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

    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 [8], 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 [9] 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 [10], in several replies on the talk page for Arameans [11][12][13][14][15], 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 [16]. 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 [17]. 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 [18][19][20]. 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. [21]
    • again Midyat Guest House, you tried applying Assyrian culture category, with no consensus or mention of Assyrian. [22]
    • on Düzgeçit, Midyat you added Historic Assyrian communities in Iraq. [23]
    • same done for Yünlüce, Lice. [24]
    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 [43] (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.
    • [44]
    • [45]
    • [46]
    • [47]
    • [48]
    • [49] (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)
    • [50] (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 [51], [52], [53] and [54]. 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 [55], Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party [56], Assyrian Medical Society [57], and a page called Radya Caldaya [58] 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 [59] [60]. 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 [61] [62]. 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]
    @Asilvering Just as a notice, I recently reverted the article Midyat Guest House to edits I had made earlier this month. The name of the community was previously Aramean but in my edits I wrote Assyrian/Syriac, and I just now left a talk page post that talked about restoring the edits.
    I just want to know if I'm in the clear since it expands the article and adds more sources, and the source doesn't outright mention either label (it only mentions the Turkish word Suryaniler). To be honest, I feel like you weren't clear with how exactly this dispute on names should be navigated until a consensus on the ANI or the larger content is achieved, so any words of advice or policy would be helpful. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, @Wlaak, thanks for your patience with this. It doesn't look to me like this ANI thread is headed to admin action of any kind right now, so I think you should take up @Robert McClenon's offer of dispute resolution and try to work the broader question out there. Please continue to be respectful of each other and avoid edit-warring, but since the initial disruption appears to have stopped, I'm happy to rescind my any further undiscussed changes of this nature will receive a block for edit-warring warning. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. yes, i will make sure not to substitute Assyrian for Syriac or Aramean without going to discussion first, even if sources state otherwise. this has been a long process, has taught me a few things. Wlaak (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the people involved, excuse me if this is premature, but I am not confident that you have learned that much from recent Wikipedia experiences. Taking into account your recent edits at Syriac Orthodox Church [63] [64], as well as the talk page discussions linked here, there are still evidently hints of a POV by prioritizing information about the Aramean arguments instead of the Assyrian ones. This was close to violating the 3RR rule for edit warring, and other editors involved in the discussion have not had a chance to make their statements to establish a full consensus on edits despite being listed for a peer review. Other concerns of Wikipedia:Cherrypicking were also introduced, and the talk page lists that the discussion involves contentious topics.
    I am urgently suggesting that consensus related to the suggested avenues is first achieved from this point forward before making edits of this nature. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeed learned from this. I did not remove any Assyrian mention of the article, I expanded identity part, in the identity section of the article. I included your feedback since you brought to light a neutrality position held by Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.
    However, it do seem as you were the one pushing a POV, as seen in this edit. You had to add "whose birth name was Sanharib after the Assyrian king", after his formal name as a Patriarch in the article?
    You also removed this part: "the Arameans are the Syriacs. He stated that anyone who makes a distinction between them is mistaken. According to him", which is the central point of the "Name and Identity" subsection.
    you did not remove the part about the Aramaic language, but only the part about the Aramean people, despite the source explicitly says: "The Syriac language is the Aramaic language itself, and the Arameans are the Syrians themselves. Whoever has made a distinction between them has erred."
    I did not make a edit of such kind (other than the one reverted, which I complied with) until you already introduced the Patriarchs stance on identities, despite not having consensus, yet you urge others to have consensus, for expanding something you introduced... without consensus? Wlaak (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Content, not contributors, both of you. Please discuss this at DRV or on the relevant talk pages. -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I'm just pointing it out, apologies if it was premature. It's kind of hard to word exactly what I want to say at this point, but since this is already contentious as it is, maybe it is better to pursue the suggested avenues first before making content changes on a separate article. As has been shown with this dispute, the content and conduct are inherently related with each other, and noting Shmayo's recent comment on Wlaak's indef block on the Swedish Wikipedia, it appears he was blocked there for enacting similar changes on articles without broader consensus. I have already made mention of what consensus applies to and is considered on the talk page for the SOC [65], I'm not sure what I could be missing that hinders my argument or the article discussion. The content needs to be balanced to fit both perspectives, and I'm not confident that they do right now even after the previous discussions here and on the talk page. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mate, we could go in circles all day, I've linked the version you edited, where you pushed the Assyrian king name on the article, and the deletion of the Aramean identity part, which was the central/key point of the subsection, despite source supporting it.
    You said it yourself in the talk page that it was great improvements, from that comment, I just put back the Aramean identity part which you deleted and removed the POV Assyrian king mention.
    What is POV by me? And what is underrepresented? I did not delete anything Assyrian, and I mentioned the former neutrality you gave feedback on, at this point it just feels as you are attacking the identity, not the content.
    We could discuss further on the more appropriate page, Syriac Orthodox Church. Wlaak (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I'm just adding my concerns here in case it is involved with the ANI. Seems that there's been a reply on the SOC article, so we can take it back there and discuss from this point moving forward (though I will be off-wiki for a few hours). Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unarchived the ANI since it was never properly closed and I wanted to make a note of recent developments. It appears that on the same page for the Syriac Orthodox Church, Wlaak has continued to revert changes that more than one editor disagrees on despite attempts to reach proper consensus procedures and emphasis on maintaining neutral discussions through the talk page [66]. See below:
    Removed content for talk page discussion - [67][68]
    Reverted edits shortly after - [69][70]
    A DRN or RfC was suggested, but the disputes on that page tie back to this ANI and the naming dispute and I don't think either would be effective at solving this problem initially. Clearly, however, this is disruptive editing on the part of Wlaak in establishing a consensus for the page. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not reverted what more than one person agreed on. Please re-check. We agreed on the quote; it was deleted. You yourself were satisfied with the improvements I made, writing: "Thank you, it looks much better. I made small edits to condense the information to flow more easily, as well as to note his birth name and to fix the year when he wrote his book (it was 1932, but the correct year was 1983)."
    Another editor wrote: "The section would be better without the quote," which was implemented. Thus, I wrote:
    "Done. According to feedback, included the Holy Synod part, in which Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas presided over, and so for every Patriarch, presiding over the Holy Synod."
    We were then moving on to the next paragraph:
    "Alright. That's okay, now the next paragraph which starts with 'Although the church is not ethnically exclusive...' needs some formatting. I kinda feel something's wrong or it's not in the correct place in that section."
    The initial feedback was:
    - The Synod statement should be highlighted.
    - I don't think that the latest contributions, including the quotation, are a good addition to the section, based on the above.
    Both these points were fixed. The quote was removed, the Holy Synod statement was highlighted and written about, and other smaller corrections were made, such as fixing "formally declared" and the author's name.
    Secondary sources have also been implemented, and more are to come.
    You keep unarchiving this ANI, despite agreeing with the changes on the talk page.
    Nobody in the talk page agreed on deleting nearly everything on the section, including you, who was in favor of it.
    At this point, you are just trying to find any ground, no matter how shallow, to have me blocked on it feels, and it is not appreciated! Wlaak (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a mischaracterization of why I have unarchived the ANI. I was satisfied with one of these edits, which were then challenged and discussed by another editor. They reverted the whole text of your edits in hopes of proposing various changes to the content prior to re-adding or rewriting them into the article, and you reverted them both back almost immediately after. The other editor pointed out you were stating your own opinions on the topic despite them trying to reach consensus, and from thereafter suggested filing RfC or DRN on your edits. Being on a goose chase to try and get you blocked as fast as possible is not neutral and unwarranted behavior, and it is not what I have been doing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We had already built the section prior to the other editor reverting, you published the quote. You were also satisfied. He then came and reverted, with no consensus. And what was my own opinion? It is ungrounded for.
    You've been unarchiving this thread 2 or 3 times now, for matters relevant to the talk pages. Every feedback was implemented, after having been done, everything was removed. It is uncalled for and no reason to have been done! Wlaak (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Question About Unarchiving

    [edit]

    User:Surayeproject3 - Can you please state concisely why you have unarchived this thread? What sanction or administrative action are you asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 22 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]
    NOT IMPOSED
    No consensus for imposting a topic ban. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Davidbena and euphemisms for rape

    [edit]
    There is consensus to siteban Davidbena.
    To avoid any potential chilling effect, I'd like to emphasize something many comments on both sides addressed: It is unavoidable that we sometimes must write about archaic perspectives on rape and consent, and no one is arguing that it is wrong to describe the views of historical figures who considered rape acceptable. If this ban proposal had been predicated only on the use of euphemisms, I think this would have resulted in no consensus; that could be plausibly defended as a good-faith paraphrasing error. The stronger arguments to ban, which gained increasing support as the thread went on, were 1) Davidbena's response in this thread when that initial error was noted, 2) Davidbena's original research arguing that Jews might be exempt from international laws regarding rape, and 3) Davidbena's history of sanctions, which limited participants' willingness to dismiss the other two issues as innocent or one-time mistakes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B.: The single late-breaking, unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry did not contribute to this close. I'll handle the tangential ongoing edit-war separately in a moment. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Davidbena has had previously topic bans from ArbPIA (in 2018[71] and again in 2019[72]; they were blocked for violations and associated behaviour in 2021[73], and the topic ban expanded in 2022[74]) and a proposed topic ban from Christianity in 2013 got only support, but was (as too often happens) archived without closure[75]. 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[76], 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[77][78], 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]
    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]
    @NebY: that was my own translation of the Hebrew written by Maimonides. Maimonides in Mishneh Torah (Hil. Melakhim 8:4) used the word "bi'ah" (Hebrew: ביאה) for "sexual intercourse." He wasn't even trying to say the word "rape." I have come under heat for citing Maimonides. If anyone needs confirmation about what I say, he can contact User:Ynhockey, who is knowledgeable in Hebrew.Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the trouble - you presented your own translation as evidence that "connexion" was the appropriate way to translate Maimonides. You have not presented anyone else's translation or cited any Hebrew-English dictionary. If you had not translated Maimonides yourself with such a rare, fey, word but used a term closer to and even more literally translating his Rabbinic Hebrew, not acknowledging it as rape would have been clearly his responsibility, yet in discussion here you doubled down on your translation and made yourself a participant in that evasion and obfuscation.
    Intentionally or not, but certainly regrettably, this has somewhat diverted us from your WP:UNDUE assertions in Wikivoice, such as "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",[79] at a time when military sexual violence is an ARBPIA issue (e.g. Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war and Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel). In that light, your obfuscatory translation is of a piece with the denial that sexual violence is criminal. NebY (talk) 17:04, 15 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"[80] - 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]
    You think 'rape' and 'sexual intercourse' are interchangeable? Holy fuck. --Onorem (talk) 14:36, 11 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]
    @Zanahary you do realize he already has been persistently disruptive, which is why he has been blocked and topic banned before? I'm not disagreeing with your oppose as that's your right, but there's a disconnect with the reason. Star Mississippi 15:20, 11 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]
    @Drmies: To the best of my knowledge, I NEVER said that rape is not a harsher word than sexual intercourse (unless it were an inadvertent "typo"). Of course "rape" is harsher than saying "sexual intercourse" and it is also a different act, as it involves violence. I would never say nor suggest that rape is not worse than ordinary cohabitation between a man and his wife. I guess what some editors here fail to realize is that, in Judaism, the uglier the word, the more we are proned and inclined not to say the word, but to use alternative language. Here, however, on Wikipedia it is advised to use the regular language, no matter how hard it might sound.Davidbena (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    I guess what some editors here fail to realize is that, in Judaism, the uglier the word, the more we are proned and inclined not to say the word, but to use alternative language.
    This is a personal decision of yours, it isn't true that Jewish people avoid direct speech. In various articles and here at ANI you keep representing your views and decisions as part of a collective that isn't close to monolithic. This is a competence issue. 107.115.5.79 (talk) 17:51, 14 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]
    Of course I would agree to be under Cullen's mentorship. I would seek his approval before posting any article, if he'd agree to this.Davidbena (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, I would be willing, and the AFC-only-for-certain-topics proposal also seems smart to me. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:23, 13 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. Is it a solid rule to write at all times "kill" instead of "euthenize"? 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]
    @NebY: Actually, Maimonides used the Hebrew word ביאה‎ which is translated into English as either "Sexual intercourse" or "coitus" or "connexion".Davidbena (talk) 21:03, 13 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]
    @Davidbena: The uses of "violated her chastity" in History of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1800–1899, Murder of Elizabeth Fales, and Norfolk County Courthouse (1795) are in verbatim quotes from an 19th century text. Of course that doesn't violate MOS:EUPHEMISM. --bonadea contributions talk 18:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bonadea: My use of "connexion" is also a paraphrase of Maimonides' words in his Code of Jewish law. Maimonides in Mishneh Torah (Hil. Melakhim 8:4) used the word "bi'ah" (Hebrew: ביאה) for "sexual intercourse." He wasn't even trying to say the word "rape." I have come under heat for citing Maimonides. If anyone needs confirmation about what I say, he can contact User:Ynhockey, who is knowledgeable in Hebrew.Davidbena (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, these are different things. The three articles quoting the 19th century court case quote the source verbatim with quotation marks and a clear attribution of the quoted text (and the source reports the exact words of the witness in the case). The use of that expression in the Wikipedia articles is not a paraphrase, nor is it a translation in which a Wikipedia editor decided to use one phrase rather than another one. -bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You must be talking about something else. I never mentioned anything about a "19th century court case" nor about any "witness" in my reply to you.Davidbena (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still talking about the three Wikipedia articles you used as examples of articles where the phrase "violated her chastity" were used. Surely you must have readthe context of the phrase in those articles, if not before you mentioned them here, at least after people explained how none of the articles violates MOS:EUPHEMISM? Do you see how your use of "connexion" is not comparable to the use of "violated her chastity" in those articles? --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 14 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]
    Firstly, Wikipedia is not literature. It is an encyclopedia - as you note - and that means it should use clear, unambiguous language. Our purpose is to provide information.
    Secondly, we don't need to make rape sound nice. Quite the opposite, in my opinion. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Birdsinthewindow: Okay, I can agree to not making rape sound nice. It is, after all, a disgusting and horrid act. I linked certain words to rape, when I wrote the article, as I recognized it for what it was. With that said, I have an honest question. When a rabbi of Maimonides' caliber discusses the issue of the 'Beautiful captive woman' and wishes to say something related to "sexual intercourse," in his Mishneh Torah (Hil. Melakhim 8:4), he uses a Hebrew euphemism for "sexual intercourse", rather than one for "rape". Now if I or someone else came along and cited from Maimonides (in the above passage) and did not use Maimonides' Hebrew euphemism, but rather the full meaning of the word implied by him, namely, "sexual intercourse," or if a synonym was used for "sexual intercourse" such as "connexion," is this wrong? After all, the point was to cite from Maimonides.Davidbena (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One issue, though by no means the largest, is that using "connexion" to mean "sexual intercourse" is exceedingly rare. Choosing such a rare word makes it seem that the intention is to obfuscate.
    None of The Cambridge Dictionary, The Britannica Dictionary, nor The Merriam-Webster Dictionary even give "sexual intercourse" as a possible meaning. The Collins Dictionary does list it, but marks it as "rare". The comprehensive Oxford English Dictionary also lists it, with three quotations dating between 1791 and 1810, but one shouldn't need to consult the OED to understand a Wikipedia article. CodeTalker (talk) 21:21, 13 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. Support given subsequent discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC) EDITED 19:38, 15 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 think "euphemistic" is a reasonable description of the phrase "forcibly have marital relations." It's not as bad as the other euphemisms Davidbena has used, but it still uses ambiguous language ("marital relations"). Birdsinthewindow (talk) 05:12, 13 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]
    The only reason Quincy Wright was cited is because we were looking for a source that showed that, sometimes, there is a conflict of interest between "religious laws" and "secular laws." That was the entire purpose; no more and no less.Davidbena (talk) 19:00, 13 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]
    @AndyTheGrump: It should have been obvious to anyone reading this article that, by saying the laws could only be applied if the Sanhedrin were in their former place, that such laws DO NOT APPLY to us today. That should have been self-evident. As for the source that was formerly cited in the article, that excerpt was duly deleted, as it was clearly not applicable here.Davidbena (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is self evident is that your citation of Wright in the article was a complete and utter fabrication. Wright wrote precisely nothing on the subject of the article. THis is simple, demonstrable fact. You cited the source. It is readily available, archived. That you are still nit-picking over irrelevances, while failing entirely to address your flagrant disregard for the integrity of the project (which is what falsification of a source constitutes), only convinces me further that you are unfit to participate in the project at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I, respectfully, disagree, as my sole intention in citing Wright was to show that modern-day international law can, occasionally, clash with individual state laws, and, in our specific case, the theocratic state laws of Israel, when they were once applicable. In the final analysis, we made the decision not to carry the edit, as it was deemed irrelevant.Davidbena (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for at least admitting that you falsified a citation in order to shoehorn in your own personal interpretation of a question that absolutely nobody asked. And having your repulsive editorialising about the legitimacy of something that occurred millennia ago under modern international law removed as the obvious off-topic crap it was by somebody else in no shape or form detracts from the point that you added the crap in the first place, in the pretence that this garbage was sourced to a renowned scholar of international law. If you want to promote such nonsense, I'm sure you can find somewhere else for it, but I see no reason why anyone who thinks that it belongs on Wikipedia should be permitted to continue to edit at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    .Davidbena (talk) 18:35, 13 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) After a week of failure to move on and step right back from this entire area I'm not opposed to a community ban as a second choice. Daveosaurus (talk) 20:39, 17 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]
      @Zero0000: that old excerpt was duly deleted because it did not apply. Besides, I never insisted that it should remain there. The only reason that it was cited in the first place was because we wanted to show an example of where "religious laws" sometimes come in conflict with "secular laws", and the author indeed spoke about that. To be clear, Wright did not speak about "religion", per se, but rather spoke about the laws of existing governments vs. international law, and we were contrasting his views with a laws of theocratic government, such as that of ancient Israel. As for the statement, "In contrast, religious Jews view the laws bequeathed to them by their forefathers as immutable," this was supported by a very reliable source which you seem to overlook. The most important matter, in my view, is that we decided against using such statements. Davidbena (talk) 18:47, 13 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]
      Randy, I don't think you do any favours for David (or any user facing a sanction) when you turn up the heat of the discussion by implying that anyone who supports the proposal is doing so from pure mob psychology, rather than their owned principled reading on the policy considerations and the project's interests. I don't think you, coming from the other direction, would appreciate it if someone implied that the primary reason you are opposing a sanction is because you have been hauled before ANI so many times that you are reflexively inclined to dismiss legitimate community concerns. Again, that sort of commentary brings "much more heat than light" as we've grown accustomed to saying as a community. So let's maybe keep the meta-psychological speculation on other user's motives for their !votes out of the process altogether, and focus on more direct debate on the objective merits of the various possible solutions to an unfortunate situation. SnowRise let's rap 06:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think you, coming from the other direction, would appreciate it if someone implied that the primary reason you are opposing a sanction is because you have been hauled before ANI so many times that you are reflexively inclined to dismiss legitimate community concerns.
      This is ten times more personal and inflammatory than Randy's comment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know about ten times, but yes, it very much is personal and inflammatory. It's also completely inscrutable to verification or falsification and based in supposition that has nothing to do with the direct debate concerning the merits of the proposal. Which is why I was very expressly using it as an example of the kind of dubiously speculative and unhelpful commentary that ought to be avoided. If I'm going to make a comparison that attempts to reflect something I know for certain that Randy as an individual is almost certain not to endorse, I have access to a narrow range of examples I can be certain about. But as I was at extreme panges to emphasize in that comment, no such person speculation about the motives of other contributors to this discussion (whether as individuals or a collection of editors supposedly falling prey to "witch-hunting" mentality) are especially constructive or advisable here. SnowRise let's rap 08:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Snow Rise, please strike much of your above. I think the number is two (not ten, and both times they were pretty ridiculous charges. Did you bring one of those?) People sometimes use this forum to pile-on when someone is "brought" here for something totally unrelated and usually much more trivial than an indef, and then someone gets the wise idea that "hey, since they're here let's indef them!" and others often take that as an opening to do damage to someone far exceeding the initial concern. Strike your inaccurately-perceived misinformation and strangely specific intent-analysis please, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry Randy, that's just not going to happen. Nor indeed is there anything in what I said which would constitute "misinformation" for me to strike. With respect, you and Zanahary both seem to be a) missing the point that I am not in fact accusing you of anything, but rather using a counterfactual to explain to you why your own commentary is unhelpful; and b) conflating the meaning of the words "specific" and "personal". Just because you made your assessment of "witch burning" one that applies to a large number of people (who simply happen to have different view on the proposal from yours) rather than referencing one particular person does not mean that every person you thus branded does not have reason to feel insulted by your characterization. Indeed, the fact that your implication was broad merely means that you made this personalized assessment against a large number of people; personal offense does not dilute with numbers in such context.
      But more to the gist of what I am trying to communicate to you, you are illustrating the very point I was trying to emphasize. These are precisely the types of unnecessary, extraneous, and unhelpful side discussions which begin to take over a conversation that is meant to be focused on the issues at hand when you start to introduce wild speculation about the supposed motives and psychology of your rhetorical opposition. And, as genuinely motivated my original comment to you in part, that becomes deeply prejudicial to the person against whom sanctions are being considered. Because such a person almost always benefits from a cooler temperature in the discussion. As soon as you introduce invective about how the other side is out to get someone (for...reasons?), or only endorsing action out of some kind of group-think variety of reflexive and vindictive impulse, you increase the tension in the discussion and decrease the likelihood of limited or no sanctions. Even as you nominally attempt to defend David here, by using such an approach to discussion, you hurt his interests. SnowRise let's rap 10:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      These are precisely the types of unnecessary, extraneous, and unhelpful side discussions which begin to take over a conversation that is meant to be focused on the issues at hand when you start to introduce wild speculation about the supposed motives and psychology of your rhetorical opposition. This is embarrassing. You decided to write a novella-length “I’m not touching you!” and now you want to chide the editor whose quite general and inoffensive comment you replied to with a backmasked “are you sad because you’re ugly?” ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Look, I can barely track what the intended meaning behind your putting-words-in-my-mouth metaphors are there, but I can gather enough to assure you that you are way off base as to what animated my comment, which was a sincere desire that David receive a fair hearing-out, and that if there is a decision to CBAN him, that it result from the merits of the argument that such is necessary to protect the project. Not because one or more of his would-be defenders riled everyone up. And let me be clear about one thing: I don't think that passing commentary that one believes that ANI sanction discussions can escalate quickly is problematic in itself. That's a reasonable observation.
      But when Randy starts to frame all !votes contrary to his view as attempts to "witch burn" or participate in a "feeding frenzy", then that starts to cross the line into invective that serves no purpose but to inflame sentiments and entrench the positions of those who have concerns about David's conduct. We are talking about a user who has used Wikipedia as a platform to broadcast his pet theory that Jewish men should perhaps be considered morally and legally permitted to rape "captive" women. Said user is already topic banned from ARBPIA topics, and has come in for community and ArbCom sanctions repeatedly in the past. And yet Randy's interpretation is that the only explanation for why some community members may be considering a CBAN in those circumstances is that they are prone to reflexive and punitive mob mentality.
      That's a pretty dubious conclusion to draw, but Randy is entitled to his view. However, when he voices that opinion with the kind of provocative, intemperate language he chose in this situation, he does absolutely no favours to the person against whom sanctions are being considered. If David is to stay on this project, it will require nuanced discussion, not random, unprovoked broadsides launched at uninvolved volunteers contributing their perspectives to this discussion in good faith. SnowRise let's rap 16:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again - nailed it, no notes. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 08:00, 12 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 Strong 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.

