOTHERE behaviour in their attempts to WP:POVPUSH. If this was a fringe topic or some cutesy content dispute over numbers of feathers on a bird or something I wouldn't say anything, but because this has to do with whitewashing nazis and their crimes I think it is particularly egregious, per WP:NONAZIS. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about this thread? 128.164.171.24 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and slow edit warring against consensus

    [edit]

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

    Newsjunkie is edit warring against consensus of a discussion, and appears to be slow-rolling her edits to intentionally avoid the 3RR brightline.

    • Her edit history shows an established editing pattern of WP:REFCLUTTER on a number of articles, and in this case on Harry Potter, Wound theology objected to it.
    • Discussion ensued and determined it to be a combination of WP:OVERCITE, WP:SYNTH, and improper use of WP:PRIMARY sources.
    • Consensus seemed clear early on, and after Wound theology removed the edit in question.
    • She immediately reverted back to her preferred state, claiming consensus wasn't clear, and proceeded to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion.
    • This was reverted to the consensus version.[88]
    • She then proceeded to revert a number of times: [89][90][91], possibly [92]
    • She was warned both via user talk and edit summary not to edit war.
    • So she waited a day and has now reinserted previously objected to primary sources which appears to be trying to force her original edits against objections while avoiding 3RR.[93]

    I primarily focused on the edit warring reverts and just a link to the entire discussion, rather than try to mesh the discussion timeline with the edits. If anything is unclear, I am available to clarify. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Further review of past incidents shows that abusing the 3RR brightline may be a pattern[94] ButlerBlog (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I waited a day to see if there would be further reply to my comments and there wasn't. The most recent version is significantly different than the earlier version to address concerns. There should no longer be any WPSynth concern and the primary sources are used to support pure statement of facts as is permitted and are also supported by the analysis line in the subsequent sentence . In the most earlier recent version there was also a statement supported by six different references and it is not more now. newsjunkie (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Waiting a day to see if there is any further reply to your comments" is not standard practice for content disputes, especially when the basic style guide is stacked against you. wound theology◈ 06:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what led me to file this ANI report. Reverting up to the 3RR and then waiting to re-add something that has been previously disputed and discussed gives the appearance of gaming the system and other WP:NOTHERE behaviors. At minimum, it's editing against consensus, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE. While consensus can result in compromises and a meeting in the middle, there is no requirement that it be so, and there isn't an obligation to fully satisfy your comments or objections. The fact that no one replied to your last comments isn't then a green light to reinstate your edits. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't simply "re add" it. I significantly changed what I added to address the concerns, particularly the synth concern. The initial issue was overcitation, not the actual substance of statements. Much more is being deleted than necessary (and even more then was deleted initially.) Also "consensus" is not simply determined by a simple "majority." newsjunkie (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly appears that way - and yes, primary sources were part of the concern (it was pretty clearly stated by Wound Theology when they noted There is some egregious use of citation overkill and primary sources). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not mean the statements themselves are unverified or need to be fully deleted, especially as rewritten with a secondary source clearly providing analysis. newsjunkie (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What it does mean is that you need to open discussion and establish consensus on adding those back in, since there is currently clear objection to it. Please put the article back to status quo ante and engage in a new discussion regarding just the previously objected to primary sources you wish to add. That's how it's supposed to work - not through disruptive edit warring. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the edit tries to address those concerns, then that should be recognized. And statements that are clearly verified and statement of fact should not just be deleted. newsjunkie (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidelines say "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." That's basically what this is it being the official company as the rights holder. newsjunkie (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the WP:ONUS is on you to make that case on the article's talk page. The current consensus view of the editors involved is that it does not improve the article. If you want to make the case, do so on the article's talk page. In the meantime, putting the article back to WP:STATUSQUO ante would be a good faith move on your part to show that you're willing to work within the current guidelines of collaborative editing. What you're doing now works against that objective by making more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did try to to make that case on the talk page, those were my final comments. But I don't think it's right for verified statements just to be deleted when they are not unsourced, if the issue is only the sources, not the statements themselves. newsjunkie (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just deleting it to me goes against the WP:Preserve policy of trying to fix issues: Wikipedia:Editing policy newsjunkie (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also my earlier revision before the most recent edit was also an attempt to address the concerns by rewriting without the word "evolved" and already should no longer have had any WPSynth concerns. newsjunkie (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we for the love of God get an admin here? Clear WP:OWNership behaviour: [95] [96] [97] wound theology◈

    Continued edit warring by Newsjunkie, possibly WP:NOTHERE

    [edit]

    I was hoping for some outside input on the above report, but there has been nothing from any uninvolved editors, let alone admins. Since then, however, there has been continued edit warring from Newsjunkie (talk · contribs) that basically indicates she has no intention of abiding by the outcome of any discussions. I asked her to leave the article at WP:STATUSQUO based on the objections of two editors and make the case for her edits via discussion,[98] which she absolutely refuses to do.[99][100][101] At this point, it is evident that she is simply going to force in her edits, consensus be damned. Her continued gaming behaviors on 3RR rules and lack of willingness to work in a collaborative environment exhibit WP:NOTHERE behaviors. Can someone please take a look at this? ButlerBlog (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I made a new comment on the talk page asking again for concrete, substantive feedback about what is actually problematic about the current version that I submitted and how it goes against any policies and merits complete removal rather than editing/adjusting. newsjunkie (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to hear any substantive feedback on the current edit here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Potter#c-Newsjunkie-20250408192800-Discussing_rewritten/deleted_content But currently verified content is being removed without any feedback, as well as content that includes quoted, attributed secondary sources with no primary source involvement at all newsjunkie (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is necessary, but not sufficient, for article content to be reliably sourced. It also needs to have consensus to be included. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but I have seen or heard no arguments about the content. The initial issue and the initial removal was about overcitation/synth which I have tried to address. The current version is not the same version as was removed at the start as I have tried to address any Synth issues by clearly having statements of fact and separate quoted/attributed statements with secondary sources providing analysis that also supports the statements in question. Part of the initial concern hinged on the use of the word "evolved" which is no longer there. I broke it up into separate statements, two that are statements of fact with no analysis whatsoever, an attributed, quoted statement of analysis from a reliable secondary source, and a third statement of fact supported by a secondary source. I am open to any feedback on how the current version still raises those concerns. Two lines that keep getting deleted have no primary sources at all. The two others have both primary and secondary sources that support them as statements of fact. Currently a revised version that is reliably sourced is being deleted with no substantive arguments about how it does or does not address any of the concerns initially raised. newsjunkie (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen or heard no arguments about the content the initial removal. The fact it was removed establishes that there is, in fact, an argument about the content. The fact you have opened a talk page discussion about this is good, but you seem to have a combative stance regarding this, which isn't good. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial reasoning for the content removal in question was WPSynth due to the use of the term "evolved" and overcitation, but not questioning the statements themselves. I rewrote and explicitly broke up the sentence to especially to address the Synth concern, to have statements of fact and added separate sentences attributed to secondary sources only, but all of it was being removed without any feedback as to what extent the rewritten content did or did not address the original concerns. newsjunkie (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial reasoning for the content removal was overcitation, plain and simple. SYNTH concerns were only brought up because preserving a synthetic statement was how you had defended the use of 10+ citations on a single line. You really didn't try to address any of the initial concern, you just moved citations to the inside of the sentence. Also, your habit of leaving multiple replies and thus splitting the thread into multiple branches makes everything hard to follow. wound theology◈ 06:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I focused on the synthetic concern because that was cited for the most content removal. I removed the word "evolved" and split it up into two statements of fact without any analysis supported by primary and secondary sources and a completely separate attributed sentence from Variety with a direct quote for analysis. (And one additional example from Germany supported by a secondary source.)
    The statements about 2024 at the end of that paragraph that also include primary sources now refer to "organizers" without clarifying anywhere who they are. Also the first line now how has six references, several of which don't really belong to that statement that is about the years it was only a social media event. They refer to the coordinated, in-person events that started by Warner Brothers that began in 2017, the official "epilogue year" per the author. Fans and the actors didn't just show up randomly to those events, which is the impression given by many of the secondary sources or not really explained, they were going to the events as previously announced, promoted and coordinated by Warner Brothers. Having at least one to three of the primary sources for the first year, maybe the 2020 virtual only year and 2023 which is same year as the Variety source would help make that clear by illustrating that the official website was announcing these events, together with the secondary sources for those years, the actors' appearances and maybe one secondary summary of the announcements one year. If some combination of primary and secondary sources can be used to explain what happened in 2024, some combination of primary and secondary sources should be also be able to state what happened before leading up to that, when the coordinated events started in 2017, and clarifying who the "organizers" in question are. newsjunkie (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all totally besides the point and heavily implies you don't actually understand what the issue was in the first place. The overcitation issue was first and foremost, and anything else is just an example of undue detail. wound theology◈ 09:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newsjunkie Please keep your responses concise and on topic. ANI discussion is about user behavior, not content disputes. Keep the content dispute to the article's talk page. We're at this noticeboard because of your edit warring and other issues. The ongoing edit warring even after the original report shows a complete disregard for community standards. The willful and overt gaming of 3RR[102] is a serious problem, as indicated by the page now being under full protection. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that references were removed due to the overcitation concerns as in the very initial first edit, but after that I think more content was removed than necessary going beyond the substance of the discussion, including sentences that had no primary sources at all and otherwise verified statements that were also supported by secondary sources. I think there would have been a way to remove just the citations at issue or to continue discussion on them rather than deleting all the sentences. newsjunkie (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit warring has been put to an end by indefinite WP:FULL, so this can probably close. I still see a disconnect from Newsjunkie on what the actual issues are, but time will tell whether that sinks in or not. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep in mind, she has previously 3RRed on List of programs broadcast by CBS, adding unnecessary content that messes up the appearance of the article. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have regularly offered to discuss and encouraged others to do so on the article talk page. newsjunkie (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And please continue to do so, but don't touch the article itself unless and until you get consensus for your actions. Sometimes consensus goes the "wrong" way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also one instance overlapped with trying to revert pure spam edits that were being made by a different editor at the same time. newsjunkie (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the users was not spamming. All they were doing was removing your mess. Okay, let me be clear. In the article, she added (reported in [Month, Year]). Numerous people (including me), agree that this is unnecessary since we have references (with the info included), plus she added unnecessary information to the article (show on the bubble links, renewal information on a bulleted list, and overciting that article). NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just saying it was happening at the same time. This should all be discussed on the talk page which it hasn't been so far or only partially, including the initial discussion about reformatting the page with renewal information like some other pages. newsjunkie (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand if it happened at the same time. But the edit history showed she was reverting to what she believes is her own page. Numerous people have already disagreed with her. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There were a lot of edits happening and I was just trying to get it to what had been the stable version up to then. The substance should all be discussed on the talk page. newsjunkie (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what we did, but yet she continued to revert the pages to her own version. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to the talk page discussion, I suggested the renewal information should stay in place pending a redesign of the page, nobody objected on the talk page and you offered to initiate the redesign, and there has been no further discussion so far. newsjunkie (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I am in the process of redesigning it to the table format still, but when it's done, it won't contain the unnecessary citations (only the Renewal/Cancellation citations will remain), and the (Reported in [Month, Year]) will be taken off, as that is extra unnecessary information that is already in the references. I'm talking about the Harry Potter talk page, where she continued her own actions, even with a discussion and consensus. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether to include any additional information at that point can be a separate discussion on the talk page at that time. In this exchange I was only referring to edits/discussion related to the CBS page, where there has been no further discussion yet. newsjunkie (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or of course there can also be discussion of it on the talk page now as a follow up to the existing discussions or a separate discussion. newsjunkie (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter. She can't be edit warring or reverting when multiple people (even on the talk pages) disagree with her. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There hasn't been any discussion on that specific topic on the talk page with anyone disagreeing or agreeing. newsjunkie (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the tenth million time, she continued to revert edits even after reaching a consensus in the Harry Potter article/talk page. The people mentioned above reached a conclusion that the article should not have her changes. But of course, she dismissed it and continued to edit war to her own version. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Harry Potter page is currently locked and discussion is ongoing. Your concerns were about the CBS page where there has been no further discussion so far. Most recently on the CBS page I made a comment about a citation on the talk page several days ago which I purposefully did not add back in and you just responded to it today. newsjunkie (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, what she is doing to CBS doesn’t help the article and messes it up. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Title warrior and WP:OWN

    [edit]
    Blocked from article space for a month. Abecedare (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Realjohnpaul (talk · contribs) repeatedly edit warring on titles and short descriptions of South Korean officeholders past multiple warnings on talk and worse, making WP:OWN edit summaries that led to me filing an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AaronFresco for similar behavior. Posting here because no action continues to be taken there and they have continued to double down since report was filed.

    For WP:OWN see [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For edit-warring, see [108], [109] [110] [111] [112]. Borgenland (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe a topic or temporary block would be appropriate. This has been going on for weeks now and it's just draining to deal with. They refuse to use proper edit summaries, they keep begging others to not revert instead of listening to feedback, and a degree of WP:CIR going on with numerous typos and grammar errors in most edits. Not helping, almost all edits have been pointless or harmful. seefooddiet (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked from article-space for a month. See block notice for details. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Not sockpuppetry (posted by the blocked account) but a distinct whiff of WP:ROLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

    [edit]
    Editor has been warned that repeated incidents of personal attack may result in a block. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Satyabrat Shanu has been edit warring on Hindu rate of growth, and misrepresenting the sources because he believes that "Hindu rate of growth was a mis coined termed targeted on a special community".[114] No evidence exists for this false claim.

    Upon getting his edits reverted by me, he is telling me that I am engaging in "Fraud, Vandalism, Religious hate",[115] and that I "need a psychiatrist".[116] Capitals00 (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Satyabrat Shanu, this is a collaborative project where we must work together alongside people we disagree with. Assume good faith is an important behavioral guideline. Saying that another editor needs to be treated by a psychiatrist is an unacceptable personal attack and a violation of policy. Consider this a warning: Any further personal attacks may result in you being blocked. Do you understand? Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That should probably go on Satyabrat Shanu's talk page, not here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have copied over the warning to the editor's talk page. Both places is fine. Cullen328 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    PA on User talk:ShirtMonopoly

    [edit]
    WARNED
    Personal attack. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I believe this is absolutely unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmies, agreed. I said the same thing two sections above at WP:ANI#Personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do people have against psychiatrists and their patients? Both of these were definitely intended as personal attacks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given them a One And Only Warning regarding it. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vanderwaalforces - Threats, dismissals of Wikipedia policies, false claims of neutral identity, and a pattern of intentionally misleading use of sources to promote ethnic exceptionalism

    [edit]

    On the 21st of march, @Vanderwaalforces added the [117] POVtag to two pages, the Oduduwa[118], and Oranmiyan[119] pages, two highly deified figures in Yoruba history. Around two hours passed the time of his first tag, and he did not open up any discussion to talk about why he tagged the pages, so following WP:driveby, I removed the tags with my reason clearly stated[120]. After reminding him about the guidelines, he pinged me on the Oranmiyan talk page typing “Please don’t piss me off”[121]. I couldn't tell what angered him, or what action he would take if he were to be “pissed off”, but I didn't take this threat seriously because he finally explained his reason for the tag. In his opinion the content on the pages were “Yoruba POV thrash”,[122] and he wanted to push a fringe theory about the figures that is widely dismissed by the academic community for its inauthentic ethnically motivated revisionism (to basically make these Yoruba deities ethnically edo).[123] He further stated in his words that "it is not Wikipedia’s job to prefer to use some “consensus” sources of historians which I do not know how to even comprehend".[124] This came as a surprise to me because I was under the impression that he was a seasoned editor, yet by his statement, he basically admits that the articles he’d written on these topics until that point did not much account for the Wikipedia:Verifiability of the sources used. After I reminded him severally that his plans were in conflict with the policies,[125] he no longer replied to the discussion and left off the pages.

    Cue April 3rd. Seeing that 3 sock accounts meddling in similar topics had been blocked on April 1st[126], I went through their edits and restored them to the pre-sock versions.[127] I noticed one of the pages I restored, List of the Ogiso, was using a self published source for content verification regarding an unacademic backdated kings list. I went through the talk pages of the related articles and saw that there was already a consensus agreeing to use sources for the academically supported date range of the 10th-12th centuries, between @Kowal2701 @Oramfe and @History Of Yoruba and @Vanderwaalforces [128], so I went through the topic history to see when the non academic backdated list was added, and I saw that @Kowal2701 had added it some days after the consensus, but he was unsure of whether it belonged there or not.[129] Noticing its breach of WP:SPS, I removed the self published source and it’s contents, making sure to explain the reason.[130] The next thing I knew, I received my second and what seems to me a rather sinister threat from Vanderwaalforces. “do not start what you cannot finish” he said.[131] He proceeded to revert my edit without any other reason given, and later changed the source from one self published book, to the original self published book that contained the non academic backdated list.[132](Extra confirmation that it is indeed self published) It's then I suspected that his dismissal of guidelines was intentional, and his likely aim was to push non-academic POVs of these topics on Wikipedia.

    In the earlier articles that he gave a POV tag, he tried to pose as a neutral editor with no relation to Yoruba and Edo/Bini people,[133] but going through his talk page history(that gets deleted every month by a bot), his deceit is revealed in this conversation he had with @Oramfe, where expresses knowledge unique to binis of a local river. [134]. To me there isn't an issue if a person with Edo affiliation deals with a lot of Edo related topics. It is very suspect though, for him to claim neutrality when he is not, in order to speak from a place of authority just to better push his jingoistic desires on those topics.

    I went through articles he has been mostly responsible for making, to doublecheck, and sure enough, there were numerous Benin kingdom and Ogiso related articles making exceptional claims[135] that either weren't supported by multiple high-quality sources(as required), any source at all, and sometimes just almost entirely made up of self published sources(some with the author owning the publisher). These are topics I would have liked to address individually on those talk pages, but after noticing, to my shock, that a few were rated "good articles", I figured I should take his threats from earlier seriously and create this ANI.

    This isn't a content dispute, but for the accusations I have made it is necessary that I give an example and a break down of how he got away with false and exceptional claims in this[136] specific "good article". He exploits that the lead of an article doesn't have to contain a source for a claim, so long as the claim is later sourced in the main body(as per WP:LEADCITE). So what he will do is that he will make exceptional claims in the lead, but when it's time to provide a source in the main body, he will change the claim to better match what the source says. As a result, the claim in the body is accounted for(sometimes it's actually not), but the exceptional claim in the lead remains "protected" from dispute by citing WP:LEADCITE to people who aren't intimately familiar with the topic. Here is a breakdown of a small section of this article.

    This is what he says in the lead

    Ehengbuda expanded the empire's territory westward and eastward, solidifying control over tributary states like the Oyo, Ekiti and Nupe.

    To any normal reader, what this means is that Benin kingdom subjugated the Oyo empire, Ekiti and Nupe people, and forced them to pay tribute to Benin kingdom.

    This is what he says in the body

    During his reign, Oba Ehengbuda embarked on a series of military campaigns with the aim of expanding the Benin Empire's territory and influence. One of his most notable victories was defeating a mounted army sent by either the Oyo Empire or the Nupe people. This victory established the Benin-Oyo boundary at Otun in the Ekiti country.[s1][s2] He also secured tribute from several Yoruba rulers.[s3]

    From the lead to the body, Oyo and Nupe has changed to Oyo or Nupe, and there are no more claims of them being tributary to Benin. Instead, "several" Yoruba rulers paid tribute.

    This is what the sources cited ACTUALLY say

    ( [s1] - Robert Sydney Smith p. 40-41) (It literally says nothing about Oyo and the Nupe fighting Benin nor either of them being tributary to Benin)

    ( [s2] - Egharevba p. 31) - "He led the Bini troops against the Oyos and after many battles a treaty of peace was made which set the Benin and Oyo boundary at Otun in the Ekiti country."

    ( [s3] - Egharevba p. 32) - "A young prince named Osogboye, heir to the stool of Owo, was sent to Benin City by the Owos to be trained and brought up by the Oba.[...] A year later Osogboye was made Owa of Owo[...] Osogboye was cautioned to continue his tribute to the Oba"

    The sources say nothing about a Benin "victory" unlike what is stated in the article, it even implies that Benin was the initiator and had to settle for a truce of peace instead. Again, nothing is said about Oyo or Nupes paying tribute to Benin. The claim in the body of several yoruba rulers paying tribute is in the source only stated as the ruler of Owo kingdom.

    Aside from the fact that just 1 non-neutral source is used to justify these claims (instead of multiple high quality sources as required for exceptional claims) This is just one example out of plenty of misleading ways that Vanderwaalforces bends around Wikipedia policies to push an extremely inflated perception of the Benin/Edo locality. I can continue, but I suspect to this is already very long for an ANI.

    By his statement in this edit on his "Good Article"[137] saying

    I don't know how you think that an artice that passed GA review used unreliable sources

    I believe Vanderwaalforcers uses his 'active wikipedia presence' to intimidate editors from correcting articles that he himself knows he is being deceitful about, I have noticed this a lot in Benin kingdom related articles, but I do not know if it extends further. In all, it is troubling that he uses threats and a false image of neutrality, to dismiss policies for what I believe is his goal of promoting Edo exceptionalism. Sohvyan (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Evaluating the POV and source representation issues will require further reading, but at minimum, this driveby tagging followed by hostility like "please don't piss me off" (as the beginning of a discussion) and "do not start what you cannot finish" is completely unacceptable, and calling articles "Yoruba POV trash" without strong resoning is also out of line.
    If this discrepancy between source and content is as you say, that's also very serious. I haven't read it yet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare:
    (1) Ehengbuda expanded the empire's territory westward and eastward, solidifying control over tributary states like the Oyo, Ekiti and Nupe. (quoted above), and
    (2) Clotharperic was known for his military conquests, having expanded his kingdom's borders through successful campaigns against neighboring peoples. (thanks to mathglot for programming ChatGPT to write that made-up garbage).
    Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had so completely forgotten about that comment of mine at WP:AN Archive 1125 (and also missed the wikilink in your message) that I was wracking my brain for what this was about, thinking you were perhaps accusing me of using LLM in Wikipedia, something which is anathema to me; but had I forgotten something? I had to read the archived message to recall that it was an LLM experiment I ran, where I was outing Chat GPT as not only an inventor of fake citations, but also, as in this case, the use of real citations to cite the military exploits of a Frankish king that I had made up out of whole cloth. Thanks for the memory! Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was such a good bad example that I bookmarked it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At List of the Ogiso one of the sources you removed was published by the University of Hamburg, but the Peavy one was self-published. Something being against academic consensus isn’t reason to remove it, the list was there per WP:NPOV, we could’ve found a better source for the list itself. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The source from the university of hamburg was not in support of the self published list, it only mentions that it exists. It provided a different hypothesis for Ogiso altogether starting from a much later date, which was not a list, and therefore irrelevant to the artcle. And you did not say the self published list was there per WP:NPOV when you posted it, which wouldn't make sense anyway because there is nothing non neutral about the academic dates. There is no "better source for the list" when the original is from a self published source. Sohvyan (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV just states that POVs present in RSs should be represented proportional to how much they appear in sources, the POVs themselves don’t have to be neutral. Can’t comment on the original source as I couldn’t find it. Potentially you could argue on WP:FRINGE, but Ekeh uses the 40 BCE start date as well (so does Digital Benin), imo it creeps in as a minority viewpoint. Would’ve put stronger criticism if I could find some Kowal2701 (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV requires reliable sources, the fact that the author did not describe how the 40BCE dates were arrived at in his self published book will always make it unreliable, but regardless, this is a technical discussion for a talk page. This ANI is about the behaviour of Vanderwaalforces I posted above. Sohvyan (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • For ANI, this is a very long and complicated complaint for editors who frequent this noticeboard to digest. I note that Vanderwaalforces hasn't edited for 10 hours and hasn't had a chance to respond to these accusations. I encouraged them to do so when they logged back on the project. But honestly, Sohvyan, these are complex claims for editors to evaluate. The personal attacks, on the other hand, are easy to condemn as inappropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you Liz, the complexity is the main reason I felt it necessary to include a breakdown example in this ANI. I hope it gives a bit of clarity to my concerns. Sohvyan (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Sohvyan.
    Let me first say that I am not surprised you brought this up, but I am rather surprised that you were able to put forth these serious accusations. Before I will talk about my "don't piss me off" and "Yoruba POV thrash" (I will talk about that towards the end of this reply), let me first address "do not start what you cannot finish" and what I literally meant (sometimes I wish there was a way to put facial reactions to comments, but I guess that isn't possible); what I meant by that was that, if you were not ready to finish improving the page, then do not start it, especially in a controversial situation like this, as opposed to what you think is a "sinister threat".
    Let me briefly go into your accusations. It isn't deceptive to have my talk page being archived by a bot. You said that his deceit is revealed in this conversation he had with @Oramfe.... After looking at my conversation with Oramfe again, I could not see how this particular discussion logically aligns with your points, but I will not judge right away. You also went further to say ...for him to claim neutrality when he is not, in order to speak from a place of authority just to better push his jingoistic desires on those topics. I do not know how you came about that but I would not dwell much on that especially since I also mentioned that none of these people are my relatives neither am I from any of these ethnic groups, to be clear, I am not a Yoruba or Edo indigenous person.
    The fifth paragraph of your thread is a typical example of WP:BADFAITH; I do not know how you came up with those conclusions, but it is laughable and all I perceive is that you are trying to make a point and so you tried bringing up as much details as you could. The comments you made in this paragraph were not specific to the example you gave; you are literally claiming that all my contributions have been exactly of this pattern, which is both not true and a serious bad faith accusation. Looking at the history of the Ehengbuda article, it indicates that since August 2024 there have been several editors who have edited this exact portions you have just brought up as an example of my saying something in the lead of the articles I create, say something else in the body of the article and defend myself with WP:LEADCITE which you indicated that it is a pattern in all my contributions. This is History Of Yoruba's first edit to this page removing these same claims you are talking about, History Of Yoruba went further to add unsourced statements Upon the death of the Owa of Owo, Osogboye departed Benin for Owo, without the Oba's permission after witnessing the hardship of some other tribes that came to Benin for education was going through. The enraged Oba dispatched messengers to retrieve him, but Osogboye declined, and this caused a war between Benin and Owo, which Owo was victorious. This event marked the end of Benin and Owo special relationship, as both has influenced eachother culturally throughout history, the user continued editing but I reverted them. Then came another Wiisstlo user who made just the same edits.
    So, with your usage of this same thing as an example here raises my eyebrows but I usually err on the side of assumption of good faith in situations like this.
    You also seem to have the habit of thinking everyone editing a specific area is biased on way or the other, here is a thread initiated by Watercheetah99 in October 2024. There's also this thread by Watercheetah99 few days later about you.
    If there are issues with an article, what is expected is a thread at the talk page of the article (the same way myself and other productive editors have been interacting and resolving content disputes for a while now), and not a complaint at ANI which is in itself an inappropriate place for such. I do not think I will directly comment on the issues about the Ehengbuda article, there's a talk page and I think that venue should be utilised.
    You claimed that This is just one example out of plenty of misleading ways that Vanderwaalforces bends around Wikipedia policies to push an extremely inflated perception of the Benin/Edo locality how sure are you about that, have you really gone through my contributions and come with this conclusion? I am going to stop here regarding this and quickly say that, the fact that you were reverting or removing sourced claims is what doesn't make sense. FWIW, I see that since then you have been trying to add sources one way or the other when making edits and that is good.
    For my Yoruba POV comment, I said that for reasons I explained here. And I still think that whatever the case may be, views from all perspectives should be reflected on Wikipedia and that Wikipedia should not be in position to determine which perspective is popular or not, especially in this context, and all in the spirit of WP:NPOV.
    Let it be noted here that majority of your comments (they were not assumptions, you were expressing them with certainty) are utter misrepresentation of what the situation really is, and that they are serious failures of WP:GOODFAITH and the spirit of collaboration. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your defence for the threats and the clear cited examples of policy abuse, is simply denial and that other users also disagree with your articles, then there's not much I can add. You don't get to say I need to be WP:GOODFAITH about anything when you're obviously threatening me.
    Who is supposed to buy your notion that "do not start what you cannot finish" refers to completing an article, when the article is as complete as can be? Or is there a hidden Ogiso list you want to present to us? This is a terribly disingenuous defence, but I expected anything after those threats over my basic compliance with the wiki policy. Sohvyan (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd note that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where all articles can be said to be in varying states of development. Provided an editor isn't leaving an article in a worse state than they begun, editors are explicitly allowed to start to improve an article without "finish"ing these improvements, whatever you mean by that.