    EDIT: Having read more, omfg begone with him

    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]
      No offense intended Alan, but I think you've inaccurately summarized and framed the issues there. David was not attempting to quote primary (but otherwise reliable) sources providing alternative views to more typical social norms or principles of law on the definition of rape. He was attempting to insert extremely fringe (and that word hardly seems to even suffice in this instance) views suggesting that rape should not be considered a crime when practiced by Jewish men (and by extrapolation to the modern context, Israeli soldiers) upon "captive" women, in Wikipedia's voice. Or at least, his prose extolled that an intelligent and reasonable student of international law would at least consider such an argument. Honestly, even citing such an argument as a significant minority view almost certainly would have been rejected, based on its fringe character and lack of adequate sourcing to support it, with potential to land us here. Because you're not going to find any formal standard espousing such a principle adopted by Israel or any of its allies in the modern world, nor any major Jewish authority engaged with modern positive law, nor any other serious secondary voice considering the validity of such a standard in the context of modern international law.
      So the "this polity/culture may define murder this or that way" analogy is inapposite to this situation. But that's rather beside the point, because David didn't even attempt to use that one-step-removed approach, but rather entered this disturbing argument into an article in Wikivoice. We just cannot have content like that going into our articles. It vitiates the encyclopedia's credibility as an even remotely neutral source of knowledge and makes it a fount of extremely dubious (and indeed, ugly and dangerous) editorialized original thought. SnowRise let's rap 06:49, 11 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]
    • Oppose community ban as an overreaction. That said, there does appear to be a CIR issue here: although Davidbena suggests on his userpage that he is a native English speaker, he apparently knows nothing about modern English conceptions of rape and has chosen to use a 70+ year-old translation as a linguistic source. I'd suggest that he adjust the Babel box on his userpage to reflect his actual understanding of English. I'd also support a TBAN on Judaism, as he appears to have no idea how to write for a non-specialist audience, which means that most of his work will fail the relevant guideline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Davidbena has demonstrated an unwillingness to learn from mistakes and an egregious misunderstanding of Wikipedia's community norms. At this point, a ban seems warranted.
    Birdsinthewindow (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban per rsjaffe. Andre🚐 05:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN (or essentially any topic bans as second choice). I didn't want to be here any more than anyone else but it's truly impressive how deep a hole Davidbena has dug for himself by repeatedly failing to acknowledge any kind of wrongdoing here. The original use of euphemisms is IMO more worthy of a trout than a CBAN; what's CBAN-worthy is the wholesale failure of WP:CIR in this thread. Loki (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the crux of the matter. Anybody can be wrong, even very badly wrong. It is also possible to be badly wrong and not to accept that you are, while altering your unacceptable behaviour. But editors need to be able to understand and process that the comments of the community so that they can avoid future mistakes, even when they feel they are in the right.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN. This seems horrendous euphemism, and willful clueness by DavidBena of community members pointing out what this is just as horrendous. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN, or else topic ban(s), for CIR reasons. I have been feeling very conflicted over this, because being taken to task at AN/I is very stressful and I think that's a reason to give people some slack about the things they write in an AN/I discussion about themselves. I can ascribe Davidbena's responses to me higher up in this thread (where he seems not to understand the difference between quoting a source verbatim, paraphrasing, and using Wikivoice) to that. But there are just too many issues, and I think SnowRise's summary from 9:56, 10 April shows that pretty clearly. I also hope that if Davidbena is CBANned, he will take the opportunity to read Wikipedia and gain a deeper understanding, leading to a successful appeal in a year or so. --bonadea contributions talk 20:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN; if that doesn't gain consensus then support TBAN from ARBPIA, again, and from Judaism. It took me a while, as a rare ban-supporter, distracted by the doubling down on bad translation without citing any published translation or Hebrew-English dictionary, but that and other evasion above is Judaism TBAN-worthy. Yet it's worse; Davidbena published this in article space, full-formed, as an article that presents a carve-out for rape "so that Jewish soldiers on the battlefield may remain blameless", arguing that "international law" could not override this. Davidbena's recent ARBPIA limited ban was lifted in November 2024. If this was the first time DavidBena had backslid, a full broadly-construed ARBPIA and Judaism TBAN might be appropriate, but he was also topic-banned in at least 2018, 2019 and 2022, with intervening blocks, failed appeals and other restrictions – I can't track it all. I see many past assurances of having learned, but now it seems only a CBAN will prevent further harm. NebY (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from Judaism, Israel and religion, broadly construed. Either they will find other areas to edit on Wikipedia or they'll stop editing cause they are only interested in that topic area, which is effectively a CBAN. It is a WP:NOTHERE editor who is pushing a POV:
    Pretty sure this is arguing that Israeli soldiers who commit rape should not be subject to international law

    When it comes to traditional laws of armed conflict, these laws often contradict and stand in direct violation of international law. Today, for example, women are protected under the laws of the UN against rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the occupying forces (The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 [in Articles 13 to 16]). In contrast, religious Jews view the laws bequeathed to them by their forefathers as immutable. 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? According to Quincy Wright, there have been legal precedents where, in a conflict between a newer statute having international implications (such as a law enshrined in 19th-century law and an older, more provincial law), the older and more provincial law prevailed.

    TurboSuperA+(connect) 18:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban. David's comments in this very discussion, where I presume he is making an effort to be as reasonable as possible, are often extremely worrying. For example his suggestions that the word "connexion" as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (which is clearly in turn a euphemism for rape) "sounds more professional" or "sounds more encyclopedic" are downright scary. (He defends them with the comment "some words are nicer than others from a literary standpoint".) I feel I have to support a community ban. A T-ban from sex and/or religion might also work, but what won't work is this discussion gliding off into an archive again (compare Fram's OP) because of the varying suggestions. Really, let's do something here. Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support community Ban Doug Weller talk 10:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose CBAN, but though I would support COI-esque restrictions. What I see is preference to use more familiar (and in this case archaic) language, not deliberate whitewashing. JayCubby 13:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CTBAN from all topics involving non-consensual sexual intercourse rape, and y'know what? If David proves to be a problem—beyond the term "Davidbena" showing up 89 times across this page, in contexts nearly always concerning his clear inability to differentiate "rape" and "not rape"—it may well be time for indef because no unpaid volunteer should have to deal with this problematic-ness. More than enough rope has been allowed. BarntToust 18:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN or CBAN I know Davidbena has made a lot of contributions but it's hard to see him as a net positive with this article. I'd rather Wikipedia not have an article on this topic than the synthy mess it is right now (and that's after a fair amount of cleanup). He's been editing for 11+ years and still hasn't learned to cite modern, scholarly publications rather than religious texts directly. (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support cban Blaming Maimonides for one's own WP:WHITEWASHing of language wil not cut it. Per User:Onorem, "Holy fuck" at thinking words like "connexion" are synonyms of rape, and even if one does personally believe that (or Maimonides tells you to), to actually say, here, that it is artistically preferable and more literary in what is meant to be an educational tool (etc.) is moving towards CIR territory. Support t-ban as a very weak second best, per Bishonen. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • support CBAN: per SnowRise & Bishonen. he has had so many chances to reflect in the past when he was sanctioned. we're well out of ROPE at this point and the passage TurboSuperA+ quotes above is just entirely beyond the pale - why is anyone willing to tolerate this? ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN (or, failing that, TBAN for anything involving sex, Israel-Palestine, or Judaism): I'm frankly surprised that there are people who are still willing to give the benefit of the doubt here. When a user is falsely citing sources to claim that there's any kind of "debate" in international law about whether or not rape is/should be legal if your religion says it's okay, and when that same user takes an unreasonably long time to acknowledge why it isn't acceptable to treat the terms "sexual intercourse" and "rape" as interchangeable, or uses their own subjective translation of a source to replace "rape" with some obscure, archaic word and then defends it with "well it sounds nicer" (effectively admitting that he was trying to make raping women sound less nasty), then they're really not someone who should be in the community. If anything the fact that his initial version of the page explicitly said he was talking about "non-consensual sex" only makes it worse: he knew exactly what he was talking about, and he still went out of his way to describe it in as vague and inoffensive a way as possible, and then tried to falsely imply that "rape is okay if you're Jewish" is a legitimate interpretation of international law (which, try as I might, I cannot possibly believe he actually thought was a viewpoint any scholar of international law has ever held, especially since he admits that he knew the source in question made no mention of this viewpoint). --Tulzscha (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN.Above I stated I was neutral on a CBAN, given the evidence presented that the user has been writing WP:OR apologia for the rape of captives in an ongoing conflict, the idea that I might be part of a project in which this user is welcome makes me want to vomit.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Tulzscha above. Rape is rape, and doesn't somehow become something else because of the religion of the rapist. We wouldn't (I hope) try to use gentler language if it was a Christian or Muslim perpetrator based on holy texts or centuries-old philosophers, and we shouldn't for Jewish perpetrators. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN. If this were only about scholarly commentary on the morals of people from a long-ago age, clearly distinguishing them from the morals of today, that would be one thing, but the commentary suggesting that these archaic attitudes should still be respected and followed today takes it far over the line. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN: Upon further deliberation and recognition of DavidBena's problematic editing, it's clear that his most notable contribution to the project is... ugh, there aren't words to describe how baffling... I'm frankly disgusted at observing how his "rationale" works. We don't need his ideologies on rape, not "conexion" or "non-consensual hanky-panky" on enWiki. BarntToust 12:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN: They're clearly pushing one particular POV on the topic in a WP:TEND way; while this alone might be resolveable with a lesser sanction, their continued refusal to get the point across multiple discussions makes it clear that they're not going to improve or change. --Aquillion (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose CBAN , support TBAN from sex, oppose TBAN for Judaism (though agree he should check with Cullen or others before creating new articles on anything with chance of being controversial.) David's been disruptive here & a few times in the past, but reviewing his contribs his more characteristic edits seem to be peacefully expanding articles on Mediterranean herbs & similar useful work. Per Cullen, the OG version of BCW was far from rape apologia, prominently asserting in the lede that the act is universally thought-of as being repugnant. I don't read the international law thing as a normative argument. Rather it's a broadly correct description of the situation. (albeit not actually correct, it was a mistake to write it on several levels, but not so big a mistake as to warrant a permaban.)
    more on why I don't see a perma as warranted, hatting as wont be worth reading for most.