    Also while nationalistic and ethnic biased editing is a problem, there are ways to raise concerns that edits or an editor might be excessively biased without needing to say "Yoruba POV trash".

    Also as WP:NPOV says, NPOV explicitly does not mean we just present all perspectives. In fact it requires that we "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view". If one "perspective" is rejected or ignored in most quality RS and only present in one or a few RS, we do not present it equally with the "perspective" that is taken by most RS. If some "view" or "perspective" is extremely rare in RS, sometimes it might not be necessary to mention it at all. You can think what you want, but you're required to obey our policies and guidelines until and unless you get them changed.

    It is important to consider issues like whether the RS is biased towards certain perspectives e.g. if it's largely written from the PoV of one ethic group. Ideally we should focus on the more neutral, academic RS which don't exhibit such bias and instead are based as far as possible on the available evidence. If such sources are limited or can't be found, it gets complicated and we have to be very careful we're not just giving undue prominence to one PoV because there are more writers approaching something with that specific bias. However this doesn't mean we completely the NPOV requirement we don't just present all views equally when they're not treated equally in RS.

    Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sohvyan files a conduct-based ANI report based around a prolonged dispute based on identity, I'm mentioned so I bring examples of Sohvyan acting in concert with editors that have been blocked for being biased based on identity. You could disagree with the level of relevance or claim that the editors aren't closely linked, but saying that this has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever is a stretch. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To those reading: WC99 left this comment after I hatted the below section ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant, vague aspersions by Watercheetah99 (hatted by Zanahary)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    While I am not closely familiar with this case, I think it is important to note that a significant portion of Sohvyan's edits (intentional or not) have been similar or identical to the edits of several accounts that have been blocked for ethnic bias — History Of Yoruba (talk · contribs), Wiisstlo (talk · contribs), Researcherofgreatness (talk · contribs), Oscareng (talk · contribs), etc. This does not mean that all of Sohvyan's edits are ethnically-biased POV edits, but the fact that their edits are so linked to POV violators should be taken into account. That Sohvyan is still active might be a sign that most of their edits are fair or a sign that Sohvyan simply has enough sense to cloak their jingoistic edits enough to avoid being blocked over it & avoids other violations. Additionally, this group of editors have displayed a similar pattern in their conversations with other users, referencing their perception of other users' ethnicity as evidence that the other users are biased against other groups regardless of if the user is actually from the percieved group or if the user's edit history shows support for a neutral POV on pages that would contradict the agenda of an ethnically-biased editor; my guess is that they aren't being purposely misleading, just that there may be an element of projection present, with these users editing in an ethnically-biased manner and thus expecting others to do the same. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh so vanderwaalforces tagged you on your page and you are chimimg in on a case you know nothing about, amazing. My post has 21 linked cases concerning Vanderwaalforces' behaviour and a thorough breakdown of his policy violations, yet the best you two can do is trying to "group" me with editors who are blocked because you have no arguement, that's offensively cheap. If you can't even outrightly say my edits are baseless or break the guidelines, or even read this thread at all, Its a wonder that you find the temerity to pass any kind of judgement here. Sohvyan (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    a significant portion of Sohvyan's edits (intentional or not) have been similar or identical to the edits of several accounts that have been blocked for ethnic bias
    This needs diffs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I myself want to see these diffs. They should not just be allowed to throw around accusations they cannot back up, especially when they aren't even addressing this ANI. Sohvyan (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, either make an SPI case or don’t bring it up Kowal2701 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even a clear accusation of sockpuppetry. their edits are so linked to POV violators has no clear meaning. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually remember what this is about now, he has accused me before of being a sockpuppet of researchofgreatness because on the South west talk page, we got into an argument about the Major languages spoken in south west nigeria. He could not find any sources to back up his claim that other languages other than English and Yoruba were major languages in the region, so he tried to change the topic from "major languages" to just "languages", so that he could fill the infobox with more than just English and Yoruba. I pointed out the problem with this,[138] (there are hundreds languages in nigeria, should they all be accounted for?). Now he's coincidentally back after vanderwaalforces pinged him, and he is now gone back to removing the only relevant source that speaks directly on the linguistics of the south west, claiming to be fixing blanking.
    When they can't win an argument on merit, they just result to accusations. Sohvyan (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not making a "accusation of sockpuppetry" — I said that editors should note with accusations of bias, that one of the users has made many edits in agreement with editors that have later been blocked for ethnic bias . The level of relevance of that depends on one's interpretation but it is certainly relevant. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreeing with blocked editors is really not relevant—and again, please show diffs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agbada (Sohvyan, History Of Yoruba); Lagos State (Sohvyan, EmeritusGuru); South West (Nigeria) (Sohvyan, EmeritusGuru, Researcherofgreatness); Oduduwa (Sohvyan, History Of Yoruba). This isn't here to debate the merits of each argument but Sohvyan very clearly has made edits and statements that match with known ethnically-biased users; doesn't mean they are always ethnically-biased but it should be taken into account. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were actually paying attention to this ANI you would know exactly why I removed Vanderwaalforces POV tag, its literally what I opened this ANI with, that's hilarious. The only one I'd give you is the agbada discussion from 6 months ago, and even its two sided POV disagreements. Sohvyan (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that that is a point of contention here, I'm noting that it's another place where you acted alongside POV violators. Say whatever you want. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A very underrated essay people might find helpful is WP:WFE Kowal2701 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you see no issue with his drive by tag that I was addressing and are only here about me? Sohvyan (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is such a nothing charge. So Sohvyan has made content edits in apparent alignment with banned editors. There is nothing to "take into account" here if you don't contend that Sohvyan has edited problematically. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then don't "take it into account," I think it is relevant when there is debate over the bias of a user. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not even engaging in what was raised in this topic. Sohvyan (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no debate over Sohvyan here. Sohvyan filed a conduct-based ANI report and you have just come in to gesture vaguely at Sohvyan's editing without identifying any problem with it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now examined the Oba Ehengbuda example and Sohvyan's analysis is correct: this text on Wikipedia completely misrepresents the sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zanahary Of course, I noticed that yesterday when they raised the concern here (instead of the talk page of the article, the appropriate venue), but there’s only one thing that must have happened, I probably mixed up the sources I used in creating that article or nothing else. I have no business with Oba Ehengbuda or his achievements as an Oba, or the Bini or Yoruba people. My point remains that, if you believe a single misrepresentation of a source is enough to think or believe an editor is pushing a POV, especially when it was never discussed constructively before, then I’m not sorry to be disappointed in your judgement here. I was expecting more samples as they claimed they could bring in more evidence of me pushing Bini POV, I am yet to see any. I am generally uninterested in arguments especially when they’re not being presented correctly.
    To the filer, you are yet to mention exactly what you want to be done (to me, perhaps?). I am generally open to feedback and by all means constructive criticism, if no one is ready to employ those, theres nothing we can achieve collaboratively. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just corroborating the filer's claim that you misrepresented sources. From my reading, this is your first time acknowledging a problem with this article, when before you said I don't know how to think that an artice that passed GA review used unreliable sources. How did you "mix up the sources" such that you ended up with During his reign, Oba Ehengbuda embarked on a series of military campaigns with the aim of expanding the Benin Empire's territory and influence. One of his most notable victories was defeating a mounted army sent by either the Oyo Empire or the Nupe people. This victory established the Benin-Oyo boundary at Otun in the Ekiti country. He also secured tribute from several Yoruba rulers.? Which sources led you there? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read above correctly, you will notice where I mentioned constructively, the edits the users made in an attempt to correct what I now realise is a mistake wasn’t constructive. Anyone in that situation would most likely revert that edit, it isn’t my pattern, it is something anyone else would have done. Again, if that concern was raised constructively at the talk page of the article, then maybe we would not be spending over 30 hours here by now. This is probably the first time I am acknowledging the problem, but I do not think I have defended it either, neither has it been constructively raised before. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We wouldn’t be here for over 30 hours? What a ridiculous thing to say. We would not be here if you did not make any threats to begin with.
    With as many Benin related articles you’ve written, there simply no world in which you “accidentally” claim that the Benin kingdom established control over the Oyo empire and the Nupes for tributes. For the fact that you did not claim the same thing in the body of the article, where you would be forced to give a source, it shows it was an absolutely intentionally misleading lead.
    You have yet to address the comment, “don’t piss me off” just for reminding you about tagging guidelines, neither did you address why you didn’t follow the guidelines.
    The justification you are giving for calling these articles “Yoruba POV trash” makes zero sense, you link it to an ANI[139] you made complaining about specific users. This would only follow if those users were major contributors to the creation of those articles you called trash, of which they are clearly not. So why did you really call them Yoruba POV trash? And how would that be ok even if they were poorly written?
    Futhermore, even within that ANI you used as your excuse, at the time of its creation, you should have been well aware that 50% of your claims against those users for “Yoruba POV pushing” we actually legitimate concerns. The glass beads claim that you use as examples of “defaming the kingdom of Benin” were actually incorrectly attributed to benin, the source attributed those beads to Ife. This was corrected long before you made that ANI.[140]
    That Ehengbuda article was wrong, as we now see, which I still believe you knew for reasons I explained above. That 40BC ogiso list was from an unreliable source, which from your time editing, you should know. I can’t defend how they addressed those issues, but that would not be an excuse to call any article Yoruba POV trash.
    Aside from the fact that attempting to stop someone from adding to an article is wrong. What else were you planning to add to the article about the list of Ogisos that you had to say “do not start what you cannot finish”? I believe I need to know. I believe it is a threat, but you should be able to provide an answer if you claim it wasn't.
    That you see this ANI as a waste of your 30 hours shows just how much you disregard Wikipedia policy. Sohvyan (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you still think it is an "absolutely intentionally misleading lead", then that is your business. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. You are trying by all means to scream your grievances, whatever concerns you have raised, I have either told you were to open a discussion up, addressed some directly or have admitted that there must have been an error on my side, but I do not think I have anything else to add to this thread. Happy editing. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Caste-cruft NOTHERE

    [edit]
    INDEF
    Sock- or meat-puppet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ISHWARSENA (talk · contribs) disruptively pushing their caste-cruft POVs related to Abhiras by casually replacing the pipe link [141] which is a classic link vandalism, adding unsourced caste promos [142][143][144][145] in order to portray certain dynasties and its monarchs emerging from Abhira cast.The user has been disruptive all along by removing images without giving any explanation [146], thankfully reverted [147]. Citing [148] an archaic work by Alexander Cunningham for casting push, this is a clearly a WP:RAJ violation. Not to mention the draft they were working on ie. Draft:Abhiras is full of copyvio mess. The user has displayed enough ignorance and disruptive behaviour that it can concluded--they are WP:NOTHERE.Shakakarta (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    POV-pushing edits to Australian political articles, disregard of warnings on this and other subjects

    [edit]

    Wistherdisc has made repeated POV-pushing edits on Australian political articles, including Liberal Party of Australia, Australian Labor Party and Peter Dutton, disregarding process and garnering a slew of warnings on their talk page, as well as continuing on their course despite warnings on other matters including (not) citing reliable sources and causing formatting errors. They are not a good-faith contributor and ought to be blocked. Will Thorpe (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Willthorpe, nothing will happen here if you don't present evidence/diffs to back up your accusations. We don't block editors just based on your request to do so. You have to present a case that indicates why this is necessary. And you also need to notify the editor on their User talk page that you posted this complaint about them. Please do so if you haven't already. Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Willthorpe, the vast majority of my edits have cited ‘reliable’ sources. I acknowledge that I accidentally didn’t follow important protocol in a couple of those articles, and will carefully note down the edit protocols. The formatting errors are purely accidental. In no way was I attempting to push a POV view, and I believe in full neutrality and transparency. Wistherdisc (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of POV pushing: [149][150][151][152][153] GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, how is this POV pushing? In all those edits, I have cited reliable sources. I think the issue might have been that I did not make those edits in the right place, but all the content in the edits are either factual information or obvious inferred conclusions, backed up by Australian media sources. None of this is fake, but I do acknowledge that my edits may have been repeated information or simply in the wrong section of the article. Wistherdisc (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But again, this is nowhere near POV pushing. Wistherdisc (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could certainly see these edits, in some cases, as being of questionable appropriateness for inclusion but I don't see any evidence of disruption. This looks like a content dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wistherdisc, Wikipedia editors are not permitted to state obvious inferred conclusions in articles. That is a violation of the core content policy No original research which disallows any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Please read that policy and follow it carefully in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, will have a read of it Wistherdisc (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223: [154] this is a clear example. Making the opening sentences related to a recent scandal. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you specifically targeting me? So many other users have also tried to re-insert the word ‘landlord’ in the opening sentence/para, and the information was also sourced. This is not POV pushing, this is 100% factual information. People have raised concerns about your attempts to delete the article with no clear rationale. Wistherdisc (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Information can be 100% factual and still be pushing a POV. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wistherdisc, it’s not enough for content to be sourced, what’s there still needs comply with WP:NPOV and be WP:DUE (recommend rereading both of those, an essay you might find helpful is WP:WFE). But I don’t think any of the above diffs are egregious enough to warrant any discussion of sanction. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, will have a read Wistherdisc (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Kowal2710. So to clarify: many of these edits look WP:UNDUE but there's no indication of edit warring, the editor seems willing to take on board suggestions to improve policy adherence, and we don't impose sanctions for putting up a couple of undue paragraphs. Simonm223 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Politician trying to get themselves added to article.

    [edit]
    Looks like this is resolved for now. If this escalates as it seems it might, WP:COIN is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Recently I have found myself reverting User:High Chief Editor's edits to 2026 California gubernational election. Their most recent edit has gone unreverted, and I don't quite feel confident enough to revert it just yet. This in of itself isn't as important, as the statement that the fellow (Kyle Langford) is running for governor, is sourced. What I am more concered about however is the following tweet made by the politician (link here) where they are trying to get themselves added to wikipedia. I am not quite certain about how to move forward with this, or if this particularly needs to be moved forward, but I think it is a good idea to discuss this, as I fear that even if we remove the mention (if it deemed to be not well sourced enough) that it will be readded considering the politician is specifically asking people to do so. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have moved the mention to its correct position in alphabetical order by surname, as seems to be used here. I think the mention in the source is enough for him to be mentioned in this article, but a separate article on him would need more in the way of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    alright sounds good Gaismagorm (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jabbarsingh89

    [edit]

    I think this account is gaming the system to get autoconfirmed, and their tenth edit will be something far worse than the first nine. Before I run off and indef block them, however, could I get a second opinion on this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything unconstructive about their editing, all the {{uncategorized}} tags are valid. I'd say assuming they are gaming the system just because they are adding tags doesn't warrant a precautionary block. — EF5 15:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It reminds me of Special:Contributions/Xylophonist Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be, but I still don't think it's worth a prec. block. I'd say let's wait till that tenth edit, and if it's immediate vandalism then a block is warranted. — EF5 15:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they’re trying to patrol new articles. Obviously an experienced Wikipedia editor in spite of having a new account, but i don’t see this as gaming. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen more obvious pgaming lately, but the templates being applied do not normally find themselves in the quiver of newbies. I'm glad you're checking in on it. I'm now watching the contribs in case you choose not to indef. This is an arguable case, but I believe your read is ultimately correct. BusterD (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be entirely fair, it could be a WP:CLEANSTART as opposed to a sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    More disruption at RfD

    [edit]
    IP BLOCKED 1 MONTH
    Incoherent disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user immediately resumed making disruptive nominations at RfD after the block from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182 § Disruption at RFD expired today. For example, they renominated Nana (entertainer, born 2001) with an incoherent rationale, even linking to their equally incoherent nomination of the redirect last month (closed as keep) as a "similar" case. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked one month. Probably should have blocked w/o TPA. They'll just be disruptive post-block as they have been in the past.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Chris-at-RCS

    [edit]
    Blocked as a sock adjacent to the COI raised. Star Mississippi 02:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Don't know if I should post this at COIN or here, so I just chose this.

    ChrisRCS has a very obvious COI for Rochester Community Schools (Michigan). They've been editing and disrupting the article for a few hours now (including copy and pasting text from the school's website which is now revdel'd). A lot of people have been reverting and warning them, but it doesn't look like they are aware of the notices on their talk page. They keep editing back the stuff that gets reverted. Perhaps a mainspace block would work?

    Revision history [155] Tarlby (t) (c) 19:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tarlby: Crap... have I done anything wrong? If I have I profusely apologize... wait, am I considered involved because I reverted a couple of his edits a few hours ago? Sorry if I sound dumb; I'm still caught in a brain-fog. elm (she/they) arf! 19:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Being alerted means you are related to the problem, not that you did anything wrong (and yes you did revert them). Tarlby (t) (c) 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarlby: Ah, okay; got it. I propose we hit him with an indef block. There's no sign of him stopping anytime soon... I mean, just look at his edit history. He keeps adding and erasing content in the name of "accuracy"; not to mention, well, everything else... elm (she/they) arf! 19:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked from that page for edit warring and coi, invited them to reply here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm 95% sure this account is a sockpuppet of User:Caring Friend MI - both accounts have exclusively edited Rochester Community Schools (Michigan); both have made large removals of content including, repeatedly, removing the "Controversy" section calling it "outdated" (CFMI: [156]; CaRCS: [157]). I'm leaning towards blocking as it  Looks like a duck to me. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on this.. Valorrr (lets chat) 21:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it to me too. Feel free to convert block if you wish. I had not bothered with the sockpuppet issue because I was hoping that, given the sequential nature of the use (only CFMI, then 5 day break, then only Chris), that there was potentially an innocent reason for this, such as lost password. But this does meet the criteria for improper sockpuppetry — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve indeffed as a confirmed Sockpuppet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte

    [edit]
    Troll/image vandal indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Chud-h4z keeps reverting an obvious troll edit at Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte. --Soman (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, but it would have helped this old, poor-eyesighted admin if you'd described what the "vandalism" actually was. On initial inspection the images looked the same to me. It was only looking at their first edit that I realized what was going on. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Golikom edit warring at Cisgender

    [edit]

    User:Golikom has been extensively edit warring on the page for cisgender.

    Early on, I deleted an unsourced sentence in the lede.[158] He restored it by saying that the criticism section occupies a significant amount of the article's body.[159] A talk page discussion was opened by myself in line with BRD to address his reasons for reversion, which he did not engage with. What I would characterize as a loose consensus was then achieved on the talk page against the sentence. Given these facts, several days later I removed it again. He restored it, saying the consensus to remove is not strong, showing that he'd looked at the thread, and agreed that there was a consensus, he'd just refused to engage with it.[160] He has since been reverted by two other editors and each time he re-reverts.[161][162]

    When I added a message to his talk page asking him to stop edit warring, he deleted it without comment, and then continued edit warring.[163]

    Requesting administrative action.

    EDIT: I looked through his talk page history after @LakesideMiners kindly pointed it out. He was warned for behavior I'd argue fell into BLP here,[164] and immediately deleted it without comment, and he was warned for edit warring on a BLP here,[165] and immediately deleted it without comment. Then later he was warned for disruptive editing on the page anti-gender movement, which he immediately deleted with the comment "RV disruptive editor".[166]. He was then given a formal warning for edit warring, which once again - can you guess?[167]. He was warned again for edit warring here, which he immediately deleted without comment.[168]. He was then warned for blanking article content. Deleted, no comment.[169]. He was THEN given a formal warning for aspersions in contentious topics, deleted without comment.[170] And that brings us to now. Given this, I am now seeking a CBAN and wondering if I should escalate to AE

    Snokalok (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)".[reply]

    I'm not heavily involved in this but I did tweak the wording of the content in question without paying much attention to the discussion. In my view, I changed it from annoyingly pretentious to merely blandly mediocre. I'd be quite happy to see it removed, even with my mediocre improvement. If kept at all, it should go somewhere in the body as an introduction to further explanation, not kept as a glib and uninformative stand-alone statement in the introduction. But that's not what we are here for. We're here about the edit warring and, yeah, that's definitely not great. It's not breaking the 3RR as this has gone on for longer than 24 hours but Golikom inserted it four times and it has been removed by three different people a total of four times. (Not counting my tweak.) That's either slow edit warring or damn close to it. I'm not sure that it merits more than a warning at this stage but any continuation after that would be a more serious matter. DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    looking through Golikom's talk page history I notice that lack of engaging seems to be a pattern. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my edit above Snokalok (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just thought I'd mention that most of the notices on the User talk page were from January and February of this year and the editor was archiving their User talk page at User talk:Golikom/Archive 1 but they blanked that page in February. But that's a little different than just deleting all of their talk page messages. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Entirely fair, but I'd also ask that you consider that it shows that the edit warring and immediate disregard of requests to stop or discuss is part of a consistent, longstanding trend Snokalok (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not really helpful to cheerry pick bits of my talkpage history. You first example isn't a warning and was infact a drive by from someone trying to change an age in a BLP without a source. Tataral and I got into a couple of editwarring disputes - and generally I was discussing on page talk when they were doing nothing but warring and tossing out warnings - we both got a formal warning. Deletion from my talkpage counts as acknowledgement of a message - there's no requirement to respond and split a discussion - where necxessary i discussed at the talk page for the matter at hand where it's actually useful and others can see and contribute. It's not disregarding and there's no require,ment to discuss on my talk if there's discussion elsewhere. Admittedly i should have done better on this one. Golikom (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not breached 3rr. I think the talk page consensus is weak, but given that i've been reverted by multiple editor I'm not going to pursue it any further. Golikom (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all good. But just to be clear, the 3RR rule is not the definition of edit warring: it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough Golikom (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubling edits from user, engaging in disruptive editing and addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content.

    [edit]
    I've blocked HomBomms as a sock of ZestyLemonz.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am here reporting HomBomms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their ongoing edits across articles, especially pertaining to Sugababes. User has history of adding in unsourced or poorly sourced content into articles. User was issued a caution warning concerning the addition of unsourced content into articles. User did not respond to this warning, and instead, continued to make the edits again. User also was reverted on "Weeds" (Sugababes song) with speculative information placed in, as well as original research not found in the source provided; user proceeded to revert the edit by taking an in-prose citation, which did not support their claims, and attempt to use it to validate their inclusion. They were given a light warning (for newcomers) concerning their continued reverts, with note to take it to the talk page.

    Then, at Sugababes '25 Tour, the user added in content, which failed per WP:NOTRSMUSIC, and was again warned for the addition of poorly sourced content to an article, with notation of Setlist.FM being unreliable, per the previously-linked article, while also noting their continued ignoring of the warnings being given was alarming, given their continued editing habits. User then continued to add in two sources in the article (1/2) of which neither support their claims, thus resulting in unsourced claims being placed into articles. In response, user has accused me of having a vendetta against them (which citing the notability of music page?), which I do not. And then, in edit summary, referred to me as Abysmal editor with a vendetta, which could be seen as a violation of WP:NPA/WP:AGF, as it speaks on editor and not edits. And while I don't question this editor's intentions—as I feel they do want to improve articles—their behaviour suggests otherwise. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Could the warnings have been a bit hasty? Admittedly, sure. However, their continued behaviour on those articles does not excuse the editing patterns exhibited by the user. It would have been since, instead of resorting to [false accusations], they could have responded to the warnings on their talk page, asking what was wrong; perhaps, this could have been avoided altogether. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if they are a sock of ZestyLemonz whose sockpuppets have been caught editing the Sugababes articles multiple times. They also seem to have a grudge against you, livelikemusic. Just a thought. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my first thought, too, Liz on both accounts (sock/grudge). I'll have to check out ZestyLemonz, and see what that is about. But yes, their behaviour is giving WP:DUCK. But DUCK of what? 🤷 livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A-ha, seems like it might be, given the history at Nicola Mitchell. That would suit WP:DUCK well. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent disruptive edits by 65.102.187.27

    [edit]

    User:65.102.187.27 and User:65.102.188.78 appear to be the same user previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Persistent disruptive edits by 65.102.188.122. They've been IP hopping and repeatedly getting blocked for disruptive editing. You can see some of the previous contributions by looking at Special:Contributions/65.102.0.0/16. As far as I can tell none of the other alts have ever responded to comments about their behavior, and now they're back under a new IP making the same style of disruptive edits previously discussed, like removing Commons categories or introducing errors in punctuation. hinnk (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User with 20 edits blanking pages of sockpuppets of User:RichardHornsby

    [edit]
    INDEFFED
    Probably a sock socking socks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:RandomeditWiki, a user with 20 edits as of writing, is blanking user pages belonging to sockpuppets of User:RichardHornsby with no reasoning. Account made today, seemingly a SPU?

    Update: 29 edits - currently watching and ready to revert any more Someone, i guess(talk i guess|le edit list) 03:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked, would request a checkuser request if i knew how :P Someone, i guess(talk i guess|le edit list) 03:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think checkuser is needed. PhilKnight (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough, considering they were specifically targeting Richard's sockpuppets i had a gut feeling they might have been trying to brute force their way into, idk, a fresh start? up to you guys tho 👍 Someone, i guess(talk i guess|le edit list) 03:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or Richard himself. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not related specifically to this report, but RichardHornsbys user page says – This user is banned from editing the English Wikipedia and globally locked - which states: A global lock is a way by which stewards can technically prevent Wikimedia accounts logging in, and thus, no editing can be done through that account. When an account is locked and attempts to log in, it fails on Wikipedia. And then they have four unblock requests on their talk page, all denied because - No requests will be considered unless you sign in to this account. Seems like a Catch-22 to me, you're prevented from logging in, but your request to be unblocked can't be considered unless you log in. Anyway, as the world turns. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have left a note on his talk page telling him what procedure to follow if he wants to be unblocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandal-sock cycle of User:Kairakairav

    [edit]
    RANGE PBLOCKED
    IP-hopping vandal pblocked from some of the pages. Current technical limitations for pblocks will be greatly loosened once multiblocks are implemented. In meantime, Black Kite has put the other pages on watch. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • It's not that she is ignorant about the topics or something, she is doing all these because either she is a troll or an actual lunatic who seriously needs help or a mindless brat (sorry but she has just tested my limits). I and several other users have tried issuing warnings and guidance on talk pages of her previous sockaccounts, see [171], [172], [173], [174], but all seem fruitless.
    • There have been previously ANI reports, but all just lead to the block of her latest sock. This method is useless, as she makes new sock every new week. Is there a way to stop this cycle once and for all, like account creation block for the ip, it is really irritating, as this sockmaster has to potential to vandalize 100s of articles in matter of hours. Eg1, Eg2, etc. Thanks, Seyamar💬📜 07:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment AC block for the very wide IP range is difficult, as many other people use that range. I have however extended the partial block on the IP range to all the articles you mentioned. If there are any others that are common targets, please let us know and they can be added. Black Kite (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Thank you, yes there are more common targets — Suryaputra Karn, Nakula, Sahadeva, Ekalavya, Bhima, Yudhishthira, Arjuna, Draupadi, Subhadra, Duryodhana, Dushasana, Vikarna, Dhritarashtra.Seyamar💬📜 08:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've watchlisted those - I'll add them as necessary (there are too many there for individual partial blocks). Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Anonymous99747 and repeated WP:BLP violations

    [edit]

    For an elongated period, Anonymous99747 has been adding completely unsourced content about the wealth of Eurovision Song Contest singers to their articles.

    After repeated requests not to add this seemingly unsourceable information about Eurovision singers being "rich" or from "wealthy" backgrounds, the user has refused to stop and after these repeated BLP violations, enough is enough. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 08:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Davidbena and euphemisms for rape

    [edit]

    User:Davidbena has had previously topic bans from ArbPIA (in 2018[175] and again in 2019[176]; they were blocked for violations and associated behaviour in 2021[177], and the topic ban expanded in 2022[178]) and a proposed topic ban from Christianity in 2013 got only support, but was (as too often happens) archived without closure[179]. They seem to be unable to edit about Israel and/or religion for a long time without running into trouble.