    In practical terms, in the context of war, it's rare that IL would override local laws & customs. Per Clausewitz , "imperceptible limitations... known as international law and custom" are "hardly worth mentioning". He wrote that in the 19th century, but it's still regarded as "the definitive word" in the 21st ( source, p.355 ). Events like Nuremberg are rare exceptions, and anyway occured after the fact. Hussein wasn't limited by IL by when he decided to loot Kuwait of her best Mercedes, BMWs and other booty, Bush wasnt bothered by IL when he decided to take Hussein out a decade later, and ICC issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu isnt restraining the IDF - local laws are, albeit to what any with a heart would see as a totally inadequate degree. David is to be commended for tackling these matters in a way likely to effective in mitigating global trends for pro rape attitudes. This isn't to even mildly reapproach editors who found David's approach "repulsive" or "disgusting" as theyre only reflecting dominant (at least in WP:RS world) mainstream opinion. Sadly though, the morally outraged / "you're deplorable!" progressive approach has proved counter productive. It used to be truism that young people hold the most progressive opinions - now even in the UK, a majority of GenZ lack progressive views on a variety of rape related questions, unlike up to 87% of older adults who had their formative years when people like David were driving social progress. As even our International law article hints at, it was Maimonides who helped drive a consensus for "Just" conduct in war that largely endured across Europe for centuries. In this century, it was Christians like Biden & Cameron who drove legislation for gay marriage etc - the arguments that carried the day sometimes included euphuisms and didn't involve calling opponents bigots. In this light, David standing by his preference for partial use of euphemism, and faithfulness to how the topic was covered in OG sources, is fully understandable. Many folk find David's gentle style more persuasive - if any here have contacts in the UN or major NGOs that work in this area, they should be able to confirm that operatives in this field are trained inline with this. Since the morally outraged crew took over in the anglosphere, actual progress in social attitudes has been thrown into reverse. Huh, earlier this month there had to be a change.org petition to take an ultra graphic rape simulator down from Steam, which openly advocated that women enjoy it. Also this month, Microsoft pulled out of major deals to lease datacentres for training ChatGPT, with slack taking up by "Mr Intel" (also former CEO of VMware) for the training of a new AI that will reflect faith based values. As the world rapidly returns to religion, an increasing proportion is going to learn from faith based AIs, not the general public ones & certainly not from mainstream legacy media. Thanks to David, their training data is always likely to include the fact that certain practices are "universally considered repugnant", even if sanctioned by Deuteronomy. This said, WP:RGW precludes violating policy like WP:OR even for noble ends. I'd recommend that when it comes to articles that might be controversial or high-impact, David makes greater effort to base articles on recent, mainstream scholarly WP:RS , rather than ancient texts.

    FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @FeydHuxtable:The version of Beautiful Captive Women which the user produced contains the following statement in wikivoice:
    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? (Quincy Wright, 1917) Moreover, can laws rendered by non-Jewish courts of law become binding upon the people of Israel who are governed by different laws? (no source) According to Quincy Wright, there have been legal precedents where, in a conflict between a newer statute having international implications (such as a law enshrined in 19th-century law and an older, more provincial law), the older and more provincial law prevailed.(Quincy Wright 1917) During the Israeli-Lebanese war of 1982–1985, a Jewish soldier took as a wife a Lebanese woman whom he met while seeing action.(no source)
    This is a text which uses a hundred year old source, which does not mention Jewish law, to introduce into wikipedia the WP:OR opinion that rape of female captives by Israeli soldiers is possibly legal. Not legal under arcane and theoretical Jewish religious law, legal here and now. Are you seriously suggesting somebody who is prepared to add text such as that to our pages is safe to be let loose here? I wonder if a user who wrote in wikivoice an equivocal passage on whether the Islamic State selling non-Muslim women as sex slaves was possibly legal would be viewed as charitably. And it is worth pointing out that rape of captives by Israeli soldiers is very much something that is happening now, not a theoretical question, so this is an attempt to justify ongoing war crimes.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We agree writing the passage was a WP:OR violation, and a mistake on several levels. And more importantly that anyone trying to justify rape of captives in an ongoing conflict, warrants a CBAN at the very least. But unless I'm misunderstanding you, we disagree on whether that's actually David's intention, whether what he wrote is likely to have effects in that direction, and about which laws are 'arcane and theoretical'. It's international law that meets that description in the context of having influence on practical conduct in a war, as sourced in the box. In Israel religious law is an intensely practical matter, and how to resolve conflicts with secular law is hotly debated. Albeit more the conflict with secular domestic law, not international. IMO, rather than trying to justify rape, David was trying to do the opposite (perhaps only sub consciously), drawing attention to the contrast between religious law (e.g., despicable as it might be, they are supposed to free the captive if they don't marry her) and the horrendous othering happening on the ground in the conflict right now. David said he was in a "state of mild shock" thanks to this ANI, and that was back on 10 April when the case against him was less fierce. At least now if he reads this he'll see some of the community still see him as having good faith reasons. This said, also sorry reviewing this situation has caused you to want to vomit. It's quite common for folk to experience secondary trauma if they look to deep into the detail on this sort of matter, so I won't be further replying here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    there are many other fish in the sea when it comes to busywork and random contribs. Davidbena's other contributions are very replacable, and anything he—and everyone else does here—are not necessary for the encyclopedia to exist. I'm sure we'll live not having a few articles about some herbs. The above, and so much more of what David does prove that he doesn't need to be a part of the community. BarntToust 14:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many folk find David's gentle style more persuasive
    That's the problem. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be persuasive, WP:SOAPBOX.
    David standing by his preference for partial use of euphemism
    His "preference" goes against Wikipedia guidelines, MOS:EUPHEMISM.
    This said, WP:RGW precludes violating policy like WP:OR even for noble ends. [!!]
    even if sanctioned by Deuteronomy.
    You're literally praising David's problematic behaviour and doubling down on the excuses "even if sanctioned by Deuteronomy".
    Can an admin who is participating in this thread look at this and warn this user before they get themselves in trouble also?
    @Bishonen, @The Bushranger, @Star Mississippi (sorry if I forgot someone) TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's...definitely a word salad Feyd posted. I honestly can't tell if they're advocating for what David's is (which it seems like from their overall wording) or somehow think his position was opposing that which he was clearly advocating for (which their exact words seem to imply). - The Bushranger One ping only 17:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also read Feyd's post as saying that they interpret Davidbena's text as being critical of Jewish law and implying that it should not be followed. I don't understand how they can have come to that reading, but I think that's their argument.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @FeydHuxtable: Looking at just the herb/plant edits there are a lot of issues... If we set asside the ones that overlap with Israeli politics we are left with ones like Withania somnifera where Davidbenna hasn't done much other than wage a slow edit war to include traditional uses... Twice in 2015[81][82], in 2021[83], 2022[84], and 2024[85]. They've never commented on that talk page either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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". ([87][88][89]). 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]
    experts in the field, hmm. Does expert in the field only mean 1 man or men who's names end with yan/ian? These towards are literally "biased" and one sided.
    This is like in newton-modern pyhsics arguement, only using newton's sources.
    You are writing, you are playing, then who will counters it? asperagasmanchini (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some comments for @Furkanberk52:
    1. Your signature is confusing, as I see no connection between "asperagasmanchini" and your username. It would be nice to fix that. I believe it has slowed down responses to this issue, as people are having trouble seeing the connection between your post and the original complaint.
    2. Why do you refer to Armenians that way (by surname ending)? Seems a bit off-putting to me. Please answer.
    3. The references you objected to (as linked above) do not seem to be from Armenians, so you putting down Armenian sources seems to be a non sequitur in this discussion.
    4. If all Armenians and people of Armenian heritage (with those last names) are "literally biased" does that mean that all Turkish people and people of Turkish heritage are also "literally biased" and using them for denial of the Armenian information is worthless? Please answer.
    5. If you object to a source as non-reliable, please also post objective evidence that it is unreliable. Otherwise, your objection could be seen as frivolous.
    Thank you in advance for your reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all of this. @Furkanberk52 if you want to check whether a source is reliable, please see WP:RSP for a list of sources generally seen as reliable by the Wikipedia community. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 23:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumping thread for 10 days. Furkanberk52 edits infrequently, delay close to allow them to reply to questions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Topic ban

    [edit]

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

    • Support ban This is not a constructive editor. Suggesting that a source is reliable or not based on the ethnicity of the author is frankly racist. (t · c) buidhe 02:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buidhe Then, [name removed as per WP:OUTING], there is a lot of racism going on Wikipedia, as prolific Turkish scholars like Yusuf Halaçoğlu are judged based on their ethnicity. Taner Akçam, on the other hand, is funded by Dashnak supported Zoryan Institute and has ties to the terrorist organization PKK. Kiisamyu (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban. There has to be some other sort of policy violation for this as well. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 17:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • support TBAN at minimum: obvious POV-pushing and anti-Armenian rhetoric - invoking last name suffixes as evidence of unreliability is problematic to say the least ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support T-ban at least. The user with the two confusing names seems to be editing in a crudely nationalistic way. The thing about "men who's names end with yan/ian" above is deplorable, and makes me ready to support an indefinite block as an alternative. Taner Akçam is recognized as a "leading international authority" on the Armenian genocide, per Wikipedia's well-sourced article about him. To then write, as Furkanberk52 did on Talk:Armenian genocide, that "[Akçam] is anti-Turk and funding by EU. I'd suggest another sources, it can be from USA genocide researches" and to fall silent when asked for sources, speaks volumes.[90] User:LunaEclipse has given further pretty striking examples. Bishonen | tålk 21:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
      @Bishonen Taner Akçam is an operative of German Intelligence Agency BND and is funded by the Hamburg Institute for Social Studies. Source Kiisamyu (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBan but would prefer CBAN. Using two usernames to edit is definitely not on, nor is calling Taner Akçam anti-Turk. That's also a BLP violation. The edits linked are unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Oppose Wikipedia is controlled by lunatic leftists and globalists. They want to smear Turkish history under the guise of encyclopedia building. This thread is just as deceitful as the imperialist lie of Armenian genocide.
    Kiisamyu (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A brand new account that has found their way to this conversation to not only defend OP but spew weird conspiracy theories. I'm sure this will end well. — Czello (music) 00:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i wonder who it possibly could be ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, it was Wallis sabiti who may be Zenzyyx. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban

    [edit]

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

    Ongoing Generation Z page "start year" edit war and ongoing vandalism

    [edit]

    There is ongoing vandalism to the header of Generation Z where the start year is mentioned. There are conflicting sources that do not see eye to eye on the start year of Generation Z which is causing problematic editing in the article and arguments on the Talk:Generation_Z page. I've tried to reach out to other participating users in the article to find a new consensus and nobody has spoken up. A consensus had been reached in August 2024 - Talk:Generation Z/Archive 6#"with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012".

    It is also noted that many of the header edits include information that is already located within the article Generation_Z#Date_and_age_range which seemingly goes against Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight?