    In December 2024, they created the article Beautiful captive woman[180], about the Biblical concept of a Jewish soldier "engaging in conjugal affairs" with a captured women, "a Jewish soldier might encounter a captive woman and wish to sleep with her". I tried to make the article more factual and neutral, but time and again Davidbena tried to weaken the text by using euphemisms, e.g. here. I thought this had finally stopped, but now they started using "have connexion" as an euphemish for rape, as in "A Jewish man of priestly descent (Cohen) is permitted to have connexion with a beautiful captive woman in the hour of passion" and "A man that had connexion with a beautiful captive woman". They reinserted the phrase twice[181][182], and I'm completely fed up with this whitewashing of religiously tolerated rape by hiding behind euphemisms and outdated sources (the original article even had a section on "The conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law is whether or not the inner circle of religious Jews should be forced to comply to the norms of international law and whether violators should be punished for any breach thereof when it comes to conquest by war, or can it be said that these laws override international law, since they themselves are a form of legal jurisprudence?", which was sourced to a 1917 text...).

    I don't know if it's time for a topic ban from everything Israel-related and everything religion-related, or if simply some firm guidance about what is unacceptable is sufficient, but some intervention to end at least this cycle of minimizing the obvious brutality of this topic is wanted. Fram (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I was ready to extend some benefit of the doubt here, despite the history, but was surprised to see that Davidbena's edit summaries explicitly state their intention to euphemize rape here. That's not okay. Davidbena: "have connexion with" is not a synonym for rape--neither is "sexual intercourse" for that matter--and employing either in place of rape should absolutely not be done, regardless of how "overused" you consider the word "rape" to be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Initially, I started out by seeking a euphemism, until I learned that this is not appropriate. I soon dropped that after reading MOS:EUPHEMISM. Now the dispute is different. It is the use of a synonym for "sexual intercourse," and that, mind you, is precisely what I intended to say by the edit. No more; no less. This is a friendly dispute and I have sought a Third Opinion here. I will agree to any consensus.Davidbena (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that you didn't replace "sexual intercourse" with "connexion" in that edit, you replaced "rape" with "have connexion with", repeatedly, as Fram's diffs show. Surely you see the problem here? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is incorrect. I am the person who wrote the initial paragraph, and it was worded "connexion" (instead of "rape"), in accordance with wiki-link connexion. It was Fram who erased my edit and placed there "rape." That was NOT my train of thought in the edit, at all, since I only wanted to stress "sexual intercourse."Davidbena (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what you said. Your words on the talk page were: sometimes, it is better to use a synonym for a word that is often-times repeated in an article or text, such as the word "rape." The word "connexion" can be used effectually as an alternative for this word, so as to avoid redundancy and "over-use" of the word "rape." So, do you or do you not consider "connexion" as a synonym for "rape"? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but this does not negate my original intention, to use a synonym for "sexual intercource." The above statement was made by me only after Fram insisted on using the word "rape" again and again in the article, and to show her that there are ways of saying the same thing, without infringing upon the use of euphemisms. To prove my point, when Fram changed the second paragraph from "connexion" to "sexually assault" I left her edit stand, since it reflected my original thought.Davidbena (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The original text in question was have connexion with a beautiful captive woman in the hour of passion, which as Fram correctly points out is a euphemism here for "rape". That fact that you are replacing "rape" with "have connexion with" to "show [Fram] that there are ways of saying the same thing" here, tells me the answer to my question is effectively: no, you do not see a difference between "rape" and "have connexion with" here. In a vacuum this could be a one-off content issue not suitable for ANI, but in the context of your previous behavior and sanctions, it is a problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To understand what I or anyone does here, we must have a clear understanding of the sources. The source cited by me was Maimonides and he is simply talking about "sexual intercourse." The rest of what I wrote was unnecessary, that is, "in the hour of passion." At any rate, my intent was to use a synonym for "sexual intercourse."Davidbena (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Either we provide a quote attributing your text to a 13th c. source, or we write it in 21st century words, not in the way Maimonides would have done. But we don't write a text as if Wikipedia is describing, summarizing, the situation, but then using euphemisms because that what the source does (never mind that no one uses "having connexion" nowadays in any case). We wouldn't write in Wikipedia voice about "the extermination of inferior humans" either to describe the Holocaust, or the "relocation of primitives and heathens" to describe all kinds of colonialism and slavery, even though it is easy enough to find older sources which write about these things in such words or synonyms of them. Fram (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the source cited by me is Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah (Hil. Melakhim 8:4), where he uses the Hebrew word ביאה‎, meaning "coitus; sexual intercourse," and says that a man of priestly descent can only do this thing once with a 'beautiful captive woman,' and which Hebrew word used by him happens to be the exact same word used to describe a man that has marital affairs with his own wife, such as in a consensual relationship. There was no reason to jump at me, thinking that I was looking specifically for a euphemism for "rape." The word "connexion" is another word used by the translators of works compiled by Israel's Sages when they want to describe in our day the words "coitus" and "sexual intercourse." There is nothing to be shocked about this choice of wording. We are simply citing Maimonides who specifically uses the Hebrew word "bi'ah" (=ביאה‎). For those who may be skeptical or who may not believe me, let him check our Hebrew sources. Moreover, look here at the Morfix Hebrew-English lexicon for a description of this word. Maimonides, himself, when using the Hebrew language, makes use of a Hebrew euphemism; however, its implied meaning in English is NOT written here as a euphemism. The lexicon brings down its English equivalent in plain English. If anyone needs me to put him in contact with a Hebrew-speaking Wikipedean, I can do that for him.Davidbena (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that you weren't citing Maimonides, you were using Maimonides as a source for a statement in Wikivoice. And I would like to see sources for "The word "connexion" is another word used by the translators of works compiled by Israel's Sages when they want to describe in our day the words "coitus" and "sexual intercourse.", unless your definition of "in our days" stretches back to 1940 or so.
    "There was no reason to jump at me, thinking that I was looking specifically for a euphemism for "rape."" Except that you had a history of exactly that behaviour at that article, describing this (a man raping a woman he "captured" during war) as " to engage in conjugal affairs with her", "wish to sleep with her", "forcibly have marital relations", "vent his passion during the time of war", "the first act of passion", "had intercourse with a captive woman". These are all euphemisms for rape you had used in the text previously and which I had to remove. Fram (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect. Anyone who can read Maimonides will see that I was citing him, almost verbatim. The word "connexion" is still used to denote coitus. Besides, I added a wiki-link for readers who might be unfamiliar with the word's meaning. As for all earlier edits which you continue to cite, I have already learned from those earlier mistakes and have not repeated them here.18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Davidbena (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes. An edit that does nothing other than changing the word "rape" to "violate the chastity of" is ... not a good look. Looking at "what links here", there's similar stuff elsewhere ("make contact with", for example). Makes me wonder if there might be some sets of keywords/phrases to search for that are common euphemisms used in or about very old texts (various religious works, but also nonreligious historical texts). But even if we say someone could be forgiven for repeating sanitized/euphemized language in sources, it's harder to justify repeatedly reinstating such language. :/ I think we really need a clear acknowledgement that this was a big mistake and a commitment to try to remember where else those problems may have unintentionally been introduced. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are referring to above are edits made by me before learning that we should not make use of euphemisms. The discussion here is about something totally different. I simply sought another word for "sexual intercourse" and took up the word "connexion" since it is used to describe the same in our rabbinic books.Davidbena (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is really, really not, and at this point I think you've dug a hole so deep only a WP:CBAN will solve the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to CBSN. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Truthfully, I'm at a loss here. Why is it inconceivable to think that in an article that speaks about the rape of a 'Beautiful captive woman' the rabbis who detail the particulars about this case will use the word "coitus"? They do! And I simply quoted from Maimonides who used the word "coitus" ("connexion"). The two words happen to be synonyms, just as shown by entry no. 11 in this wiki-link here. Tell me, please, where am I mistaken? When I first started this article, I did not know a thing about the abstension from use of euphemisms, but when I learned about it, I stopped using them. The complaint made by Fram against me was because she thought that I was still employing euphemisms in place of rape. No, I was not, as strange as that might sound. This here is a near direct quote from Maimonides, and differs from my earlier mistakes. I would NEVER wittingly go against a rule made by Wikipedia. I have God as my witness. Davidbena (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply quoted - No, you didn't. It's easy to tell when something is quoted because there are quotation marks and attribution in the text. That's not what you did -- you put it in the voice of Wikipedia. If the source you're using euphemizes, replacing it with a synonym is still euphemizing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, User:Davidbena, "entry no. 11 in this wiki-link" (!!) isn't what ordinary readers associate with "connection". I know you wittingly wouldn't break any wiki-rules, but when so many editors tell you that you are: you better start listing. As others have said before: when you are in a hole: stop digging. Huldra (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Huldra:, I often read an English translation of the Mishnah published by Herbert Danby, and in it he often uses the word "connexion" for coitus, or sexual intercourse. If the majority of our readers do not understand this word, why am I to blame? I even went overboard to add the wiki-link for those who perhaps do not understand the other meanings of that word. Besides, the word to me sounds more professional.Davidbena (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Davidbena, Herbert Danby died 72 years ago before radical social change in how rape and sexuality are discussed, and should should not be used as an example of contemporary English language usage. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I understand you.Davidbena (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it's my mistake if I didn't put it in "quotation marks." Would you like me to put the full quote within the article? You'll quickly see that it's nearly the same. Maimonides uses "connexion" = ביאה (sexual-intercourse), but does not use the word "rape" (which in Hebrew is אונס).Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davidbena:, perhaps 1 of 1000 readers of wikipedia, knows what the Mishnah even is! Yes, we are ignorant of it, as most of us are ignorant about Hindu or Buddhist religion, too. And yes! I blame you for assuming that the average wiki-reader has the knowledge of a Yeshiva-student, Huldra (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Huldra. You have convinced me that I expected too much of our readership. If the community will give me the leeway, I will not push the use of any word, and leave the sense as plain and simple as possible. No more "appearances" of euphemisms to describe something that is repugnant.Davidbena (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, while this article has problems, it is not fair to but the blame for the whitewashing and euphemizing of rape on Davidbena, because it is not original to him—the original rabbinic texts refer to "coitus", etc., and only later interpretive texts refer (without much emphasis or consistency, from what I see) to rape. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some research and found that in 1994's Sexual violence and Deuteronomic law, Carolyn Pressler argues that the term 'rape' is not applicable to biblical legislation, as the matter of female consent is irrelevant. This is cited by a 2011 paper by David Resnick about this article's topic, entitled A case study in Jewish moral education: (non‐)rape of the beautiful captive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point being not that there was nothing problematic about David's editing, but that the avoidance of the term "rape", which Cullen has pointed out was not even total, is not some original hangup of David's but a (flawed) reflection of varied terminology in sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand how a grown person needs to be told in the first place not to use such watered-down euphemisms for "rape". Sorry, but "I didn't know" is just really, really weak. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Even stretching AGF to the limit the best explanation I can come up with here is that Davidbena is editing with blinkers on, and without them developing some perspective I agree that they should be removed from the subject. I'm less certain as to the limits of the TBAN, but a TBAN from Israel, and a TBAN from Religion, might be appropriate to begin with. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Although, in truth, I had no intention to use it as "a watered-down euphemism," but wanted to bring down Maimonides own words who did not use the word "rape," but rather "connexion" (in the sense of "coitus"). Is this so hard to understand? My use of that word here is practically a direct quote from Maimonides. It has nothing to do with me selecting a euphemism.Davidbena (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not have been your intention but that is still what you did. Is that so hard to understand? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm sorry for creating that impression. Can you forgive me for this error?Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    His intentions obviously matter, and the fact that he reproduced language from the halakhic literature, rather than just deciding he’d like to soften the edges of rape today, is obviously relevant. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Here is the full quotation taken from Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hil. Melakhim 8:4)

    הכהן מותר ביפת תואר בביאה ראשונה, שלא דיברה תורה אלא כנגד היצר; אבל אינו יכול לישא אותה אחר כן, לפי שהיא גיורת‎

    "A beautiful captive woman is permitted unto a priest [of Aaron's lineage], during the initial connexion (i.e. coitus), since the Torah has not spoken except with respect to it being a concession to [man's evil] inclination. However, he cannot marry her afterwards, since she is a female proselyte."Davidbena (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Davidbena came to my talk page asking for feedback on this matter and this is what I told him: I am sorry that you are going through the wringer at ANI. I will not repeat what others have said there although I agree with much of it, but rather, I want to point out what I see as a major problem with Beautiful captive woman, an article about Deuteronomy 21:10–14 in the Hebrew Bible. This aspect has not been commented on at ANI. In its current form, the article violates our core content policy, the Neutral point of view, which says articles must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Emphasis added. The article is based pretty much entirely on Orthodox Jewish perspectives although there are 1000 times more Christians in the world than Orthodox Jews and Deuteronomy is a canonical biblical work for them as well as for the Jews. It lacks analysis by Conservative and Reform Jewish scholars. It lacks perspective by women scholars of the Hebrew Bible, which is particularly striking because of the subject matter. Susannah Heschel, Blu Greenberg, Anita Diamant and Tamar Frankiel came immediately to mind, since my wife and I own books by them. Susanne Scholtz wrote a book called Sacred Witness. Rape in the Hebrew Bible. Other women Bible scholars include Tamar Ross, Rachel Adler, Judith Hauptman, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Adele Berlin and many others. An acceptable article would certainly include commentary by at least some of them. Your narrow focus on the type of sources favored by Yeshiva bochurs has led you into a bind, it seems to me. I encourage you to ponder this issue carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community will be patient with me, I'll slowly add those other views, to give this article a more broad scope.Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems clearly to me a case of someone just not knowing (yet) the norms of Wikipedia, but clearly willing to learn and build an encyclopedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. This is not a new editor. Davidbena, be sure to use language used in the most reliable sources, even if it is not originalist in textual interpretation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree to that.Davidbena (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whose translation is that? NebY (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Formal proposal for a community ban

    [edit]

    I note that there have already been suggestions that Davidbena's repeated inability to get the point here, along with multiple attempts to justify the use of a euphemism because 'Maimonides used it' (an absurd suggestion, if only considering that Maimonides clearly didn't write in English of any kind, never mind that of the 21st century CE, though there are clearly multiple further reasons to reject such fallacious logic) would justify either a topic ban, or a community ban. Not having commented before, I was sitting this out before chipping in, but I'd now have to suggest that Davidbena's latest comment - "the word to me sounds more professional"[183] - is so beyond the pale and/or or irredeemably clueless that only a community ban would be appropriate. I am having grave doubts that any topic ban could conceivably be wide enough in scope to prevent similar stubborn resistance to common sense, decency, and honest writing, combined with relentless hole-digging, from doing damage elsewhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So, my friend, I assure you that I am not unassailable. I do make mistakes. I also admit to my mistakes. But where, for God's sake, have we heard that in an article such as this we cannot interchange the verbs rape, coitus, sexual intercourse and connexion when describing the laws relating to this woman? I honestly do not understand. If you want me to apologize for using the word "connexion" I'll apologize and won't use it again.Davidbena (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly oppose; there's no reason to believe he will be persistently disruptive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I oppose any TBAN as well, for the same reason. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    if only considering that Maimonides clearly didn't write in English of any kind
    This is just silly. The Hebrew does not refer to rape either, but rather refers to the act with a euphemism for sex (as is basically ubiquitous in halakhic literature). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose per Zanahary. — EF5 12:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your inability to understand (further illustrated above) is clearly at the root of the problem. Apologies are empty words without an understanding of what one is apologising for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how this happened, but for anyone confused: my comment somehow intercepted Andy's reply to David's above comment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to say.. all I said was four words. — EF5 17:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, it's a traveling admonishment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, so we are here again. I actually oppose topic-ban IF (and only if) Davidbena promise not to oppose other editors ever again, if they raise an objection on the talk-page. Last chance. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have my promise.Davidbena (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem that you have not yet acknowledged, Davidbena, is that coitus and sexual intercourse are not synonyms for rape, and connexion is just a British English alternate spelling of connection, and its use is obfuscating in this context. That being said, I oppose a community ban at this time. I think that Davidbena offers a perspective and a specific expertise that is useful to the encyclopedia. I would instead support an adminishment and an editing restriction that would require Davidbena to submit his draft articles for review by other editors with a modicum of knowledge about Judaism from a non-Orthodox perspective, and I hereby volunteer to be one of those reviewers. He should first be required to broaden the perspectives in the problematic article under discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Yes, I am aware of the British and American spelling differences. And, yes, the word "rape" is a harsher word than "having sexual intercourse." I used the latter example only because Maimonides used it.Davidbena (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but just while I was coming around perhaps ready to accept what Cullen328 proposed, you go and say that. No, "rape" is not a "harsher word"; it is a different act. I really feel we're approaching CIR here; sorry Huldra. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to halakhic literature, "rape" is indeed a harsher word for "having sexual intercourse" in the frequent cases wherein the latter refers to the act of rape—as in this Maimonides text. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: I too have no problem using "rape," just as I used it when I first wrote the article. This was only in response to what Cullen said about the difference between "rape" and "sexual intercourse." We all know and respect the difference. And, yes, it is a different act.Davidbena (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support "the Cullen328"-solution. Huldra (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Huldra, to be clear, you are saying that Davidbena can never argue on Talk pages again? Is that a proposed term of a suspended community ban, or a personal condition for your oppose vote? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She is saying that when my view is challenged, I should learn to acquiesce to a different point of view, as there are, indeed, other view points.Davidbena (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Zanahary: Davidbena and I go waaay back; we first met at Bayt Nattif more than 10 years ago. And we have met on nearly countless articles afterwards. It is my experience that (as many here have commented) Davidbena tends to "dig himself down", when editors disagree with him, just look at where this latest started: Talk:Beautiful captive woman: where two very experienced editors, Fram and Writ Keeper, basically tells him that he is wrong, and Davidbena basically commits "wikisuicide" by arguing against them. But; I also know that Davidbena does what he say; when he has promised to look into these other sources that Cullen mentions: I believe him. At Bayt Nattif I was angry with him for leaving out history between year 12 and 1948 (= Palestinian history), and mentioned other sources, like the 1596 tax records. He said he would look into these sources -and he did!(link) Davidbena is one of the -far too few- IP-editors who look up sources in books, he can also be excruciatingly stubborn,(I can quite understand Fram basically throwing up his arms, and giving up), Davidbena was under the mentorship of Nableezy for a year, that worked ok (well, that was my impression?) If he could possibly be under a similar mentorship with Cullen? Basically if Cullen says: Step back; Davidbena promise to do so. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose a community ban as too drastic, but if Davidbena truly thinks "coitus, sexual intercourse and connexion" are interchangeable with "rape", he should not edit anything to do with sex. I do support Cullen's suggestions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd: I fully understand the difference between these terms, and "rape" is non-consensual, but forced upon a person against her will, and entails violence. Yes, it is indeed different from "coitus, sexual intercourse and connexion." The only quipe that I initially had was with the frequent use of the word "rape" which sounded redundant. Moreover, in spite of MOS:EUPHEMISM, we do see articles all throughout Wikipedia (e.g History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1800–1899, Murder of Elizabeth Fales, Norfolk County Courthouse (1795), etc.) where they have used expressions like "violated her chastity" for "rape" and for "promiscuity" and which begs the question if the general proscription referred only to certain euphemisms, such as not using the words "he passed away" for "he died", as explained in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. At any rate, when the euphemisms that I wrote were deleted in this article, I soon stopped writing them altogether. I was deferred to MOS:EUPHEMISM. Perhaps it would be good if someone could write for us the parameters of its usage and when not to use it at all. Anyway, I have stopped using them here. As for the word "connexion" used by me, this was actually a quote used by Maimonides, and was not intended by me to be a euphemism for rape, even though, in reality, it is perceived as such. So, the question should be are we permitted to use a "lighter word" when the word is used by a scholar when describing rape? This will be up to Wikipedeans to answer, who make the rules for us all to follow.Davidbena (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Connexion really isn't used in standard English to mean sex. Secretlondon (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maimonides did not write "connexion" or in English at all. He used a Hebrew word which is not only translated as "connexion". NebY (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Davidbena, those are not recently-promoted featured articles. Please do not cite random articles as evidence of an acceptable or good practice as there are millions of pages on Wikipedia which are in many respects not great and not exemplary. —Alalch E. 19:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump: By my saying, "it sounds more professional," I really mean by that to say it sounds more encyclopedic.Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if 'encyclopaedia' is a euphemism for 'exercise in whitewashing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Frivolity laid aside, some words are nicer than others from a literary standpoint.Davidbena (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no frivolity whatsoever intended in my comment. And there is nothing 'nice' whatsoever in trying to disguise rape. Never. Not ever. Not under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when I wrote this article, I also used the word "rape."Davidbena (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree to be put under a ban not to edit anything that has to do with sex. I agree with such a ban, but that would prevent me from editing this article.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever run into trouble editing topics related to sex before? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, never.Davidbena (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose ban I don't see the need currently for such a preventive measure when @Davidbena seems genuinely eager to abide by our community standards. I agree with @Cullen328's suggestion of a restriction requiring review and mentorship. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose community ban, but support some kind of alternative sanction such as "topic ban from religious GENSEX issues". To be entirely honest Davidbena's replies to comments here don't come across to me as genuine, they come across as "I don't believe I did anything wrong but I'm saying what I think people want to hear to dodge sanctions for this". That said I don't think they're disruptive enough to be cbanned yet, but a tban of some sort would seem to be necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. No more chances. No mentorship. No more using euphemisms for sex as synonyms for rape. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Editors supporting a community ban should be aware that Davidbena's earliest version of the article dated 18 December 2024 included the phrase forcibly have marital relations which linked to rape, and engage in conjugal affairs with her, with or without her consent and described the behavior as universally thought-of as being repugnant. That first version also noted women are protected under the laws of the UN against rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the occupying forces. Yes, there have been significant problems with the article but the notion that Davidbena's descriptions have been entirely euphemistic from the beginning is not quite correct. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that. I'd recommend people reading in particular the subsection entitled 'International law vs. religious law', bearing in mind Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR etc, etc. I suspect that most reading said section will agree with me that attempting to cite Quincy Wright for morally dubious editorialising regarding whether "laws rendered by non-Jewish courts of law become binding upon the people of Israel who are governed by different laws?" is utterly inappropriate, if only because Wright appears to have said nothing whatsoever on the subject of rape of prisoners of war, and clearly can't have been discussing 'the people of Israel' when he wrote the piece cited, in 1917. People might also wish to take into consideration whether they think that 'Negative aspects' is an appropriate subsection title, given the topic. Are readers supposed to think that everything else in the article is 'positive'? I sincerely hope not. The article seems right from the start to have been mealy-mouthed special pleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AndyTheGrump, "people of Israel" can mean the ancient Israelites, or the Jews through the millenia, or modern citizens of the State of Israel since 1948, although the latter are usually referred to as "Israelis". Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly such meanings might be intended for the phrase, in some contexts. Given that the article is discussing the actions of a Jewish/Israelite army of conquest however, (quoting the article lede) "at a time when the people of Israel dwell in their own land and when the Sanhedrin is in authority" my point remains. The whole section, beyond the raw statement concerning the Geneva Convention etc, is entirely unsourced. Quincy Wright wrote nothing regarding the subject of the article. He has been 'cited' in an attempt to lead credibility to Davidbena's editorialising, e.g. the pulling out of a hat of a "conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law..." Who says it is to be asked? SnowRise has already addressed this below (e.g. "outright socio-religious polemics"), and I see no point in repeating it - the 'citation' of Wright on this matter was either incredibly wrong-headed, or intentionally deceitful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty far-fetched to me that this article was made as apologia for halakhically sanctioned rape of women as spoils of war. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a case of "we write about what we know." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly are you saying? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We tend to use the sources we know about and are familiar with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it—agreed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You being unaware that a 1917 source could refer to "people of Israel" is an indicator that you don't understand this topic well enough to be proposing CBANs based on source representation in the topic area. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    'Source representation'? that's a fine euphemism in itself. Accuracy, however, requires the use of the term 'source falsification'. Or can you quote me a phrase in the Wright piece cited that says anything whatsoever concerning the issues of legality discussed by Davidbena: issues concerning the actions of an Israelite army of conquest, "when the Sanhedrin is in authority". I may not be a Talmud scholar, or an expert on the History of the Israelites, but I know enough about Wikipedia policy to be able to recognise a bogus citation. Anyway, it really doesn't matter who the phrase "people of Israel" is or was referring to, since Wright wrote nothing on the subject. And come to that, I make no claims to be an expert on international law, either, but I'd have to suggest that citing a source from 1917 in an attempt to throw doubt on the applicability of aspects of the Geneva Convention of 1949 is in general unlikely to convince anyone of anything much. At least, not anything beyond the obvious - that the subsection is a polemic, attempting to give credence to a viewpoint that might possibly have been the norm when Deuteronomy was written, or when Maimonides wrote on the subject, but clearly isn't now. One does not have to be a Talmud scholar to recognise the gross misuse of Wikipedia article space involved here. And nor, for that matter, does one have to be any sort of scholar to recognise attempts to deflect this discussion from the core issues, and to instead nit-pick about incidental phraseology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I didn't want to be here, and intended to not weigh in at all, but Frivolity laid aside, some words are nicer than others from a literary standpoint. shows that not only do they not understand the issue, they have no intention of even trying to for the sake of this conversation. This is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly analysis of 13th century people's analaysis of Jewish texts. Davidbena has shown they can edit productively and I believe I may even have !voted to unblock/lessen ban before, but they are unwilling to and that is the problem. Star Mississippi 02:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Words have meanings. Intercourse is not a more encyclopedic version of rape, or most of us need to get prison ready. 74.254.224.112 (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Can an IP's first edit be a vote on a community ban? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Dynamic IPs exist.- The Bushranger One ping only 06:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not yet 100% convinced that a community ban is necessary but at the very minimum I would support a cast-iron topic ban from anything to do with gender, religion or the state of Israel. Go and improve articles about insects or geometry or something. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Use of euphemisms for rape is bad, but the thing that most convinces me is the argument, based on a 1917 article that doesn't mention religion at all, that perhaps Jews are not required to obey the tenets of modern morality and international law. The claim to speak for all religious Jews is also offensive. It would be perfectly easy to write and source that there exist religious Jews who don't think the Geneva Convention applies to them, but to write "In contrast, religious Jews view the laws bequeathed to them by their forefathers as immutable." is beyond the pale. Zerotalk 07:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support a community ban as my second choice; at a minimum though should be a topic ban from sex, religion, Israel/Jews and their intersections. I agree with The Bushranger that Davidbena's contributions to this discussion come across as a grudging attempt to pacify the community ~ LindsayHello 09:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I really went back and forth on this one. On the one hand, despite a fair bit of failing repeatedly to get the points being spelled out at length above, David eventually and consistently concedes to each point as soon as at least two community members assert it. So I don't think his response is entirely a case of WP:IDHT. Willingness to concede points and commit to learning and adapting to project guidelines and norms, and community feedback, carries a lot weight with me in such discussions as this. Unfortunately, given David's tenure here, the precise nature of his comments here and the content generated in the article presently in question leave me unable to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the question of basic WP:competence when it comes to making those adjustments. I would be prepared to look past a checkered past with community sanctions (even if it is quite deep in this instance), if the nature of the content we are talking about here weren't so incredibly problematic. Putting aside the use of euphemism that has attracted so much attention here, a look at the content reveals issues that betray the lack of even a basic understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, among other core policies. To wit, from the "International law vs. religious law" section, that has (quite rightly) been mentioned a few times here:
    "The conceptual-jurisprudential question that is to be asked by students of International law is whether or not the inner circle of religious Jews should be forced to comply to the norms of international law and whether violators should be punished for any breach thereof when it comes to conquest by war, or can it be said that these laws override international law, since they themselves are a form of legal jurisprudence? Moreover, can laws rendered by non-Jewish courts of law become binding upon the people of Israel who are governed by different laws?"
    There is so much more going on there that is well beyond the question of the euphemistic reference to rape, concerning though that question may be in its own right. This is outright socio-religious polemics, engaging with an original-research-by-way-of-synthesis moral argument, which would be deeply problematic under an array policy considerations under any circumstances, but which becomes entirely intolerable when you add in the context that it is espousing the view, in wikivoice, that the rape of captive women should maybe be countenanced by international law, when practiced by the members of a particular religious tradition. It's worth noting that most members of that tradition would be foremost among the the most horrified at this notion. I don't think I need belabour with another six paragraphs how many basic policy considerations this segment of content violates, just in itself. And though it's far distant from the greatest of the concerns here, even the choice of florid, faux-lecture hall verbiage for that segment suggests a complete failure on the part of this user to have internalized Wikipedia's standard approach to encyclopedic content.
    In short, the issues here are too many and too profound, considering this user has had 11 years to have taken on at least the basic understanding of our pillar policies to the extent that they would then see the very glaring issues with their approach here, without it needing to be explained point by point. Adding in the history of sanctions, and the exhaustion of community patience even when hand-holding is attempted, I have to judge this situation as falling on the wrong side of WP:CIR. I appreciate this user wants to learn and contribute non-disruptively. So, if they are CBANned, my advice would be to spend the next year observing project space and learning passively, and then make their first appeal. Right now they are falling too readily to using this project as a vehicle to explore their own original thoughts on controversial issues. SnowRise let's rap 09:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nailed it, no notes. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the nomination and the above discussion. It's fucking absurd that anyone would seek to euphemise rape. TarnishedPathtalk 10:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose, a longtime editor who is listening and replying in good faith. I don't know enough about this, so a topic ban or two may be at least discussed, but to ban from Wikipedia editing? Way to jump from one level to another. And again, as often occurs, when an editor is ANI'ed it often jumps to "ban!" and a feeding frenzy. Please close this section and "burn the witch" mentality and get back to discussing the original concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I know you mean well @Randy Kryn but we're talking about a triple topic banned and blocked editor. Listening is one thing if you're new, but not when you know your conduct is problematic. Star Mississippi 01:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if this passes, I think we're in an "indefinite until you make it clear you understand the problem" territory. It's perplexing that David seems to repeatedly ruin his own efforts to communicate this understanding. All this should take is a sans-excuses "I understand that it is NEVER appropriate to use a euphemism for rape outside of a direct quote, even if it's in the source text and even if I think it makes for prettier writing. I'll go back through my contribs and fix any such issues I may have introduced". Then don't defeat that statement by trying to justify it again. If we had that, I don't think anybody would be calling for a cban here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral on CBAN. An indefinite ban on anything to do with Israel, religion (especially Judaism) and anything relating to sex is obviously necessary. A long and detailed text detailing and displaying profound understanding of what he has done wrong would be required for this to be reconsidered.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support CBAN
    Going into this, a CBAN felt a touch drastic for an editor at least trying to comply to some degree with regs, and I was going to fall into the camp of "TBAN on a bunch of topics". But the more I read his responses, the more I see him doing everything possible to dig himself deeper. But where, for God's sake, have we heard that in an article such as this we cannot interchange the verbs rape, coitus, sexual intercourse and connexion when describing the laws relating to this woman? Bloody hell mate. Snokalok (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support partial topic ban
      I am always surprised at what can raise me from my slumber. What I see here is a subject matter expert, which we need, having tremendous difficulty participating in the project, which we obviously don't. Articles about biblical issues, certainly in a Jewish context but I would assume also in a Christian context, are hotbeds for this sort of dispute; they exist at the intersection of history and anthropology, and the experts summarizing the subject matter tend not to be either historians or anthropologists. I've had this thought about a few editors over the years, but never vocalized it: perhaps we should compel David to work in drafts and clear his efforts with other users, like sprotting a tban. I know we've done similar things before, but I've been inactive too long to name cases. That sanction would end the damaging edits, and prevent the ensuing debates from affecting users who might not have the emotional or intestinal fortitude to go rounds with him, but preserve his ability to carefully contribute material that most of us are unequipped to produce. --Moralis (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose CBAN, support Moralis' proposal. Apply by analogy the rules of COI editing. So, when editing in the concerned areas, needs to use AfC and should subsequetly propose changes on the talk page.—Alalch E. 19:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a good idea! I support it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think there is a communication issue, but while I personally would see the act being described as rape and personally would see this topic as sexist, I think the editing issue is whether the system of law in issue (the topic itself) sees it as rape, and whether there is reliably sourced commentary on rape or sexism that should be added to the article, or other reliably sourced critique that should be added. (To make an analogy, some law systems define 'murder', and define 'manslaughter', or 'justifiable homicide', and we have to explain in an article on that law system what those distinctions are according to the sources, not whether we approve of those distinctions, but whether qualified sources comment on those distinctions.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose community ban, support topic ban on articles relating to Judaism, recommend Cullen's mentorship suggestion. I had never come across David's work before this week and I tend to avoid ban discussions, but I find both the article in question and David's conduct here quite disturbing. My most charitable reading is that David is very out of touch with the linguistic norms of both the broad English Wikipedia community and the English-speaking world of the 21st century, as well as expectations of what baseline religious knowledge we might share, as seen in this response to Huldra. Regardless of his intentions, he doesn't seem capable of writing content on this topic in a manner appropriate for an encyclopaedia aimed at a contemporary global readership. However his later responses here, and Cullen's and Huldra's comments, suggest he may be amenable to guidance from (very patient) editors with appropriate expertise in this topic. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unconditional unblock of Maniacal! Paradoxical causing issues