    Zillennial (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Zillennial, can you tell me what you mean by "header"? I'm not sure what area this is in a standard Wikipedia article. There is the lede (or lead) paragraph which serves as an introduction and there is a graphic in the infobox with different generations. Do you mean either of those aspect of the article? Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, @Liz
    I'm referring to the lead paragraph in the introduction. Consensus had been reached in August 2024 to keep the it as Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012. Most members of Generation Z are the children of Generation X, younger Baby boomers and older Millennials.. This serves as a neutral point of view without WP:UNDUE.
    If you look at the Talk:Generation_Z page the two users who have been changing this lede constantly are now accusing anyone who reverts the article as being a sockpuppet, breaking Wikipedia:Ownership of content rules, and saying that a 2024 consensus was done by sockpuppets. They are also quoting years old sources to back their point of views up (which are already mentioned in the Generation_Z#Date_and_age_range part of the article.
    Zillennial (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Liz.
    I would like to add more context here. The user @Zillennial keep revert the edit which he is the one who start edit war. The passage that I would like to add is for the context “…specifically 1995 by some academic“ which correlated with the beginning of the sentence as “ Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years…”. I’ve provided multiple academic resources for the change.
    "There may be some slight variations in the definitions of a specific "generation", but the following list generally reflects the standard years ascribed to each: The Greatest Generation – born 1901-1924. The Silent Generation – born 1925-1945. The Baby Boomer Generation – born 1946-1964. Generation X – born 1965-1979. Millennials – born 1980-1994. Generation Z – born 1995-2012. Gen Alpha – born 2013 – 2025." from University of Southern California [91].
    "Students classified as Generation Z were born between 1995 and 2000." from Generation Z Goes to College by Corey Seemiller and Meghan GracePublished by Jossey-Bass. Reviewed by Re’Shanda Grace-Bridges, Director of New Student Programs at University of Dayton [92].
    "Generation Z. These are the people born between 1995 and 2010. This is the generation which is the newest generation to enter the workforce. They are the most technologically adept generation and are highly connected to the social media web. These concepts had their origin in the Western context. Gen Z: An Emerging Phenomenon by Gopal P. Mahapatra M, Naureen Bhullar, and Priyansha Gupta from The NHRD Network Journal is the official publication of the National HRD Network. The aim of the journal is to compile and publish the research and professional views and experiences of reputed HR professionals, line professionals, CEOs, researchers and academicians in different specialised areas within the field of human resource development. [93]
    While @Zillennial and some IP user keeps saying about consensus which myself and another user @karpertem cannot find. Some user even agree that adding is appropriate because the sources included. @EvergreenFir.
    Here I suggests that @Zillennial is violating Wikipedia guidelines by acting as Wikipedia:Ownership of content which keep reverting any edit that not fit there narrative. You can also see that the user has been ignored all the change.
    Lastly, I would like to point out that what we are doing here is provided most contextual knowledge for certain subject not a place to express personal opinion. Gandtha (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gandtha,
    Nobody here is wanting to start an edit war. The Generation Z page has already had this issue for years now regarding the years. I'm personally fine with you adding the USC source into the Generation_Z#Date_and_age_range section and think it would be fine as an addition. However- the other sources that you have been linking are not relevant. One is 8 years old, and the other gives conflicting information as the years overlap (1980-1995 and then 1995-2010). Both are not cited consistently by researchers OR popular media which the lede suggests.
    @EvergreenFir also never agreed to anything. All they added into a talk page discussion was this Talk:Generation_Z#c-EvergreenFir-20250415192500-2601:940:C100:8890:55C6:3705:ABEE:5744-20250415184100 which isn't part of the conversation. Zillennial (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gandtha: This isn't the place to discuss content issue but if you have sources why haven't you tried modifying the body? From what I can tell, all you've done is mess around with the lead. AFAICT, no one has stopped you adding anything to the body, you just never tried. But the lead is never the first place to edit unless the lead say something not supported by the body. You always need to modify the body and the only modify the lead if it's appropriate after you've fixed the body. Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I correct by what you meant, I can explore the head after I added the body then? Gandtha (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The lead is supposed to summarize the body, so if you want to make a change to starting/ending years, you should first change in the body (the "Date and age range" section, in this case) by adding a sourced reference to your preferred years. Sesquilinear (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Liz. I wanted to point out that another administrator ,@Nil Einne, had confirmed that there was a consensus to the 1997-2012 date range back in August, although it was a weak one and that they recommended for a new discussion. This can be seen in the Generation Z talk page. Both @Nil Einne and @Danbloch had already stated multiple times that a discussion must be made before any new edits are made, which @Gandtha is choosing to ignore. The comments from Nil Einne and Dan Bloch are still located in the talk page, yet Gandtha claims that they don't exist. Dan Bloch had already explained the problems that the new edits had, which can be seen in the talk page. Gandtha has chosen to say that both my IP address and @Zillennial are sockpuppet accounts with no basis. I myself haven't made a single edit to the page, and had stuck to the Talk Page discussion of Gen Z. The entire conversation and debates are all found in the Generation Z talk pages incluing @Nil Einne's comments on the matter. 2601:940:C100:8890:AC4B:29C2:4C7B:25BF (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, also wanted to say that I haven't made a single edit to the Generation Z article itself, and had stuck with my IP address to only converse in the Talk page. As for the edits that Gandtha, Kapartem, and others had tried to add, Dan Bloch and Nil Einne had explained that many of the articles were either outdated or simply were generic articles that only reflect the views of the authors themselves rather than being a company-wide definition for the organizations. Some of the articles even conflict with each other. In the Generation Z talk page, Kapartem talks about adding in pop culture articles about celebrities, and even mentioning Google AI and the Google search engine as a source, when Nil Einne commented that the Google search engine is NOT a source. I myself have commented that the most important sources are those based on actual demographic research rather than pop culture sites and simple marketing articles that barely mention anything of substance about Gen Z. The new edits are only adding sources simply because they start with the year 1995 and nothing else! This entire disbute is available on the Gen Z Talk Page. 2601:940:C100:8890:AC4B:29C2:4C7B:25BF (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, @Liz. As I was reading the Talks page, I noticed that the last comment made by @Gandtha on the Gen Z discussion Talk Page quotes something that @Danbloch specifically had said in one of the talk page topics discussing about the August consensus as well as the consensus about not adding any new edits until further discussion and agreement in the talk page, specifically the quote: "set in stone". This flat out tells me that @Gandtha was 100% fully aware of the discussions made by Dan Bloch, @Nil Einne, @Zillennial and I in the past. @Gandtha is playing ignorance and is pretending that none of this exists. Gandtha completely knows about the August consensus because the quote "set in stone" is in the same post that has both Dan Bloch and Nil Einnes' discussion about the August consensus! 2601:940:C100:8890:AC4B:29C2:4C7B:25BF (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, both Dan Bloch and Nil Einnes's discussions are found the topic "Edit warring" that was created 10 days ago. Dan Bloch's quote "set in stone" is found here, which is what @Gandtha quotes in his last comment. 2601:940:C100:8890:AC4B:29C2:4C7B:25BF (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I remarked when this previously came up, there was a very weak consensus for something like the version which only mentions 1997 along with rougher ranges so it seems fair to take this as a starting point. It's also reasonable to take it as the WP:STATUSQUO. This doesn't mean that it cannot change however it does mean that ultimately since we don't want dumb edit warring, since there remains dispute it should stay until a new consensus is formed. The way to establish a new consensus would be by talking and agreeing to something new rather than by accusing each other of whatever evils. I've left more comments on the article talk but frankly I'm unconvinced you're going to be able achieve a new consensus on your own so getting some outside help is likely a good idea perhaps either DRN or an RfC. (And RfC was also suggested by someone else last time.) However it also seems that editors are getting ahead of themselves by modifying the lead with new sources without touching the body. And finally, if you were going to start an RfC please make sure you discuss it first. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STATUSQUO is Wikipedia:Reverting#Avoid reverting during discussion. I recommend reading it. Many editors discover that it does not say what they thought it said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User who disagrees with my views is trying to now "recruit" others to gang up on me.

    [edit]

    @Gandtha is a user who disagrees with my opinions on the Generation Z article. There is a dispute over the lead paragraph where they have consistently cited outdated sources and then tried to pin my page reverts as break Wikipedia rules. Now on the talk page they are trying to recruit other users to gang up on me as a whole hoard to act like a large number of editors are on their side.

    Talk:Generation_Z#c-Gandtha-20250418064600-Yeshu972-20250217162800

    Talk:Generation Z#c-Gandtha-20250418064500-Kapartem-20250416080800

    Talk:Generation Z#c-Gandtha-20250418064300-Jellowd2-20250418003100

    Zillennial (talk) Zillennial (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just asking other Wikipedian to defend their side. Now it's recruiting? Like you conspire with IP user? Whatever I would not waste more time on this anymore .. Gandtha (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called WP:CANVASSING and it's not allowed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyerise and civility

    [edit]
    INDEFFED, NO TALK PAGE ACCESS
    There was consensus that Skyerise was difficult to work with. During a discussion, Skyerise used the term "GooFY" which was interpreted as "go fuck yourself". Her response to that interpretation was judged by some to be evasive, and she was blocked for 3 months by user:The Bushranger. The block was initially controversial, particularly the duration was questioned. However, Skyerise's post-block behavior, which included partial outing and feuding on her talk page, resulted in a conversion to indefinite block without talk page access, and the comments regarding that were supportive. user:asilvering suggested that a discussion should continue on a topic ban or other community sanction, but in over a day, no response to that has been made. I suggest that if there needs to be further discussion, a new topic is opened, as this has gone on for a while and is quite voluminous. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User @Skyerise: has repeatedly shown incivility and a general disregard for WP:PARITY in religious/spiritual articles, with a history of combative editing to add New Religious Movement content.

    At one point I apologized for us disagreeing on an AfD about an article they created and attempted to reset relations (diff), they responded in a way that indicates WP:OWN issues (diff). In the past they have engaged in retaliatory warnings on user talk pages diff (the original context is my only edit on the page in dispute here, which I'll point out didn't involve any maintenance templates at all, they got very mad that WP:FTN wanted "created" instead of "discovered" for a system invented by an individual)

    After that AfD concluded with “keep,” I raised the concerns behind my AfD more specifically on the talk page but got a reply of "I won't engage, go fuck yourself" (hedged as GooFY) diff. The full quote:

    Multiple editors responding to the AfD - everyone but you, in fact - indicated that SYNTH was not an issue. You're beating a dead horse, and I'm not going to engage with your time wasting tactics. You said you were 100% willing to be shown that you were wrong. Well, you've been shown to be wrong, so what happened to your willingness? GooFY!