    [edit]

    @Voorts: previously unblocked Mnbnjghiryurr (now known as Maniacal ! Paradoxical) without the topic ban that was requested by at least two experienced editors in the ARBIPA topic area for their unblock. They had previously engaged in long term sockpuppetry as a sock of Koitot and made severe many copyvio articles that required speedy deletion. In spite of Voorts's advice to them to take the concerns of their peers seriously[184], they are still engaging in the pro-Maratha POV pushing, making copyvios and misconduct in the ARBIPA. For example:

    • They moved a draftifed article that lacked reliable citations to the mainspace without fixing the problems [185][186]
    • Their talkpage is full of warnings for copyvios[187][188][189][190][191] and they have not improved at all. Their recent draft, contains close paraphrasing of the sources:
    Comparison

    Source:[192]

    During the Caliphate of ‘Ali, a great expedition was sent against India (c. A.D. 660). The Muslim army, which included a large num¬ ber of nobles and chiefs, advanced up to Kikan or Kikanan without any serious opposition. Kikan was a state in the hilly region round Bolan pass, and is referred to by Hiuen Tsang as a kingdom whose people led pastoral lives amid the great mountains and valleys in separate clans, without any ruling chief. It was, however, according to Chach-nama, included m the central division of Sindh, under the direct administration of the king. In any case, the people of Kikan made a brave stand and repulsed the Muslim army with severe losses. The leader of the Muslim host was killed together with all but a few of his followers (A.D. 663).

    Article:

    During the caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib (656–661 CE), the Rashidun Caliphate launched a military expedition towards the northwestern regions of the Indian subcontinent, particularly targeting the region of Kikan (also referred to as Kikanān). This campaign, conducted around 660 CE, involved a large contingent of Muslim forces, including prominent nobles and chiefs. Kikān, located in the hilly areas surrounding the Bolan Pass, was noted by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang as a region inhabited by pastoral communities living in isolated clans without a centralized governing authority. However, according to the Chach Nama, Kikān was considered part of Sindh, falling under the direct administration of the king of Sindh

    • Edit warring to glorify unsourced maratha POV content [193][194] without discussing.
    • See addition of controversial unsourced content here, that is actually closely paraphrased from another source:
    comparison

    Source:[195]:

    Sinhgad is situated about 20 km southwest of Pune on one of the highest points in the Pune range, 1320 m above sea level and about 700 m above the surrounding plain. The northern and southern sides of the mountain have very steep ascents which culminate into a great wall of black rock over 12 m high, which in itself constitutes sufficient defence. Strong walls, with bastions at intervals, are built where the rise is less steep. The fort is shaped somewhat like the blade of an axe and is over three kilometers in circumference. The approach to the fort is by two steep, tortuous paths which in many places consist of flights of steps carved out in the face of the rock. Each of these, one in the northeast and the other in the southeast, is defended by fortified gateways. Those in the northeast are known as the Pune gates and those in the southeast as the Kalyan gates. The only weak point in the fortress is a gorge on the west side of the hill which drains rainwater falling on the summit. The sides of this gorge are less steep and offer a comparatively easy approach to the top. A strong fortified wall, evidently a later construction, is built across the mouth of the gorge. The fortress was manned by some 1200 Rajputs under command of Udaybhan Rathod. On the night of 4/5 February 1670 a select party of 500 Mavala infantry under command of Tanaji Malusare arrived secretly near the fortress and lodged itself undiscovered at the foot of the rock.2522 Two Mavala rock climbers ascended the hillside and let down a rope ladder by which the rest of the party began to climb.2528 When some 300 Mavalas had entered the fort their presence was discovered and an alarm was given. Tanaji immediately pushed forward in the hope of still surprising the enemy. Though prematurely discovered and opposed by superior numbers, the assailants had the advantage of surprise. In the ensuing fight, Tanaji and Udaybhan came face to face, engaged in single combat and were killed at each others’ hands. Suryaji, Tanaji’s brother, rallied the disheartened Mavalas and captured the fort. Then, thatched stables in the fort were set alight as a prearranged signal of victory to Shivaji who was on nearby Rajgad waiting it .

    Article[196]:

    Sinhgad Fort is located on the southwest of Pune, Maharashtra, about 20 km, in a small hilly range at an elevation of 1,320 m above sea level and 700 m from nearby plains. The fort is surrounded by sharply sloping northern and southern hills, providing a defense in the form of a cave-like structure which has a natural rock wall more than 12 meters high. There were additional fortifications in the form of bastions raised on gentler slopes. The fort is like an axe blade about 3 km long. Access was by one steep, tortuous path leading from the northeast side to Pune Gate, and from the southeast to Kalyan Gate. The western side has a gorge that is very open from the south side for easy access, which was later fortified to offer great strength. In 1670, a force of 500 Mavala soldiers under the command of Tanaji Malusare stormed the fort at dead of night with great surprise and against 1,200 Rajput soldiers led by Udaybhan Rathod. Mavalas climbed the front cliff of the fort with the aid of rope ladders. Very fierce fighting broke out and a duel ensued in which both Udaybhan and Tanaji were killed. The brother of Tanaji, Suryaji, led the remainder of the Mavalas and finally won the fort. The signal flame was lit on top of the fort to inform Shivaji of the victory from Rajgad.

    Comparison
    Arora(1978)[198] source text Battle of Rampura text
    way to ¢Ajmer via Meurat, to encounter the Marathas in Rajputana and Malwae On the way Khandauran was joined by Savai Jaisingh with 30,000 army y Abhaisingh and Raja Durjansal ete.with their respective armies. Savai Jaisingh joined at Todt Tank. Thus the combined forces swelled to 2 lacs strong. Following the rains of 1734, Marathas charted a northern expedition. Although Fatehsingh Bhosale and Pratinidhi promised assistance, Chhatrapati Shahu withheld sanction. Mughal Wazir Qamruddin advanced towards Agra with 25,000 men, and Khandauran with 50,000 advanced towards Ajmer, accompanied by Sawai Jai Singh and others, combining their strength to nearly 200,000
    Hearing the news Ranoji Shinde, Malhar Rao Holkar Anandrao Pawar, Tékoji and Jivaji Pawars and Sitole etc, marched towards the north. On 3rd December 1734 the Peshva ordered Pilaji Jadhav to march into Hindustan in company of young Nana Saheb and granted him Pahori and Kolaras paraganas in Malwa. Chatrapati Shahu was so much terrified from the news of Delhi armies that on 13th December 1734 he issued 200 letters to the Maratha captains including Krishnaji and Udaji Pawar not to go or remain in Gujrat for a month. Maratha leaders such as Ranoji Shinde, Malhar Rao Holkar, and the Pawar brothers moved north in response. On 3 December 1734, Pilaji Jadhav was ordered by the Peshwa to join the campaign, awarding him lands in Malwa. Worried, Shahu ordered Maratha chiefs to stay away from Gujarat for a while.
    Pilaji Jadhav marched from Deccan on 16th December 1734 after collecting large troops and entered into Bundelkhand 14th January 1735 via Ahirwada and operated there till the end of February 1735, This was a campaign in which the Marathas were to rely purely on their speed aad mobility as they were outnumbered with the Mughals. Jadhav departed the Deccan on 16 December and penetrated Bundelkhand around mid-January 1735, making quick raids until February. Despite the numerical disadvantage, the Marathas employed their superior speed and horse warfare maneuvers to outstrip the slow Maratha forces of the Mughals
    Early in February 1735 when Pilaji Jadhav was operating into Bundelkhand, Vazir Qamruddin marched against him with 20,000 to 25,000 troops, many elephants and had 2 or 3 light engagement with him between 3rd to 12th February 1735 and made Pilaji who was helped by Hirdeyshah Bundela, to retreat to Pahori and Kolaras Qamruddin marched to Narwar where Pilaji surrounded him, captured his 2000 to 3000 camels and mares. Vazif could ® escape only by paying a ransom of Rs.5 laes to Pilaji who now permitted him to retire to the capital where the latter reached on 9th May 1735 In early February 1735, Pilaji Jadhav, aided by Hirdeyshah Bundela, initiated a campaign into Bundelkhand. In turn, Mughal Wazir Qamruddin Khan marched against him with 20,000–25,000 men and a few elephants. Between 3rd to 12th February, some minor skirmishes took place, after which Pilaji fell back to Pahori and Kolaras. Qamruddin advanced towards Narwar, but Pilaji surrounded his army, seizing 2,000–3,000 camels and mares. Qamruddin fled only after paying a ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs and reached the capital by 9th May.
    On 27th February 1735 Pilaji left Narwar for his return march to Deccan. He reached Narmada on 27th March 1735 via Kalabagh and crossed it for Deccan, reaching Pune on 15th June 1735. Thus Qamruddin a strong supporter of the battle with Marathas also suffered the defeat at their hands. Meanwhile other Maratha captains continued collecting dues from Sironj, Bhilse and Bhopal. Pilaji set out for his return to the Deccan on 27th February, crossed the Narmada on 27th March through Kalabagh, and arrived at Pune on 15th June 1735. This was a major setback for Qamruddin, a major ally of further war with the Marathas. At the same time, other Maratha leaders went on gathering revenues in areas like Saugor, the Bhil country, and Bhopal
    • Battle of Rampura is a problematic POV article that not only has close paraphrasing issues but also is pseudohistorical. As Maniacal ! Paradoxical has conflated 3 different conflicts under one made up title.