    ("The AfD indicated SYNTH wasn't an issue" is certainly a creative read of the AfD) This is an area I edit frequently in and am knowledgable about, so it's inevitable we overlap, and I'm trying to be sensitive to the fact that they seem to be taking some of this personally (which is why I only engaged on the talk page and didn't just edit their contributions, especially right after the AfD). They appear to have gotten into another similar dispute at Holomovement in the time I’ve been writing this (diff), which includes the same sort of "Screw you, I'm right, there is no need to be collaborative" approach that seems to dominate their editing on these topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is nothing more than "if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" animosity toward notable and documentable world views. I've done nothing wrong here, and I've produced a great amount of missing content. I won't be further engaging in this kangaroo court where someone surely deserves a WP:BOOMARANG here. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    animosity toward notable and documentable world views
    As I have repeatedly tried pointing out to Skyerise, my concerns around WP:PARITY and WP:NPOV do not mean animosity. This is sort of the issue I see with Skyerise's editing: either you accept their understanding of WP:PARITY or you are out to attack the messanger and hostile to the topic. Any editor who looks closely at my contributions on Wikipedia or commons can see that trying to paint me as hostile to these topics is going to be a very much off the mark. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment here's the AfD in question [94] - as is evident the closer noted the subject was notable and warranted a standalone page and that WP:SYNTH concerns could be addressed via standard editing (no WP:TNT) - it did not say that the WP:SYNTH concerns were illegitimate or fully resolved by the AfD. With that being said I do think that Warrenmck is coming in a bit hot here and that the push-back they're getting from Skyerise is in part because of the forcefulness of their response. I would recommend both parties recommit to collegiality, remember that there is no deadline, and collaborate to identify and improve those areas of the article where WP:SYNTH may be present. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I do think that Warrenmck is coming in a bit hot here and that the push-back they're getting from Skyerise is in part because of the forcefulness of their response.
      I'd actually appreciate some clarification around the "forcefulness of response" comment if we're including more than the ANI, since I feel that my actual talk page thread was quite conciliatory and acknowledged how much work they'd put in. I've tried, for months, to cool things down so we can cooperatively edit pages together because we both have niche knowledge in the same domain and end up overlapping a fair bit, and I'd sort of like that considered in the context of me "coming in hot" considering the whole "go fuck yourself" thing.
    remember that there is no deadline, and collaborate to identify and improve those areas of the article where WP:SYNTH may be present
    The "Go fuck yourself" comment was directly in response to the thing you're asking for. I'm not sure what more I can do to engage civilly, and I sincerely mean that.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels worth pointing out I'm not the first person Skyerise has had issues with on this topic, a thread raised before my AfD discussing synth concerns at the same article was met with quite a reply to @Wound theology (diff):
    Attempting discussion with you has always been a waste of time; the deity yoga of tantra has been defined as a form of theurgy. I rest my case and will simply continue to expand the article without explaining myself to you or responding to any further attacks to my scholarhip or motives.
    It looks like Skyerise is quick to meet content disputes or scrutiny with hostility. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In her defense I have had practically nothing but disputes with her; so it's not like there isn't a lot more context to her reaction. That being said, Skyerise is undoubtedly a valuable editor who has done a lot for the project -- unfortunately her chronic incivility and quickness to anger will be the death of her. Perhaps it is improper, but I have generally refrained from participating in this particular discussion about civility because the talk page dispute ended relatively amicably and she has been thanking me for my edits to the page, and honestly, I didn't want to ruin our first positive interactions. Seems like it doesn't matter anymore. I'm tired. wound theology◈ 02:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In her defense I have had practically nothing but disputes with her
    Right, but me too. There seems to be this chronic desire to be left alone to their own devices on these pages and other editors intruding in the process are unwelcome unless they take no issues with Skyerise’s work.
    They’ve retaliatory tagged erroneous warning templates on user talk pages, edit warred, tried claiming procedural violations to restore WP:PROFRINGE content removed by multiple editors, and in general seem to play fast and loose with sources when synthesizing information on article pages. Couple all of this with being highly prolific and it’s no shock that editors involved in these topics routinely have had issues with Skyerise. I’m fairly certain it’s not just you and me where this has been going on for a while. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've repeatedly pointed out multiple overview sources that explicitly link all the covered topics under the conceptual framework. I've repeated that here. This is a prime example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, where I've provided the requested proof that this isn't WP:SYNTH or WP:COATRACK, but the OP refuses to acknowledge or even discuss the sources, and continues to beat a dead horse, apparently (to me) as a form of justifiable WP:HARASSMENT. That's simply not collegial. Skyerise (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The content dispute is secondary to you telling an editor you won’t engage and to go fuck themselves, to be clear. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that. Skyerise (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A standalone "GooFY!" with the G, F, and Y capitalized at the end of that sentence was, of course, referring to the famed 1934 Disney character with a slip of the shift key when typing. Silly me. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyerise, if I'd seen that edit at the time I would probably have blocked you because it's a fairly clear "go fuck yourself". If you are genuinely claiming now that it wasn't, and given your long block log for this type of thing, I'm considering blocking you anyway right now, and for longer. So what do you claim it means? Think carefully here. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have spelled it goo-FEE, I guess. Just putting the emphasis on the second syllable. Skyerise (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am incredibly unconvinced but it's late here and I'm not going to block and run, if anyone else is equally unconvinced please feel free to do what you wish... Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why were you putting emphasis on the second syllable?? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite won't, but I will. If they'd just owned up to it, they'd have gotten a warning. The denials and deflection? No, that's not on. That's absolutely "go fuck yourself", no amount of wikilawyering will change that, and the fact they deflected and denied means it'll happen again unless blocked - so they're blocked. Given this is not their first block for personal attacks and incivility, it's for three months. No comment on any other conduct issues in this dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The block is ridiculously harsh, and the reasoning behind it is hardly copper-bottomed either.  Tewdar  07:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not shy about it: if I'd wanted to say "go fuck yourself", I'd have spelled it out exactly as quoted, rather than implying it. - Sounds more believable than the block rationale to me.  Tewdar  07:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. Halbared (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be unreasonable to ask for an editing restriction from religion topics when they return? From @Wound theology's comment above ("In her defense I have had practically nothing but disputes with her", which mirrors my experience editing on these topics going back to at least October when they fought with WP:FTN over a specific religious technique being described as "discovered" rather than "created") I'm worried that this is so inevitably going to happen again, and the second they get back to religious topics that we're going to either be right back here or letting it play out again for months before they cross a line as explicitly as they did here.
    I think that their repeated explicit refusal to work with other editors on these topics, or accept any major criticism of their work, would make it imperative that they demonstrate a recommitment to civility outside of religion articles. In those, they tend to move extremely fast and without any willingness to cooperate in and there are repeated questions about appropriate sourcing (the most egregious I can think of is citing a literal necromancer and referring to them as a historian for the purposes of WP:RS diff).
    It's clear that these articles are becoming dominated by Skyerise which combines with their unwillingness to engage and apparently some serious WP:SYNTH concerns (since they provided sources at Talk:Divine embodiment there have been repeated concerns that the sources don't make the claims attached)...
    I think these topics are too controversial at their core to tolerate editing that is openly hostile to other perspectives, considering this goes way back. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm agnostic on these issues (although I lean towards a final chance per Bushranger), but I want to point out that being a literal necromancer doesn't preclude one from being a historian. I'm not convinced Jake Stratton-Kent is reliable as a historian, and I'm actually quite critical of certain other occult scholars for a lack of rigor in their work, but there are lots of scholar-practitioners in the field of Western Esotericism today. wound theology◈ 08:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I’m very aware of scholar-practitioners, I’ve just been unable to find any evidence he is one, as opposed to “a practitioner who publishes a lot”. Typically when we look at scholar-practitioners they tend to have formal academic training, and often appointments, to validate the “scholar” part. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bushranger, good block. I strongly disagree with the notion that it was harsh; words have consequences. — EF5 12:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What did you mean by "GooFY"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [ˌguˈfiː], perhaps?  Tewdar  07:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes you absolutely did. Don't try and claim otherwise. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying you're wrong (I cannot read Skyerise's mind), but I am saying that a three month block is a harsh remedy for something based on assumptions (what "GooFY" was intended to mean, and, contingent upon that assumption, how sincere Skyerise's explanation was). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was their first block, I'd agree. But this editor has a history of blocks, going back over nearly fifteen years, for personal attacks and incivility - it's obvious they have never gotten the message that civility is not optional, and I seriously considered simply indeffing, as it's not "based on assumptions", it's what any reasonable person would read it as. I decided on three months to give a final chance for the civility lesson to sink in; maybe I'm being overly hopeful, but good faith springs eternal. (I will note in their unblock request they've doubled down on the "just emphasis was meant" explanation, which remains entirely unconvincing.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Under these circumstances a three month block is lenient, not harsh. Frankly, their continued trolling/denial should result in the block being converted to indefinite until they admit wrongdoing and pledge not to repeat the behavior. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuinely pledge, not whatever this is. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as I’m also a linguist I must admit that particular degree has never accidentally caused me to tell someone to go fuck themselves. Perhaps unless they advocate too strongly for Nostratic, then it might become a bit reflexive.[just kidding] Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell by an internet search the word "GooFY", uppercase or lowercase, meaning 'Go Fuck Yourself' is a new usage for the word and someone should add it to the Urban Dictionary. If others would take a few minutes and do a better job of searching the net to find it, especially in uppercase, please do so. To be banned for three months for discovering a new way of saying 'Go fuck yourself' when even lowercase Goofy isn't used that way, does not seem like the Skyerise I've read or interacted with here who, as she claims, if wanting to say "Go fuck yourself" to Warrenmck she would just do so. If the usage cannot be found elsewhere on the net, who gets discovery credit, Skyerise for writing it or Warrenmck for being hurt by it? If it is a common way of saying "Go fuck yourself" or "Go Fuck Yourself", then my sincere apology for not being clued-in (kids these days!). But if it isn't, then this may be a three month ban for saying something is silly. Thank goddess I went with my gut and didn't 3RR on a very recent ownership issue that Warrenmck and I have been involved in, and which an administrator may or may not be looking at but I haven't checked in a couple of days. Anyway, I personally would suggest time-served on a good faith three-month block because this seems to be a he-said she-said thing concerning a (maybe) newly-discovered meaning of a word. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh at the risk of creating more drama in an ANI I raised that's already got enough drama:
    Hi Randy, considering it hasn't felt like I can comment anywhere on Wikipedia this week without you accusing me of vandalism (diff), edit warring (for a single revert and starting a talk page discussion, diff) following me to random projects we've never interacted on to insult me (diff), and openly and explicitly refused to engage in BRD by saying it's "too long to read" until you get your way (diff) even to the point of breaking pages and refusing to discuss or acknowledge that (diff) when I was trying to explain in both edit summaries and on the talk page why you were unintentionally breaking pages (diff), and especially considering that when you asked for an admin to weigh in I pinged both @Valereee and @SnowRise (diff) perhaps it's time that you recognize that this is well past the point of reasonable?
    I'm genuinely sick of these interactions, and the aspersion-y ramble above continues this. This all seems to be a direct result of me directly asking you if this was a personal issue or harassment (diff) because it had already felt that way. Your behaviour here has been a bit obsessive and I'd sincerely appreciate a mutual IBAN, either voluntarily or enforced.
    Tagging the admins that I directly raised these issues with privately. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn, what else can "GooFY" possibly mean, though? Just because nobody's used it before doesn't mean that it can't hold meaning. Warren also brought up a pretty damning WP:HOUND argument. — EF5 13:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is a new word then a ban of any kind seems guesswork. Taking Skyerise at good faith that she didn't mean what people say it means seems the thing to do for a new meaning of an old word. And Yikes. Yes, if you take the hounding argument as face value with no checking, it is pretty damning...but, if you look into it, is nonexistent. Warren, is this how touchy you are to criticism and, more importantly, perceived criticism? Don't get me mixed up in your feelings please, as you seemed to do at my talk page, and aspersions (no, I'm not obsessive about you, you are again imagining something - please see the discussion at my talk page). If any admin wants to look into this, please, do so, as I can't revert Warrenmck's removal of a 12-year-old template and replacing it with a new and well-done navbox that should be kept but renamed (why use the name of an existing and well-done template?) more than twice for fear of this kind of overreaction (just one example from above: many of the article's he edits are on my watchlist and interest areas and there we meet, I don't follow fellow editors). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if you take the hounding argument as face value with no checking, it is pretty damning
    I welcome sanctions with open arms if I misrepresented anything in my prior post. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you don't get sanctions, not needed, but maybe don't be so darn touchy and engage in the conversation and not the perceived slights. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think contextualizing this as me being touchy or sensitive is an interesting interpretation of a situation where an editor told two editors with concerns that they were unwilling to engage and capped it with “go fuck yourself”. What other avenue would you propose for someone completely refusing to engage or allow any deviation from their preferred structure for an article? The fact that you can’t see past me being the filer to the underlying behaviour issue is why I think you’re getting a bit odd with this. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The capital 'G' may be because it was the first letter of a new sentence.  Tewdar  13:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tewdar, okay, that's believable, but the "F" and "Y" aren't the start of sentences. — EF5 13:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See the IPA in my comment up there somewhere.  Tewdar  13:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i.e."goo-FEE!"  Tewdar  14:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the Uzbek pronunciation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We all used to pronounce bonus as 'bo-NUS!' when we were children round my way. It was probably very funny if you were six years old.  Tewdar  14:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are entering post-semantic territory. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that, but I really doubt that's what they meant. "FY" is as clear a "fuck yourself" as it gets, and paired with the uppercase "G" (the "GO" in "GFY") I really think there shouldn't be a benefit-of-a-doubt. I concur (I like that word!) with Randy, it indeed is a creative use of the term, but a use nonetheless. — EF5 14:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe for emphasis, as in Goofee for silly? Skyerise says if she meant "Go Fuck Yourself" she would have said it plainly. In good faith, if GooFY is not common usage for that suggestion, how can we create it here? Sources? This is a goofy (silly) discussion all around and could easily be closed as a nothing burger and move on but for the block. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ought it not to be people proving 'goofy' as some slang for 'f'yourself?' Isn't that where the preponderance should lie? Halbared (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GFY is an acronym for "go fuck yourself" with currency. That makes sense. "I was exclaiming 'goofy' with emphasis on the latter syllable" does not make any sense at all. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They put the wrong emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle.  Tewdar  18:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this diff fairly convincing that if Skyerise wanted to tell Warren to go fuck themself Skyerise would have simply said "go fuck yourself". I do not find the GFY explanation in the least bit plausible. Admins should not be blocking based on sketchy 'vibes'.  Tewdar  14:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we'll just have to A-t-D, then. — EF5 14:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See, round my way, AtD means something very very rude indeed...  Tewdar  14:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From the Martian template, @EF5:
    I genuinely think this all started when an editor Randy was close to got CBANed in an ANI I raised, since then they’ve followed me around being instantly contrarian. If you look at the AfD of the page that started all this, Randy hopped in without reading it (per his admission) and said it looked fine and passed GNG, which… never was the concern (diff). I took it to his talk page and asked if it was personal, and since then he’s gone a bit ballistic and followed me around Wikipedia ever since, and here can’t imagine that there’s a behaviour issue to address outside of me being overly sensitive despite four (!) editors weighing in now with concerns.
    I also hope it’s not lost that his counter to my hounding claims was to accuse me of misrepresenting the evidence, which joins other aspersions he’s cast elsewhere (diffs in the Wikihounding complaint above) and I’d certainly appreciate not just being 100% glossed over, given the context. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Warrenmck, I think it'd be best to start a new report if you feel that is needed. The discussion here is long and messy. — EF5 14:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think given the credence being given to the stress emphasis arguments above and the history of being asked to summarize extremely complex ANIs in 300 words if I want an admin to read them I’m probably too low in confidence right now to want to expend the effort. My ocean of diffs has been met with un-cited “nuh uh he’s lying”, and I sincerely am burned out from dealing with Randy, which is why I’ve repeatedly asked for a self-imposed mutual WP:IBAN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
    I'm intrigued. The worst usage I could find for it (according to AF) is "Acquired Toilet Disease", which isn't even that bad. — EF5 14:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the posts above convince me that this block, in its extension, was necessary or even warranted. Boh. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Back of house? Bank of Hawaii? Bunch of..?  Tewdar  18:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry: boh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ---Sluzzelin talk 18:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there was no block based on sketchy 'vibes'. The meaning was blatant, and the suggestions that it was "emphasis" are preposterous; the fact so many editors apparently believe the claim is even more so. That said, their most recent unblock request appears to genuinely understand that what they said was a problem regardless, and if any reviewing admin believes that an unblock is appropriate at this time, they don't need to do the 'consult the blocking admin' thing first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, their most recent unblock request appears to genuinely understand that what they said was a problem regardless
    @The Bushranger I feel like in the mess of interpretations a lot of sight has been lost of the other continual issues around that GFY, such as a Attempting discussion with you has always been a waste of time; ... I rest my case and will simply continue to expand the article without explaining myself to you or responding to any further attacks to my scholarhip or motives. Even @Simonm223 above expressed difficulties with cooperative editing and walked back concerns that Skyerise's lack of civility was a response to heat.
    The immediate post before the most recent unblock request was a re-rendering of a poem about Jews in the Holocaust to lament their persecution on-wiki. If it takes two and a half hours to go from that to sincerely reformed I would still request a TBAN be considered in the event of their apparently possibly imminent return until they've demonstrated an ability to edit civilly. Three out of three editors on the article that spawned this whole ANI experienced hostility for quite civil engagement. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger: Skyerise now appears to be engaging in some weird WP:OUTing behavior? Nothing on Wikipedia speaks to where I live, so that’s a weird reply. diff. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ( Peanut gallery comment) Your signature contains Ogham, so even without looking at your contributions past this thread, it's not a stretch to guess that you're probably Irish, and there's a common misconception that Ireland is part of the UK. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 14:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For as highly educated an editor as Skyerise is that certainly seems like a stretch of GooFY (as in the above discussion, not me saying that to you, to be clear) proportions. Also, if anyone is going to be able to recognize Ogham as Irish while being a linguist and think “Ah, UK” then that’s certainly a leap. Though I expect to hear about how they meant Northern Ireland when they said UK, soon. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, there's a lot(I'd say too much) benefit of the doubt being given to Skyerise in this thread, but that in particular made sense to me as an outside observer. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 14:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally I consider "dredging up every bad thing an editor has ever done" at ANI an anti-pattern, but given that Skyerise has made a 3rd unblock request and there are people above challenging whether this was a good block or not. One salty statement is ultimately not that big of a deal, even if we grant it was truly meant in anger. The question is overall, is Skyerise collaborative or not. I haven't interacted with them that much, but one incident in the recent-ish past did not impress me, where they edited at high velocity to FAITACCOMPLI some article moves to new titles despite requests to slow down. (Scrolled off their talk page, but see [96] and User_talk:SnowFire#Move_warring) Basically they did BOLD article moves, which is potentially okay, but then absolutely refused to back down and reverted a revert (move warring) to keep the articles at the preferred new titles (diff, where they bizarrely accuse me of move-warring for simply restoring the status quo). In collaboration, they were incredibly rude - essentially saying "Sorry you're wrong, but you're wrong," despite talking to literally the person who wrote the section they were quoting yet drawing a different meaning from it. They also displayed a mentality of Wikipedia being about wins and losses, writing "You're gonna lose this one. But by all means, tilt at windmills.". This is completely wrong - they needed to actually defend their favored title on the merits, not brag about how they're the winner and I'm the loser. (Note: Skyerise did not in fact win this one, the page was locked from moves, and when formal RMs were eventually filed they didn't move to Skyerise's preferred titles.). I don't want to over-focus on the merits here - Skyerise is perfectly welcome to have different opinions on titling (although they didn't bother to really display any sources, and I had to be the one digging them up myself -see Talk:Apocalypse_of_Paul#Article_title:_Apoc_Paul_vs._Visio_Pauli, including the delightful "I don't think so. Let's let the rabble decide." as a riposte to the work I put in in good faith assembling what the sources said - "I don't think so" is not very convincing IMO), but they turned what could have been a polite discussion of the merits on the talk page into a needlessly stressful affair of trying to restore a status quo against aggressive moves backed by reverts. That's not good for a collaborative project. That's a reason to not give them the benefit of the doubt above. SnowFire (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There may be totally good reasons to block Skyerise. 'GooFY' isn't one of 'em. Fwiw, I think my one interaction with Skyerise (don't remember, something like we need a reliable source to say someone or other wasn't resurrected as a something-or-other) was perfectly reasonable and ended after I provided a source.  Tewdar  12:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said above "One salty statement is ultimately not that big of a deal, even if we grant it was truly meant in anger. The question is overall, is Skyerise collaborative or not," so just to be clear we are in agreement on this matter. And the initial statement by Warrenmck said "User Skyerise has repeatedly shown incivility". I too briefly interacted with Skyerise before the incident above and it was fine, but the expected threshold for civility is a bit higher than "literally every interaction is negative". The batting average appears far too low here. One particular statement isn't the problem (although obviously lying about it doesn't help), it's the overall incivility. I really did not want to be spending an hour of Super Bowl Sunday trying to stop aggressive moves and frantically marshal sources against someone who hadn't bothered to check, but that's what I ended up doing, and it wasn't a positive experience. SnowFire (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've upgraded the block to indefinite, and removed talk page access, for continuing to feud while blocked, attempts to intimidate thru partial outing, and misuse of talk page while blocked. Any UTRS admin is welcome to restore the status quo ante if they are convinced that this will stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I got to this block via the unblocks queue yesterday, had a half-written response, and came back to it to see this. I think the initial block was absurd (I don't at all think that Skyerise is so childish as to write "GooFY" intending "Go Fuck Yourself"), but that @Floquenbeam's was, unfortunately, justified. I had been intending to argue that Skyerise should be unblocked, but that clearly there needed to be some kind of discussion about whether a topic ban or some other community sanction was in order. I still think that discussion ought to happen, but now I think it has to happen without Skyerise. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tamilcontent1 and Film Box Office numbers

    [edit]

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

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

    • Once again on 19 February 2025, re-added the same claims, this time citing a different source while removing the existing one. I reverted the edit, as it appeared to be a deliberate attempt to present lower figures by swapping sources. Throughout this, they used misleading edit summaries and failed to engage in proper discussion, repeatedly reverting back to their version.
    • On 23 March 2025, they did the same again in Lingaa, citing an unreliable source as if it were reliable. I opened a discussion at WP:RSN to request a source evaluation. The general consensus appeared to be to look for a more appropriate source for that content. User:Tamlicontent1 did not participate in the discussion.
    • In what seems to be a desperate attempt, they then resorted to WP:SOCKING, creating an account named User:Tamilan CSK to restore the same content. They were eventually blocked for socking by User:Izno.
    • On 4 April 2025, User:Tamilcontent1 left a warning on my talk page, saying Snap out of your fan mindset and accept criticism from reliable sources!!!. It can not be stopped.. Then on 7 April 2025, they followed up with a similar message , Another thing is very intriguing to me: There are thousands of authors in Wikipedia. Why are you so obsessed with me? Is it because the article concerned is of a movie star and you have that fan mindset? Please read fully before reverting and avoid disruptive editing. - I have rarely edited box office figures of Indian film related articles and I had not edited Annaatthe prior to this incident.

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

    Concern about using AI-generated text in talk page discussions

    [edit]

    Siamsami2 has been using AI-generated text for several days in the discussion on Talk:2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence. [97] I asked them to write the discussion themselves, but they refused [98] and again used AI-generated text to the discussion. GPTZero Somajyoti ✉ 12:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a false accusation. I did not use AI. Siamsami2 (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you used [99] as a reference to prove that I "refused" to use AI. Nowhere in that reply did I make any such suggestion. Siamsami2 (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because GPTZero says that I used AI doesn't mean I actually did. Other tools, like ZeroGPT, rightly says that my texts are human written. Siamsami2 (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (uninvolved) I don't see anything that can be called "AI/LLM usage" in the diffs provided. EF5 12:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I see an em-dash. I suggest you read WP:LLM; while an essay it reflects community norms. — EF5 12:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who religiously uses em dashes I'm bracing myself for a lot of accusations of using AI given that it now seems to be used as a detection method. — Czello (music) 12:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LLMs tend to use the em-dash (—) a lot, for some reason. I didn't mean to derail the discussion, though. :) EF5 12:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a testing ground. Using LLMs to write one's talk page comments or edit summaries, in a non-transparent way, is strongly discouraged." - Wikipedia:Large language models
    @Siamsami2's added texts (ex. [100]) are 84% AI generated according to one of the most popular, AI detector GPTZero. Link: [101]. Somajyoti ✉ 13:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't say it is 84% AI generated. It says there's 84% probability that it is AI generated. Siamsami2 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. 84% Probabable. And 84% probability means it's completely AI-generated. Not just that text, all of your text added to the talk page is AI-generated. Somajyoti ✉ 14:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. In addition to that, ironically, you are guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of. Siamsami2 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to tell you that in the discussion taking place on that talk page, do not paste AI-generated text again. You can write your own opinion there. Don't paste AI-generated text. Somajyoti ✉ 14:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siamsami2 It's quite clear to everyone that you're using AI. I don't think I've ever seen a real human use emdashes before ever (except @Czello. They're an alien, not a robot[Humor]). Tarlby (t) (c) 17:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I sometimes do: but I'm a former (and elderly) professional non-fiction book editor. Other similarly backgrounded writers might, too, but I concede it's rarer nowadays :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.194.109.80 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy editor since 1986 and litigation attorney since 1999 here. I use em dashes almost hourly when writing for work, and I get tetchy with colleagues who somehow never learned and/or can't figure out their fairly self-evident appropriate uses (or that they don't take spaces on either side to separate them from the surrounding text). They aren't obsolete at all and I'm stunned that anyone would think they're some kind of signifier of large-language-model use. They're a signifier of knowing how to use punctuation appropriately, like hyphenating compound modifiers and using a DADGUMNED COMMA in salutations (it's NOT "Hello JDL", it's "Hello, JDL"), both of which practices people have just given up on for some reason despite continuing utility and necessity.
    I hope I've at least convinced you that I'm not an LLM—I'm a real human, with a cat who's asking me to deploy my opposable thumbs at the moment to pop open a can of stinky food for her, and so you're in luck—I'm done here. Julietdeltalima (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Somajyoti, it doesn't (to me) look like it was definitely AI-generated. The use of correct wikimarkup is a good sign. It is possible that it's been modified from ChatGPT's version, or perhaps rephrased for clarity, but I think a human is behind most of the words written. JayCubby 18:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I am dumbstruck! I did find the post surprising coherent and well-argued, even though the conclusion was faulty. So, I would like to know whether the final sentence, "Disqualifying it on the basis that it’s a guest column is not supported by policy" was generated by AI or whether it is Siamsami2's own opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LLMs are good at sounding authoritative while simultaneously being incorrect. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Humans too.
    Post is well-written and references policy? Has to be ChatGPT. This couldn't possibly be a newcomer. Ban 'em!
    Post is well-written and makes policy mistakes? Has to be ChatGPT. Ban 'em! JayCubby 19:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am actually enjoying the AI bots. They are cleverer than humans and more hard-working. We can get the job done faster. (But I was surprised to find that they make the same kind of mistakes as humans do and equally vain to admit mistakes when caught.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just going to say this bluntly: If you want to accuse someone of using AI, and your main piece of evidence is GPTZero or another automated AI-checker, you do not know enough about AI to be making that accusation.
    Personally I see some AI-like things and I see some not-AI-like things. So okay. We assume good faith. Do the user's arguments make sense? That's what really matters -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, everyone. I would like to clarify that I used an LLM to help me understand some wikipedia policies. After that, I wrote the replies myself and then used an LLM to only improve clarity and wording, which might explain the em dashes. So technically, the content is human-written. I also was not aware of WP:LLM.--Siamsami2 (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If an llm wrote the content, and it does read as if it has, then that content is not human-written. CMD (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you to everyone who's concerned. I think WP:LLM says, "It is within admins' and closers' discretion to discount, strike, or collapse obvious use of generative LLMs under WP:DUCK, and repeating such misuse forms a pattern of disruptive editing, and may lead to a block or ban. This does not apply to using LLMs to refine the expression of one's authentic ideas". Additionally, I would like to apologise if I did anything wrong. Siamsami2 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Be very cautious when using an LLM to understand something. It can do a plain summary, but that may miss some subtleties in the policy. LLMs may also misinterpret things. Unfortunately, there's no substitute to reading the policy itself. Sometimes an essay may explain the policy better, but essays are unfortunately not always correct, as they don't get the oversight and review that the policies do, so errors can creep in. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an excellent analysis of using LLMs for reading policies: https://arxiv.org/html/2503.12225 . — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I will be cautious about using LLM from now on. Again I apologise. Siamsami2 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I am aware of WP:LLM, I’ll make sure to follow it properly. I am happy to adjust my practices to align with community expectations. Thank you. Siamsami2 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tomlanes5576

    [edit]
    SOCK
    Tomlanes5576 blocked as a sock of Infolearner23. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tomlanes5576 (talk · contribs) is, obviously, an account that was recently created for the sole purpose of disruptive editing, mainly at President of Tanzania and President of Namibia; previously, its owner used IPs. In recent days, I have requested temporary semi-protection on two occasions (on 9 April; it was declined on 11 April and on 15 April; it was declined on 16 April). As per advice given at the last decline, I have warned the user, and now I'm reporting the issue here. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 13:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to provide diffs of the editor's comments that show the reported behaviour. TurboSuperA+(connect) 15:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that their edit history, and revision histories of the Tanzanian and the Namibian article, is enough to clearly establish the pattern of their behaviour, but here are some diffs – both while they edited as IPs, and after they created the account – Tanzanian article (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and Namibian article (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 15:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that their edit history, and revision histories of the Tanzanian and the Namibian article, is enough to clearly establish the pattern of their behaviour
    I am not disputing that, I'm just saying that mentioning an editor and articles is not enough, you can't expect others to go looking for the evidence. It's a matter of courtesy and a guideline for posting on this noticeboard:
    "Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem". TurboSuperA+(connect) 16:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, and I'm sorry if I caused some confusion. It wasn't my intention to go against any courtesy that is common here, not to mention going against guidelines. Luckily, I don't have much experience with filing reports here; I can't even recall the last time when I had to do so. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 16:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for diffs here, you're correct that the revision histories of the articles you mentioned are clear. But I don't see any evidence anywhere that anyone has explained what is wrong with the picture they keep trying to substitute in? No one has engaged them on their talk page or the talk page of either of these articles, and no one has explained the reversion in the edit summary. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: User has been wiping off captions on Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah multiple times on unexplained and even false pretenses. [102]. Borgenland (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call that "false pretences", since that's the same edit summary they've been using on the other articles - much more likely a simple mistake. So far, they've been communicating more than you have. Please explain to the editor why you are reverting their edits. -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I warned them earlier in the day about EW. They are now engaging in WP:IDNHT. Borgenland (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tomlanes5576 reported by User:Borgenland. Borgenland (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    [edit]

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

    Agree that the change to the template behavior should be reverted immediately. The editor that introduced the problem seems to have good intentions (using the citation template software to automatically identify and flag cites that have inconsistent data, namely ISBN vs publication date). But that sort of change has vast ramifications and should be discussed, tested, and evaluated first. Noleander (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 98#isbn and pre-isbn publication dates and Help talk:Citation Style 1#module suite update 12–13 April 2025. The result may not have been exactly what was desired, but it's flagrantly false to say this wasn't discussed or tested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those discussions show the level of consensus that should have been required for this in the first place, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be but this isn't a situation were one editor introduced a change without discussion, testing or evaluation as suggested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits to revert are the April 12 edits to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers. I came extremely close to pushing the button myself here and only didn't because I'm not in the mood to jump into another ugly fight. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my technical area but I'm thinking you would need to revert all the changes from Help talk:Citation Style 1#module suite update 12–13 April 2025, unless they can be reverted piecemeal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes of this sort often can't, but looking at the code it looks to me like this one can. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery there's a single line change to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration that would, at least, hide the error message until such time as any discussion about whether this is an error or not is resolved. Nthep (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're an admin. If you want to make that edit, then do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've made the change here. All this does is hide the error message, it doesn't revert the functionality of working out if there is an ISBN/ date compatibility issue. It will take some time for the job queue to take care of them all and anyone who has css modified to show hidden errors will still see them, but it should remove it from view for the casual reader. Nthep (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated on the linked discussion, I support reverting this change. The longer it is left in place the more likely it is to cause unintentional damage by gnomes "fixing" the error by using reprint dates instead of original publication dates of sources. But when we have a choice of citing an original publication or an unrevised reprint, we should always cite the original, because its publication date is useful in providing context to the readers about how up-to-date the reference might be. The alternative, removing the ISBN of a reprint, is also not a helpful response. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, yet another situation for the millionth time of "let's get a "consensus" of 5 or less people on an obscure talk page for something that will affect thousands of articles, rather than having the discussion on the relevant Village Pump page". Honestly think we should just delete the talk pages of these various policy articles and force people to use the Village Pump. SilverserenC 23:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk pages are useful to have, but I can't say I disagree about forcing consensus for changes at VP. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silver seren and Asilvering: I don't think "an obscure talk page" is accurate because Help talk:CS1 is the talk page for all major citation templates. Via redirect it is the talk page for {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{citation}}, and so on. Nearly every citation template with transclusions above a thousand is either one of the templates sharing that talk page or a wrapper template based on one of them. It has 514 page watchers.
    How would discussions be presented on the village pump? Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) have 7 times[103] the watcher count of Help talk:CS1. Although a small increase from 514 watchers, they might be a broader range of editors. However, it would be a mistake to try and make any of the village pump pages into the talk page for all major templates for multiple reasons. First, this could derail the current usage of the village pump by flooding it with highly technical or specific template discussions. Second, maintaining widely used templates would become more difficult. For example, say someone asks which templates accept "volume", "issue", and "page" parameters and why. Right now, one could search the talk archives for "volume issue page parameters" and find the archive with the relevant discussions that give the rationale and consensus. This would be much less feasible if citation, infobox, and so on templates had all of their talk pages redirected to a village pump board.
    Updates to Module:Citation/CS1 are implemented and announced in batches or "suites". This update, for example, was announced at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#module_suite_update_12–13_April_2025 with links to relevant discussions on April 6. The changes were implemented on April 13. Is there a desire to have these announcements linked at the Village Pump boards, and if so how? Would a {{Please see}} template be enough?
    Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone with the correct rights willing to do this? It all reminds me too much of the hyphenated parameters debacle of 2011, where an attempt to make a million-plus bot edits based on a similar backwater discussion was halted by an RFC[104], only to then need an acrimonious CfD to get rid of the "maintenance" category for the same million+ categories for something that didn't need maintenance[105], which finally, one month later, got implemented[106]. I hope this one can move a bit faster. Fram (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a good reason that the editor who made the change is not being identified here in this discussion? At least link to the template so that the edit itself can be looked at. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Pppery did provide a link. It was a module, not a template. And the editor was User:Trappist the monk. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a change here to hide the error message. I haven't rolled back the edits to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers that added the test. Nthep (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the error message, but leaving the error category in place, has the disadvantage that it becomes very difficult to find which reference in an article is generating the error category in case one wishes to rewrite that reference to avoid it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, but if anyone is that interested in emptying the cwtegiry then they can always switch on seeing the error message per Help:CS1 errors#Error and maintenance messages. Nthep (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quincywhite2009.exik

    [edit]
    Quincywhite2009.exik has been blocked for disruptive editing by Star Mississippi (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Quincywhite2009.exik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – I'm not sure how to deal with this. Many of the user's edits seem to be guided by wishful thinking. The user recently created DXP (American TV channel) about an alleged channel that "will be announced" "on December 12, 2025". The page was quickly moved to draft space. The page had no sources, and I couldn't find any either, so I tagged it for speedy deletion, and it was deleted. The user responded "I just want this channel to come back". This wasn't the first time the user created such a fabricated article, The Rescuers (2026 film) was a similar case a month ago. At the time, I warned the user not to create such articles again. I guess this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Or a severe misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked indefinitely as they don't edit regularly enough for a time-defined block to help. I don't think this is the LTA that mucks in children's programming, but if someone wants to do paperwork they're welcome. Star Mississippi 00:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    P.S.: I just found out that this is WP:LTA, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quincywhite2009. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see them on WP:LTA. I've correctly formatted your WP:SPI report - The Bushranger One ping only 17:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TCFFanmade2006YT has failed to address community concerns regarding their lack of citing reliable sources

    [edit]

    Since this editor began editing last February, timed with the release of the first trailer for the Disney and 20th Century Studios-related film Deadpool & Wolverine, they have shown a recurring pattern of only editing in areas related to the connection between those two entities and have continually inserted false or misleading material into a plethera of articles without providing any citations to support or verify their claims. Many of their edits include adding unconfirmed credits and presumptions of what said credits will be as facts with no basis other than their own opinion, and despite numerous warnings and countless reverts, they have failed to WP:Communicate with other editors and have not addressed community concerns. Some examples of such edits may be viewed here and here. Their username itself is already promotional as it is, and they state on their username that they are "20th Century Fox Fanmade (formerly 20th Century Studios Fanmade)". It is my belief that they either do not understand how these studio credits work or are unwilling to communicate and learn why they have been warned and blocked in the past for their continued editing habits. Trailblazer101 (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked them to come and participate in a discussion here. Although they have contributed to conversations on article talk pages, they have only made one edit to a User talk page and it wasn't their own. I'm not optimistic about them engaging on ANI but maybe a nudging will help. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through a couple pages of their past edits, and found only one that could possibly be considered useful. Competence and communication are required. DoubleCross (‡) 04:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And that was only after this was filed... One out of over 800 edits does not look promising. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive page move against explicit consensus

    [edit]
    Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive page move by Shadow. 547.

    Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ooyama1997

    [edit]

    I've had enough of trying to reason with this user and repeatedly asking them to add sources for the content they add in articles. The user has been blocked three times before for the same behavior and still acts the same way, so I am too skeptical that they are still unaware of the problem with their edits. Here are some examples of their edits: [107][108][109] The edits they made just before the blocks have not been different from the most recent ones: [110][111][112] Xexerss (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see evidence of issues along the lines you allude to on their talk page, but if you want any ongoing issues to be addressed, please provide diffs to the articles and discussions in question. Respondents are not going to dig through your edit history to find the alleged offending conduct, and if you want the report to receive action, you should put at least some minimal effort into identifying the current edits of issue. SnowRise let's rap 00:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: I apologize for that. I have now added evidence. I did not do so earlier because this is not a problem of now, but of quite some time ago, and I felt it was enough to check the user's own contribution history to see what I am saying. Xexerss (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, if the level of engagement by this editor on their talk page (which is to say, apparently none), is indicative of their usual level of responsiveness to concerns, the block this time should probably be an indef (once the ongoing issues have been substantiated) until Ooyama1997 acknowledges an understanding of our sourcing standards and endeavours to do better. The blocks are several years apart, so this doesn't seem the worst case of disruption ever, but at the same time, they have been around for a while and facing recurrent complaints about unsourced additions, without apparently engaging in discussion. Meanwhile, their edits and edit summaries appear to indicate a user completely fluent in English, so this is not apparently an issue with their ability to communicate and engage with concerns, so much as a refusal. SnowRise let's rap 00:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically, if an admin thinks this calls for sanctions, we would block the editor from Article space in order to facilitate their communication, either here or on their User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, good distinction. Though, to be honest with you, having seen the diffs in question, I'm not sure even that partial/articlespace block is in order at this point. Xexerss, I'm not saying that you were not in the right to revert in those cases: it's unsourced content and therefor WP:ONUS favours your position if you wish to challenge it. But in terms of problematic unsourced edits, I don't think those three from March even truly qualify for the label. They don't introduce any particularly controversial or extraordinary claims or otherwise violate policies beyond WP:V. Realistically, the average production and distribution detail of the average article on particular piece of commercial media is not sourced. While this is suboptimal and any such detail can be challenged and removed, we do not typically regard such additions as per se disruptive. I'm not saying there is no chance that there is a pattern here that needs to be addressed, but as far as those three edits are concerned, I'm not super concerned. Or is the addition of 'mediaworks" in particular a recurrent problem? Do you expect a COI? Can you give some broader context for your concerns? SnowRise let's rap 13:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: My particular problem with this user is that every time they add info about a distributor for some series they only limit themselves to say that they saw such information on some Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube post (just the mention), and do not take the time to at least cite those sources they mention, not even if they are primary ones instead of secondary. I have asked them countless times to stop doing that, and they still continue with the same pattern. It may not be disruptive in intent, but it still gives more work to other editors who have to take the time to fix their edits, find appropriate sources or outright revert their changes. I repeat, after so many warnings, requests to take the time to add citations, and even three blocks already, I find it very hard to believe that they are not doing this on purpose. Another issue is that Template:Infobox animanga includes a parameter exclusively for English licenses; this user sometimes cites a YouTube playlist that includes series with Thai subtitles only, which as far as I know is far from qualifying as an English release. Xexerss (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Well, at the very least that a discussion with this user about the basic requirements of WP:V and WP:RS would be beneficial. And they seem to be just ignoring the notice to this discussion. Which, to be fair, they are not strictly speaking compelled to respond here. Still, considering the totality of the circumstances, I wouldn't say an attention-grabbing block from article space would be be the worst idea here. Again, this is not the most sensitive area of content, and much of what they are doing is not atypical of the kinds of shortcuts we often see with regard to content pertaining to media franchises. But when you add in the laissez-faire attitude towards discussion, and the reliance on youtube word-of-mouth, then I think some kind of discussion to assess their understanding of basic sourcing policy makes sense. SnowRise let's rap 06:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support discussing with Ooyama1997 (talk · contribs) about their understanding of WP:V and WP:RS where necessary. I've gone ahead and notified the user about them here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Protestantism as heretical

    [edit]

    On the article Protestantism, a person who is clearly IP hopping is stating that Protestantism is heresy, despite being warned about WP:NPOV four times. Cyrobyte (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have diffs as evidence of this? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really IP hopping as it's all in the same /64 range. I've blocked the range for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I protected the article for a day. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIR issue (not resolved yet)

    [edit]

    Hello. I'm re-submitting a report I previously filed which went unaddressed. The editor in question continues to engage in disruptive editing and edit warring across Iraq-related articles, despite concerns about their editing being raised multiple times. Their edits are filled with awkward phrasing, spelling errors, and poor grammar, creating big messes that require repeated cleanup by other editors.[113][114][115] They have also shown a disregard for Wikipedia policies such as WP:SIZERULE.