    They are still working on articles that push Maratha POV. I think it is essential to impose a narrow restriction from Maratha confederacy as was proposed by two established editors in this topic given all these issues with their edits. Orientls (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment - I knew there would be problems if this user was to be unblocked without a restriction from the topic they were disrupting as such I and @Flemmish Nietzsche: requested a topic ban as a condition for the unblock. Voorts's advice about paying heed to the concerns of colleagues has not been followed given their edit warring at the Battle of Sinhagad I would support any restriction since disruption is still continuing. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will note that the place for raising concerns regarding the articles of reported user is either on the talk pages or at AfD and the old version of Battle of Rampura was deleted under WP:G5, so the OP's claim that -- their articles were previously speedy deleted because of copyvio is apparently unfounded [199], the drafts were indeed taken down under WP:G12 but given these were not in mainspace, I don't know how it affects this report. Capture of Sinhagad (1693) seems poor but a little cleanup and expansion will sort out the issues. It's going through AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture of Sinhagad (1693), It'll go down, if it will be deemed as problematic. The Draft:Arab expedition to Kikan is another example of "under incubation", and it's not even falling for G12. I don't understand why one would hit his eyes at their "problematic" AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of Sambhaji, totally unwarranted for ANI, not that the wikitable of Battle of Rampura gives any clue for close paraphrasing (only the second last entry, seems closely phrased to me). That being said, Maniacal should restrict themselves from creating articles with comparatively less coverage because the room to avoid close paraphrasing is very less.

      Lastly I have to say that the users involved here (except OP so far), seems to be involved in WP:COI, possibly conflicting their off wiki POV with Wikipedia hobbies, recently SPI was filed on me, Maniacal and HerakliosJulianus and then we suddenly saw the latter's article getting repeatedly and poorly nominated for AfD [200][201][202][203][204] and there we see NXcrypto (alias Oxiyam.Primal) actively participating [205][206][207][208][209]. which is concerning and should be given due attention because of WP:HOUNDING and WP:BITING issues. Not to mention Ratnahastin's hasty revert [210] of dubious additions and unsupported contents cited with faulty pages should be given due attention because they cite p. 661 despite the source doesn't have pages beyond 576. Ironically, we often see these "close paraphrasing tables" throwing [211][212][213] around the users they often conflict with. So If I had to describe this report in two words, it is bogus and misleading, it should be closed, given the possible COI, canvassing and hounding, it should be taken as a pinch of salt. I would go on and even ask for a careful examining of the edit histories and possible boomerang on the involved user. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    block request

    [edit]
    IP BLOCKED 3 MONTHS
    By ScottishFinnishRadish. Attacks and obscenity. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Yamla, @Elowa, @Sitush @RegentsPark Please block this user, he uses very derogatory words to insult only one caste. See that [214] [215] etc..--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not familiar enough with castes and do not speak Tamil (?), so I am not the one to make a ruling on this. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Translate comes up with Puta Devitiya Boya School Pussy You are dead. How can I see your eyes and ears? for the first passage but fails on the second. Not definitive but indicative of someone who is probably not here to improve the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I broke #2 down into fragments, and ran some of those (not all) through Google Translate from Tamil; a trick I've used before in difficult cases. "naa vena aval vaaile vindhu vidure" and "avan vaila vadire vinthu nakki kudeen" are obscene; I couldn't work out whether insulting or pornographic. In either case, NOTHERE imo. Narky Blert (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ali Mohamed Ossoble history

    [edit]

    Ali Mohamed Ossoble was my father.He was not born in Ceelbuur but in a sublocation of Ceeldheer where his maternal SubClan lived.He was born in 1930. My name is Ahmed Ali Mohamed Ossoble and my X account is @AhmedAWardigley and I have a blog at wardigley.blogspot.com.I will try to put my input in the political history of my late father.Best regards. 197.157.228.82 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the unsourced material from Ali Mohamed Osoble. As for adding material, including his birthplace, birthdate, etc., a blog is not a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But please do add anything that can be reliably sourced. It is even more important than usual to include reliable sources for people whose name may not always be consistently spelt in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you have old newspaper clippings or know where you can find reliable sources of info about your father? Any articles written about him? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism and CIR concerns regarding 50.209.62.201

    [edit]
    72 hour block applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Their edits in recent days/weeks/months seem to be at best lacking a clear rationale/explanation, and at worst outright trolling/vandalism. They also appear to somewhat lack the English-language competence needed to edit productively:

    And so on. Their talk page displays multiple vandalism/disruptive editing warnings from the past few months, which they don't seem to have heeded. The Kip (contribs) 19:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked for 72 hours. As this is the first time they've been blocked, it's a suitable starting point. If the disruption continues, the next block can be longer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated use of LLM/AI writing to add "content" by 2a00:23c4:1594:a601:3401:8674:66c4:cc61

    [edit]
    Six months for the /64. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've just reverted (Special:Diff/1284815503) this user's repeated additions of AI-generated content on First Eastern Counties past last warning on their talk page, with no response. See also the recent history of Norwich Park and Ride.

    Sorry if this is the wrong noticeboard since there's so many of them and this is the first time I've seen something like this. Fork99 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In the contribs I see egregious edit warring against multiple users. An AN3 report may be more suitable but I don't see why, based on the circumstances, it can't be on ANI as is. Departure– (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it--thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive IP at various pages

    [edit]
    Blocked by PhilKnight. --qedk (t 愛 c) 23:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Various vandalism edits, openly flaunting/shrugging off warnings at talk page, openly referring to self as a spammer. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and honestly, they did ask for a block. The Kip (contribs) 23:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Drew Stanley - Bad faith SPIs to harrass a contributor

    [edit]

    31 March 2025: Drew Stanley removed sourced content

    Drew Stanley removed a sourced content [216] citing unreliability of the source. And adviced me [217] to not to use that source again. I warned him [218] to not to remove any sourced content without a discussion and tried to have a conversation to resolve the issue. [219] [220] Drew Stanley did not reply to any of my attempts to initiate a conversation at that time.

    31 March 2025: Drew Stanley filed first SPI [221] against me

    In response to my attempt to initiate a conversation, he filed first SPI (link [222]) accusing me of being a sockmaster. I took it as an action in good faith and tried to respond to his claims on that SPI in a detailed manner. (link [223])

    5 April 2025: SPI closed as there were no findings of sockpupetry

    The Admin reviewed the SPI and closed it on 5 April 2025 with a comment, "I'm not convinced that there's any socking here....".

    8 April 2025: Drew Stanley filed a second SPI [224] against me

    Drew Stanley, not satisfied with the outcome of first SPI, filed a second SPI (link [225]) against me on 8 April 2025 (3 days after the closure of his first SPI). Interestingly enough, in his second SPI he deliberately avoid mentioning the first SPI whose outcome was not in his favour. The Admin also took note of it and commented that, "Refiling...(link of first SPI)...without at least referencing it is not usually a good look". (see full comment here [226])

    In his second SPI he is directly approaching Administrator on their talk page [227]

    9 April 2025: bad faith revenge edits

    I used [228] a source published by University Granth Nirman Board, Drew Stanley made an edit [229] on lead section (brought controversy on top) of this publication's wikipage and tried to degrade the credibility of the source. This shows how desperate he is to harrass me by doing everything he can.

    So basically, Drew Stanley is removing sourced content without discussion, not interested in resolving issues via conversation (he only replied [230] yesterday after doing all these), filing multiple bad faith SPIs back to back, contacting Administrator personally during open SPI and making revenge edits to degrade credibility of an institution.

    His battlefield behavior and conducts are very disturbing to me as a new user (who has just joined a month ago). How am I suppose to contribute constructively if there are SPIs against me every other day? Drew Stanley is doing everything he can to make sure that I do not continue on Wikipedia.

    I request the reviewing Admins to please go through his SPIs, especially the second one, It seems like he is not concerned for the content or the Wikipedia policies. He just want take revenge on me by doing all these. Please help me by stoping this. Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 03:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I'm not buying the "woe me, the persecuted newbie" narrative here. You are certainly vigorous in punching out the long legalistic arguments for someone whose will to edit is being cruelly sapped. On the merits, it appears to me that I'm not convinced that there's any socking here is hardly a ringing slapdown (especially when partly based on the disruption being prevented by ECP); a second SPI based on new findings is not malicious, and not invalidated by neglecting to link to the first; and the "revenge edit" is a reasonable piece of editorial judgement (whereas your reaction is loudly partisan to the subject). And as long as we are tallying lapses from grace, there is no requirement to discuss sources before reverting, as you aver here, however there IS the expectation that a discussion take place before edit-warring the reversion back in, as you did in the following - see WP:BRD. So I'd suggest giving this exercise a rest. The editor doth protest too much, methinks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add that Drew Stanley's removal of the source and sentence is obviously correct, and that the statement itself, Some modern and British-era historians link the Cathaeans to the Kathis of western Gujarat, though evidence remains uncertain. cannot possibly be verified by a 100-year-old source in the first place. @Senapatiji, please self-revert, and familiarize yourself with WP:V. -- asilvering (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with this and that's why I provided a new reference [231] published in 2022 (first edition in 2020). And I am ready to remove this also, my only point is, there should be a discussion if there is an issue, and it looks like he still has issue with that new source. So, finally we are discussing it now. [232] [233] Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 10:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you have added here is also not a reliable source. It is high time that you should read WP:HISTRS. Koshuri (グ) 12:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm neutral right now but I would like to see User:Drew Stanley's response to these accusations. Both SPIs are very densely-written with many diffs showing comparisons between editors and I didn't have time to carefully go through the charges. But they are definitely the precursor to this complaint. I will say that Senapatiji is very adept at editing on Wikipedia that doesn't fit with the limited competency of a brand new editor to the project. But I'd like to see how the second SPI case concludes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it's true, my editing skills are now far better than I had during my initial edits. But this is only because I dedicate significant amount of my time in learning this and I'm still learning. Senapatiji (talk) 🏴‍☠️ 10:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The "accusations" against me seem to be that I am acting in bad faith and that I am "doing revenge edits," which is "battlefield behavior." I am not. I edited University Granth Nirman Board because I was open to its credibility ; while there, I foregrounded a notable piece of information that had been buried at the end. This is why I contacted Justlettersandnumbers.
      I concede that my issue with the non-english sources is partly due to frustration that i cannot access it - perhaps it is useful, but i have a feeling it just cites/reiterates James Tod.
      I noted the in my first SPI post Daniel Case added ECP to Kathi people after edits by Senapatiji (most were reverted); following this, Senapatiji added links to a few hundred pages. significant amount of my time in learning this ? not sure Drew Stanley (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That is pretty blatant WP:PGAMING. Done the "grant XC and then revoke it" thing on Senapatiji due to the gaming. If they want XC they will have to request it once their account is over 30 days old. I will also echo Liz's comment that this doesn't seem like a new editor. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Mc Corkle Netting

    [edit]

    What happened to his Wikipedia page? (Author of Cultural Ecology; Balancing on an Alp; HIll Farmers of Nigeria; and Smallholders, Householders (Pre-eminent Agricultural Anthropologist) I recall having found the page, read and referred back to it a few times over the past decade or so. I thought it was a pretty good summary. It's gone; poof! Wha' Happm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:29f:e700:7c60:2ef4:aaa8:4291 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There have never been pages for Robert Netting, Robert Mc Corkle Netting, Robert McCorkle Netting, Robert McC Netting (the name he apparently writes under), R.M.C. Netting, R. M. C. Netting, or RMC Netting. Also, you should probably ask this at the Teahouse instead of ANI. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't find any trace that there ever was a WP-article, assuming it's this guy.[234][235][236]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have Kofyar people which mentions one aspect of his work. Are you perhaps thinking of that? It's possible some other articles of ours mention his work too but these mentions have been parred down or removed. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit that when I saw this National Academies Press work had a "conclusion" section, I thought "Oh no, yet more WP:LLM generated text"... -Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

    NLT at Talk:Goldbach's conjecture

    [edit]
    It's possible that someone who's homeless, with no bank account or contacts in academia [237] solved one of the greatest unsolved problems in mathemathics, but threatening legal action leads to a block, and block evasion leads to more blocks. Article now protected. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Been blocked, but now evading as an IP. [238] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More IP block evasion. [239] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Zanbarg's disruptive edits

    [edit]

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

    I am reporting User:Zanbarg for continuous disruptive edits. This user has made a duplicate article at least three times under different article titles[240][241][242] for a TV series, that has a draft article - Draft:Slay (TV series) which has yet to pass the article submission. This reported editor has questionable edits - claiming they need to be in peace[243], saying they are "clean now" through their edit summary[244]. The editor has also accused me of stalking twice for editing the drafts they've created.[245][246]Hotwiki (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yongpeng Sun

    [edit]

    Yongpeng Sun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Editor has regularly used non-reliable sources for at least a few months (possible going back even further). They return every few weeks or a month and make the same sort of edit again.

    Examples:

    Editor has been warned multiple times (regular talk page blanking, [247]) and has not responded to any of them. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 14:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Furkanberk52

    [edit]

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

    Editing pattern suggests they are trolling and POV-pushing Armenian genocide denial, with them calling properly sourced info by experts in the field of the Armenian genocide "biased" or not "objective". ([248][249][250]). A topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan seems fitting. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    79.125.235.139 evading their block

    [edit]
    1-*22 blocked 24 hours for evading the block of *139 per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yesterday, 79.125.235.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for making disruptive edits toward articles relating to iOS. Today, while patrolling the recent changes page I noticed that the iOS 16 page had been updated by a user with a very similar IP. This new IP, 79.125.235.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), had added "why block" to that page. This leaves me to believe that the user may be evading their block.

    Evidence:
    From 79.125.235.139: [251], [252], [253]
    From 79.125.235.22: [254]

    I warned the editor multiple times to stop their disruptive editing and they refused, which led to the block by @Jauerback.

    Tagging other users who were involved in warning this IP: @Toketaa @ObserveOwl Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hanamitchi / Yukitanooki

    [edit]
    WRONG VENUE
    WP:SPI is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hanamitchi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Yukitanooki (talk · contribs) (Commons RFCU). A quick scan didn't turn up any outright abuse by either account on this project, but they do edit the same pages. Passing it along for you to deal with as you wish. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    076f (talk · contribs) could be another sock, but no harm done. 0x0a (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an SPI filed with the user? Conyo14 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1285000718"