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

    @Kharbaan Ghaltaan @Abo Yemen Your input would be kindly appreciated. Skitash (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Appears indeed to be problematic. But have you also tried ANEW? Borgenland (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. That edit summary alone reeks of WP:OWN. Borgenland (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I don't think ANEW would be the most appropriate noticeboard here, as the editor is engaging in slow edit warring without violating WP:3RR. They also embed poor quality edits within larger edits as they've done here (e.g. "neighoring" and "Arif's rule was considered as peaceful Iraq") without explicitly edit warring. Skitash (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that @KiddKrazy2 is involved here too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How? I have not engaged in any disruptive editing. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    no i meant like in the discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    okay now you definitely are involved 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue still only concerns Kharbaan Ghaltaan, as Skitash's complaint is against aforementioned. Also, i am still not engaged in disruptive editing. KiddKrazy2 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice here, if the editor does not respond, is to propose a WP:TBAN on the articles in question. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I agree, that's a good idea. I also think a broader ban from article space should be considered (since they make the same disruptive edits to non-Iraq-related articles too[116][117]). I'd also like to note that the editor has ignored three notices to respond here,[118][119][120] and is currently continuing to add WP:FLUFF to Iraq.[121] Skitash (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it doesn't mean that what @Skitash should wipe off entire content. As he often highlight about WP:ARTICLESIZE and all, he can later rephrase the added content according to WP:ARTICLESIZE. If he is an active user in this topic, then he must handle to rephrase article as per WP:ARTICLESIZE, not to wipe off entire content Then why don't he take responsibility to fix up grammar or notify us in user page or talk page, instead of wiping off entire content. Without discussing on talk page he has wiped off entire content
    @Skitash said Adding minority officers' name to that article is meaningless Listing their names here is just as excessive. Please take a look at related articles like Gamal Abdel Nasser and Ahmed Ben Bella, neither of which have sections dedicated to diversity." But You wont find articles explicitly mentioning those leaders' relations with minorities. Egypt and Algeria are entirely Arab, with only one minority group. So overall minorities (except religion in Egypt and language in Algeria) almost don't exist in these countries. Meanwhile Iraq is ethnically and religiously diverse and is a hot topic regarding Iraq. Saddam's topic is often all about sectarianism, ethnicity and religion. Same can be seen in Josip Broz Tito and Hafez al-Assad — Hafez al-Assad#Sectarianism and Presidency of Hafez al-Assad — presidency of Hafez al-Assad#Corrective Movement And I am not listing their names like a list. I am citing few examples.
    As @Local Mandaean said: has removed a huge chunk of infomation containing context and infomation about saddam hussein and miniorites in Iraq, showcasing another side/perspective on saddams regime that not much people have been able to see due to bias in media and so on, this section of the article orginially labelled diveristy in leadership was a well sized addition, which helped give more context to the reader in the leadership ran in Iraq, unlike what the popular opinion is of complete sunni dictatorship, me, and other editors spent time writing more into this, and showing a unbias perspective which showcases that saddams regime did include more then just sunnis then what alot of media says, although one editor has continiousally deleted the section we wrote, citing it dosent go with wikipedias article length rules, although he didnt consult the talk-page for an agreement if that should be shortened, or if instead something else should be shortened. I have tried to talk it through and even rewrote it by making it smaller and trimming it, which was still deleted by @Skitash Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This block of text honestly speaks for itself. If anyone needs further evidence of the WP:CIR concerns raised, it’s right here. Skitash (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this is what I said Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose we rewrite the section of the article to a more trimmed and professional standard, if you agree @Skitash il start drafting a smaller and better-worded paragraph which contains all of our infomation we wanted to be presented on saddams page. Local Mandaean (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PowerMan7632 is WP:NOTTHERE

    [edit]

    PowerMan7632 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. They've been here using AI chatbots to create articles (which are probably hoaxes) like Draft:Qajar-Wahhabi wars, Draft:Siege of Samail, Draft:Attack on Bandar Abbas (1809), and other stuff written on their sandbox (see its history). Speaking of their sandbox, they are creating imaginary battles taking place in... TikTok. Searching for one of the names that they've placed on the infobox ("sodi.player") on tiktok shows those accounts that make "nationalist Saudi edits" using Wikipedia infoboxes.. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially more of a WP:CIR issue. But other than the AI generated drafts, their main contributions are adding OR/Saudi POV into conflict infoboxes [122] [123] [124] Kowal2701 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? bro Me and the guys were having fun in the group chat where I experiment with different styles of battles in wiki and our videos labelled on them fictional wars. Bummer that this guy came Out of nowhere disturbing plus the articles about Qajar-Wahhabi war never been published back since I got rejected for it and if you see any realistic battles in my Sandbox I will gladly give you the sources for it🥀 PowerMan7632 (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTWEBHOST. Do 'not use Wikipedia in this manner. (Warning given on their talk page). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern about my content but this is just an experiment that I do in my Sandbox I love how wiki works and I contribute lot on Wikipedia pages fixing grammar putting better designs and Details I never vandalised an Article I’m new to wiki and I love experimenting with the details in the templates that you guys offer and now I’m working on project with experience as a showing me how Properly edit and I Train in my sandbox PowerMan7632 (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned User Rule_of_Rules_1.8 returned under new aliases

    [edit]
    EVIDENCED
    Socks tossed in the drawer. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved

    Blocked user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rule_of_Rules_1.8 has returned

    new users: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fairmile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FMG_Century

    is currently reverting pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_Run https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Interactive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenskull_(video_game) Stooob (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend making an WP:SPI case, instructions are at that link. Make sure to include diffs Kowal2701 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence. Just because someone disagrees with Stooob's edits. Fairmile (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By pure coincidence, these two accounts came up in a check I ran on another suspicious account and are now indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Bgsu98 mass-redirecting articles about major figure skating competitions

    [edit]
    Closing this before editors start getting blocked. You've started two discussions and made your point. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. Could someone please evaluate how reasonable it is to mass-redirect figure skating competitions like Skate America and Grand Prix de France as non-notable?

    Today, I noticed that User:Bgsu98 redirected many Grand Prix de France articles as "non-notable". And I started a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Figure Skating#User:Bgsu98 mass-redirecting articles about major competitions. I have tried to demonstrate that these competitions were heavily televised and attracted attention of major newspapers. (Surely, I don't have access to French newspaper archives and there is no possibility for me to actually source every article.)

    But instead of stopping, User:Bgsu98 started mass-redirecting Skate America articles.

    I'm very sorry for bothering you. This is basically a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE, and that time, it was me who got into trouble. Cause many people thought that Bgsu98 had all the right to PROD and AfD articles that don't demonstrate the subject's notability. But this time, these are major, very popular competitions, and it is simply unreasonable to think they are non-notable. Why not search for sources instead of mass-redirecting? Bgsu98 lives in the United States and he can just go to a library.

    P.S. I promise I won't participate in this discussion. Cause, as I've said, the last time I got into trouble because of this. Please, just consider looking at what is happening. If you think this request is badly formed and unneeded, just close it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bgsu98 gave you reasons for why he was redirecting these articles in the discussion linked to above. You have already been told that this is not an issue you should be bringing to ANI. If you have an issue, you can take it to AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise I won't participate in this discussion - so you're throwing a grenade and running away. As Voorts mentioned this doesn't appear to be anything necessary to ANI and is prime boomerang bait due to the assumption of bad faith, arguing "there must be sources", and borderline casting of aspersions. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I really need to defend myself here, but this was included in the very first posting made (and linked above): "But it looks like he doesn't know anything about figure skating." My skating instructor will get a kick out of that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for this comment. And I didn't imply you could not skate. I wanted to say you didn't know how popular these competitions that you were redirecting were. (Actually, I think they are less popular now. It is my impression that figure skating in France has dropped in popularity.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) "You're throwing a grenade and running away"
    – I can provide comments if necessary.
    Basically, what I mean is that the competitions are 100 % notable.
    If anyone redirected an article about Skate America, what would your reaction be? I don't think the sourcing in the main "Skate America" article is sufficient and proves WP:GNG, but is it resonable to believe Skate America is non-notable? There are things that everyone knows are notable, and it is unreasonable to touch such articles. If "New York" didn't have sources, I'm sure no one would delete it and everyone would just wait until someone searches the New York Times newspaper database and finds a source.
    Actually, I have found (by some miracle) a couple of old French newspaper articles talking about Trophée Lalique. The second one, a L'Humanité article, talks about how France Télévisions and TF1 fought over television rights to Trophée Lalique back in 1994. I showed them to Bgsu98 on the Figure Skating project page, but he didn't reply. It has been roughly 7 hours, and still no reply. Moreover, instead of discussing Trophée Lalique, he started mass-redirecting Skate America articles. (According to Bgsu98's user page, he is a French and German teacher and can read the sources I have found.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like, honestly, if someone came up to me and said: "Why did you redirect the page, the subject is notable", I would happily oblige to restore it.
    Please don't attack me. I came here in good will. I knew the chances to change anything were slim, but I still had to try in order to be in peace with myself and to know I tried. I am really worried by but these mass deletions and redirects. It has already happened to me that I wanted to do a research on a skater, but many competitions the skater participated in weren't there, they were deleted or redirected. Those were harmless pages about big competitions.
    I'm very sorry if I wrote too much. I just want to know that I came here for help and in good faith. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already been told that these kinds of disputes should not be brought to AN/I. If you're actually here in good faith, then you clearly didn't take in the advice that others gave you. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy has been nothing but condescension and insults for months. I have zero interest in obliging any of his demands. I made my case on the WikiProject Figure Skating talk page. If he wants to restore the articles, with fully-completed tables with full scores, appropriate sourcing, not to mention evidence of notability, he is welcome to, but if all he wants is to have the articles restored in their current trash condition, I’m not going to go along with it. But that would require work and he would rather just complain and throw out more insults. BTW, I just did a page one rewrite on Skate America, so save that BS about it not demonstrating notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not true. I had not interacted with you for months until just recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Lebedeva. Where I posted a dozen of messages, trying to find some sources and show them to everyone. And you just posted three messages like this: [125], [126]. (The latter was contested by me and another user, but you haven't replied yet.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sorry, I just wanted to try. If this were some kind of figure skating website, someone who knew about Trophée Lalique and Skate America would notice and would help. I just hoped for someone like that. I know I was naïve and there are million other tasks for admins to attend to. I'm sorry I took your time. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose a one-way IBAN. MC clearly doesn't get why this behavior is problematic. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is simply not true that I insulted him for months as he says [127]. Please check the information Bgsu98 is telling you. Since January, I met him only at Lebedeva's AfD and now. And even at Lebedeva's AfD, I was afraid to post. Cause I'm (honestly!) afraid of him. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I am not sure. Did "I interact with him" by posting here? I honestly didn't want to interact with him. I just wanted the articles restored quickly. (And it still can be done. I still hope someone comes and says: "How can you redirect Skate America?" and maybe even adds something as a source.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus Christ, nobody “redirected Skate America”. I redirected the non-notable, pre-1995 (before they became part of the Grand Prix Series) individual competitions that lacked full results, scores, citations, and sometimes all of the above. You want that trash “restored quickly”? That’s embarrassing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bgsu98, I understand that you're frustrated, but telling someone they're embarrassing is not particularly civil. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Bgsu98 said the action was embarassing, not the editor, although it is a bit much still. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy you noticed Bgsu98's choice of words and expressiveness. He does behave like this in deletion discussions. (It is not like I have participated in many. Just in January and recently in the Julia Lebedeva one. I really haven't seen Bgsu98 much, just in my watchlist sometimes.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I've already regretted coming to Lededeva's AfD. It's just me and another user who really tried to find sources and expanded the article. The others didn't help in expanding. While Bgsu98 came a few times only to rebut other people's arguments and the sources we found. (I think there's a good chance now that the article is kept, but I could have done better things with my time. And I put a lot of time into it. Searching Yandex and then Google. Some sources could be found only on Yandex and some only on Google for some reason. And no sources prior to 2014 or something like that existed. Obviously that is a case of link rot.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call something like this [128] "trash". There's a list that can be analyzed. (Surya Bonaly won as usual, except in 1991 when she came third, after Midori Ito and Kristi Yamaguchi. Laëtitia Hubert was third.) The French articles are more detailed and have Patinage Magazine [fr] (lit. 'Skating Magazine') as sources. So we can assume someone had the magazines and filled the tables. And we can assume that the 1992 Trophée Lalique was watched by millions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Voorts, I’d be happy to never hear from this person again. His constant gaslighting and persecution complex are exhausting. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "His constant gaslighting and persecution complex"
    – I can't really comment on this cause I'll have to read the corresponding articles. I am sorry if I caused you any trouble. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But I did do something useful, I did save some articles by proving the skaters' notability, didn't I? Isn't this the purpose of those discussions? You proposed to delete some, and I expanded and saved some. Would it be better for Wikipedia if everything was deleted? If you "never hear from me again", Wikipedia will be short of some articles. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I have just found your XfD log (User:Bgsu98/XfD log), and there isn't much. Apparently, the matter with figure skaters has been resolved. I have honestly never persecuted you and didn't know what you were doing. It is just that I came across an article you redirected today. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just found your XfD log You know, a lot of people throw around unfounded accusations of wikihounding. But it's starting to look as if you're actually edging close to it. When you're in a hole, stop digging; when people are proposing a one-way iban, don't go digging about in the stuff of the user you're being proposed for an iban against. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way iban. The doubling down here demonstrates the need clearly. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      But that will mean that I won't be able to save any articles he nominates for deletion, won't it? And basically I won't be able to discuss anything figure-skating-related cause he is basically the only person active in that field currently. (The people who created all the articles back in the day are nowhere to be seen.) Will it be a good thing for Wikipedia? If you want, I can take a voluntary leave from his AfD nominations and his talk page and the skating project (where else have I talked to him?) for three months or half a year or a year, but please don't ban me from discussing anything with him in the future. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, as against that: if no one else besides you think those articles are worth saving, then they're probably not worth saving. Any time any editor gets the notion "Only I stand between these articles and the Abyss," odds are high they're mistaken. Ravenswing 04:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update. So, as you may remember, "1988 Skate America" was redirected today, together with a couple of dozens other artlctes.
      But I didn't want to surrender and I have been searching the net. And I have just found a Skating Magazine archive. Here: [129]. And the very first issue I looked at has a very detailed 11-page account of the 1988 Skate America. Here: [130]. Starting from page 28.
      What will you say now? Am I a bad person here?
      Can we now restore all the Skate America articles at least? --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one article, in a specialist source, about one event. Thast is insufficent to confer notability to the individual event and does absolutely nothing about any others. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "That's one article, in a specialist source, about one event."
    – It is unreasonable to think that this heavily televised event wasn't discussed in other media.
    2. "Does absolutely nothing about any others"
    – I showed you just one issue, and there is a whole archive of them. I linked it above.
    Which year do you want to see? Name it.
    [131] ←←← Here's the 1992 Skate America (pages 14–30) and the 1992 Skate Canada (pages 42–53). The former, "1992 Skate America", was redirected by Bgsu98 just today as "Non-notable competition" [132]. Moreover, the magazine says: "For complete results see Ice Abroad, December 1992" and (for Skate Canada): "Complete results listed in Ice Abroad". So, one can find a library that has that other magazine, and there will be more.
    And, as I've said, the French Wikipedia cites Patinage Magazine [fr].
    I don't think it is right what is happening here. I am the only person who wants to prove notability and save the articles. And you are attacking me instead of the one who redirected many articles without proper research. If Wikipedia doesn't need Skate America articles, it's fine with me. (I am afraid to say that I won't be back in this discussion and let the others decide who is right and who is wrong. I'm afraid cause the last time I said it you said that I was "throwing a grenade and running away". So I won't say it. But I will anyway focus on other things and I can promise I won't talk to Bgsu until autumn. i think it's reasonable. By that time, he will be able to work in peace and will find more competitions that lack proper sourcing.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they have been redicrected and not deleted, that means you can grab a copy of the pre-redirected version from its history, work on it to improve the referencing, and ideally seek community input if the updated version has fixed the notability issues that have been identified. They have not be deleted. Masem (t) 03:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unreasonable to think that this heavily televised event wasn't discussed in other media. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. And also, what Masem said. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    GreatLeader1945: refusal to discuss, whitewashing, trolling

    [edit]

    GreatLeader1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The user refuses to discuss and edit-wars to whitewash the articles of authoritarian political figures. On Bidzina Ivanishvili, they have edit-warred in an attempt to whitewash his description as the de facto ruler of Georgia and falsely claimed to be reverting vandalism. When I and other editors repeatedly invited them to discuss on the talk page, they refused. Considering the prior blocks and ANI history, an indef may be in order. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 22:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef, absolutely not engaging in discussion. When you are asked to stop, just stop, no more changes without concrete consensus. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicdat, can you provide some diffs to support your accusations? That would be appreciated. Calm down, Ahri Boy, many of your recent comments on noticeboards have been adament about taking action against editors but don't show that you have really looked into the details of a case. ANI calls for thoughtful participation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First removal of sourced content, I invited them to discuss on the talk page, they reverted, saying that the same, heavily sourced, content is "not a fact", I reverted again, pointing out their failure to discuss on the talk page and erroneous reasoning, added a weasel-word tag on the (again sourced) wording they didn't like, falsely marking it as minor. I reverted the tag, which made no sense considering the fact that the content was sourced. Their revert stated in the edit summary: Rvv. You are removing the template without any reason or any expIanation - this consists vandalism. It HAS to be explicitly clarified in this sentence BY WHOM is he 'widely recognized'. MOS:WEASEL clearly allows that wording in the lead when backed up by sourcing. My next edit was a dummy edit explaining my reasoning. They also attempted to push the same POV on Irakli Kobakhidze by adding erroneous tags, again falsely marking the edit as minor. Again, will note that they have been blocked for falsely claiming to revert vandalism before. Clearly they have learned nothing. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohh got it. I should be more careful when discussing and reevaluating contributions, the diffs are very essential to explanation. I went overboard without checking the diffs twice. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a content dispute rather than any particular wrongdoing to me. I don't see any discussion on the talk page by any party. And in fact, IMHO instead of removing the "by whom" template it would be better to clarify who exactly thinks he is the de facto ruler. I don't see mention of him in the infobox at Georgia (country) which is rather surprising if he is widely considered the de facto ruler. I suggest all parties go to the talk page and resolve the disputes there rather than bringing it to ANI, which is intended for serious intractible problems.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have started as a content dispute but the user's conduct is clearly beyond the pale. See the user talk page which is a mass of warnings including a final warning to not call edits vandalism. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuts5070 for vandalism

    [edit]

    Nuts5070 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reporting User:Nuts5070 for WP:NOTHERE. They've been given several warnings. Their edits have been reverted by several users, and they are still continuously attempting to re-add section about Grooming gangs to the British Pakistani article.[133][134][135] Also WP:SNEAKY – attempted to link article to Rochdale child sex abuse ring with the see also template under the guise of "added links".[136] When I gave them a warning, they accused me of 'covering up' grooming gangs.[137] It's quite obvious they have a bias (see this diff [138]), and they're just not here to contribute positively. They have a lot of warning on their talk page, so this may not be the only article that's of concern. نعم البدل (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's best to provide relevant links and HELP:DIFFs as evidence. Tarlby (t) (c) 23:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Yes I've added the relevant diffs. نعم البدل (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked them to participate in this discussion but they haven't edited in the past day. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am ready to participate but to remove content that is relevant to that topic is not done. This issue has been going on for years and no one has bothered to act on it or even display the reality.
    This is not vandalism. This is as good as investigative journalism. Nuts5070 (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is as good as investigative journalism. Wikipedia is not a platform for 'investigative journalism'. And yes, removing content that one particular individual considers 'relevant to [a] topic' is done all the time. Clearly not everybody considers this material appropriate, and accordingly, you need to seek consensus. So far, you have made precisely zero edits to Talk:British Pakistanis, the appropriate place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nuts5070: You're not helping your case with such statements. You sound like you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which may indicate you're WP:NOTHERE. If you don't change your attitude and behavior, you may get a WP:TOPICBAN. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Keeping aside a few things, Would you also disagree for the fact that the Rochdale link was not related? Whoever wrote the article, also mentioned grooming gangs.
    And regarding having a consensus to make it relevant, let’s keep one. If some don’t like it they can vote against. But some who agree, can vote for it. Simple as that. In addition , anyone can state that putting relevant information be considered as vandalism. Nuts5070 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions regarding article content go on article talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Nuts5070 seems to to have taken my suggestion to use the article talk page as an excuse to continue inappropriate behaviour there. [139] Given this, a topic ban (at minimum) would seem appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for 48 hours for that personal attack. Bishonen | tålk 11:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    Unsure about some disruptive editor in Peru history pages

    [edit]
    Turns out they were a sockmaster, and are now blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user in question is; @Eddu16

    Im posting because I noticed they made a lot of edits to Peruvian history articles, and at least where I went and checked the sources myself such as Battle of Uchiza (1987) they appear to be adding specific facts - eg a number of soldiers killed that never is mentioned in any of the source material. Either sneaky? Or are we dealing with a user who utalises a bot to generate some parts of the pages they are making?

    In other cases they appear to be more clearly just vandalising pages with full deletion; Operation Chameleon (Peru)

    Elsewhere, they appear very set on some facts that run counter to the source material;

    They continually add information to this infobox, that is so outrageously dubious eg they say (unsourced) 200k + killed of those who belonged to x faction, multiple sources in the Internal conflict in Peru article say on the other hand 70k total killed between the government, insurgents and civilians.

    I have tried to engage them on the talk page, on their user page, and they just don't respond. IDK what to do.

    Another user suggested in this talk page; that they would like all of Eddus edits reverted as they appear to be vandalism? I don't know enough about Peruvian history to agree or not but from what sources I have cross checked eg Battle of Uchiza and the internal conflict pages information seems to be added consistently that is not reliable or true to sources that are claimed to support it.

    LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I can second this, as I am the user mentioned in the talk page above. I left a message on the aforementioned user's talk page that better explains the situation. The edits are: disruptive (formatting issues), low-quality (spelling issues), innacurate (to the point where an edit war—or skirmish—appears to have taken place at least once) and somehow hostile at times (one edit mentions unsourced claims about Freemasonry in its summary). This user has also targeted a large number of pages, which is not great., so I hope he'll reply but I'm uncertain if he ever has. AlejandroFC (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked Eddu16 as a sock of User:Exterminador de collas who was username-hard-blocked by Rosguill on May 7, 2024. Eddu16 is actually the older account. Because of the odd timing of events, I've not deleted the many pages created by Eddu16 after Exterminador's block per WP:G5, but they look like they should be, not that I know anything about Peruvian battles. Perhaps, when appropriate, they can be tagged for speedy deletion. If not, I may look at them more closely later.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that they have been linked to an account whose name is a slurred glorification of violence against Andean indigenous ethnic groups, I would treat the rest of their work with extreme prejudice. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I've now gone through their article contributions and converted nearly all of them to redirects to related topics, so the history is still accessible to any editor who wants to rework them. The one exception was Canto Grande massacre, which didn't have any mention anywhere on English Wikipedia despite seeming to have a decent amount of coverage on Google Scholar, so I left that one be. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP 156.197.119.201

    [edit]
    Dispute diverted to article talk page. Most disagreements (99.9999%) should not be brought to ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    156.197.119.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See their talk page. Falsely accusing PEPSI697. Also, saying that a future block may not occur. Jlktutu (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it would be a good idea for 156.197.119.201 and PEPSI697 to discuss things at Talk:Jami Mosque (Toronto) rather than try to converse through edit summaries. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...especially since the IP is at least partially correct. I have started a conversation there and invited both parties. Please stop editwarring, this is a simple content dispute and we deal with those on talkpages (not on WP:ANI). Polygnotus (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP 45.65.227.190 adding unsourced BLP content to multiple articles

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This IP user, User:45.65.227.190, has been repeatedly warning for adding unsourced information to multiple different articles, many of which are biographies of living persons. I would be willing to cut them slack if this were their first warning, but they have been given a final warning and are refusing to heed the ones they have received. I believe administrative action is in order, whether through a block or a very serious final warning. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked per the report at AIV. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing from Hollowww

    [edit]

    Reported editor has a battleground mentality and is engaged in edit-warring, tendentious editing and disruptive editing. They blatantly misrepresent what sources say [140], going as far as edit-warring for the inclusion of a dead king (Shapur I) who died two years before a war [141], [142], [143] while they have been told that the king died two years before. They move articles they created [144] under the pretext that their outcomes have been changed by some "Iranians". I'm ready to hear anything, but an editor who edit wars to include a dead king in an article about a war that took place two years after his death, an editor with a battleground mentality who misrepresents what sources say is not here to build an encyclopedia. Pinging other editors who have interacted with the reported user : @Kansas Bear:, @Iranian112:, @HistoryofIran:.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I confirm, see other examples of Disruptive editings from Hollowww[145][146][147][148][149]Iranian112 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As of 20 April, user:Hollowww has reverted the Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaign three times,15 April20 April20 April while ignoring the on-going discussion(started 2 April). That in my opinion is reason enough for a 24hr block.
    User:Hollowww's articles are, simply put, Roman propaganda. They use primary Roman sources(some of which are used for original research(see Roman–Palmyrene War of 272–273, to include dead Emperor Shapur I), simply to include the Sasanian Empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also has reverted the Roman–Palmyrene War of 272–273 three times 15 April 20 April 21 April Iranian112 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hollowww is still edit warring and adding poor citations as we speak. Here [150] they cite a book about a "financial crisis" in the USA that will "end" its status a superpower in an article about a battle between the Romans and Parthians in 198. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Randy Kryn, WP:CIR, WP:STONEWALL and WP:HOUND

    [edit]

    In the Skyerise RfC I asked for an WP:IBAN (diff) since they instantly showed up and made it personal (link) but I’m going to now formally request it, as well as an editing restriction for Randy on talk pages that he needs to substantiate his contributions beyond personal preference. On the surface this looks like a content dispute but it always boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, almost always "It's good and has been here a long time" as the sum total of engagement.

    I can find references to this going back to 2023 when Randy’s contributions were summarized as "I'm an experienced editor and I say keep, so the closer should supervote in my favor" and in 500 analyzed AfDs he’s not once voted delete. I repeatedly said I didn't want to raise this at ANI but Randy is still at.

    Randy went ballistic that I changed a template he liked. I froze editing the second he objected per WP:BRD but he refused to engage until I did what he demanded, essentially requiring his permission to change it. As a result he’s accused me of edit warring and vandalism. Randy's reverts broke the formatting of pages and he refused to read comments to that effect:

    • Accused me of conspiratorially engaging in WP:BRD diff
    • Randy doubling down in response diff

    Edit warring/disruptive editing accusations:

    Accusations that I'm falsifying my evidence of hounding:

    He did that a few more times, if you read the thread (e.g. diff). If it matters here’s my response to his edit war accusations: diff

    This exchange abandoning WP:BRD and with clear WP:STONEWALLING:

    He’s routinely objected to changes per WP:IDONTLIKEIT coupled with a refusal to discuss substance, his opinion is enough:

    • (diff, this was after the above ANI accusation of hounding/aspersions, please look at what that's in reply to)
    • Controversial, and hopefully will be kept at the present name. (that’s the entire contribution. “No.”) diff

    And he’s followed me across Wikiprojects and AfDs to lob mild insults, especially since the above Mars template issue:



    This has been ongoing well after I directly asked him if this pattern was personal (diff) since it's felt like if I edit Randy shows up to disagree. I know @Snow Rise: has raised similar concerns about his vibes-based analysis bringing heat as well. There are more diffs than these going back for a while I can grab if needed. Again, all I've wanted was an WP:IBAN here and to not be subject to Randy's assent for my edits.

    Pinging (for transparency, will notify as well) @EF5, @Valereee, and @Snow_Rise Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear about the impulse for this: After asking repeatedly for Randy to stop following me around to all corners of Wikipedia he decided to keep doing it, but explain how he follows the same pages. That's fine, and probably true, but I don't show up to his edits/contributions to... whatever he's saying at WP:NPOVN. this was apparently about this typo, per Randy. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Warren, I think you might be overestimating the extent to which I share your concerns about Randy. He and I had a minor disagreement in an ANI thread (to which both of us were respondents, not parties) about the line between divisive and non-divisive rhetoric, which ended as well as it could have: both being unable to convince the other, we dropped the discussion and walked away. I told you at the time that you came to my TP, soon thereafter, that I don't know enough about the history of the recent disputes between you two to be of much help in resolving this matter. Indeed, the main thing I seem to recall stressing more than anything in that response was that I thought it highly unlikely, based on my admittedly limited experience with Randy, that he was intentfully hounding you, as that does not seem to be his style. So it's a little confusing to me why you have invoked my name in a manner which seems to imply support for your contention that Randy is following you around.
    There are reasons why I did not respond to your multiple pings to disparate ongoing discussions you are having about Randy: I don't know the situation, and I can't really validate or refute anything you are saying in relation to the history between you two, or anyone's conduct relative thereto. There was a moment a couple of weeks ago where I felt Randy's style of commentary in a community discussion was suboptimal, and I said so. But that doesn't mean I want to join a pressure campaign to get him censured for purported conduct I really know nothing about. For all I know, your grievances could be legitimate. But you seem to want to tag me in as a prosecutorial partner, and I'm just not interested. I don't have the same level of concern, and this is not how I'd go about addressing the situation even if I did. The issue I wished to raise with Randy was particular to that discussion and transitory (and a relatively minor-ish point of decorum, in the grand scheme of things), and doesn't fold into your contest of wills with him, whomever the aggravating party actually is. That's about all I can say here of benefit to this discussion. SnowRise let's rap 17:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s fair, I tagged you as I’d raised it privately with you and knew you’d seen these issues as well, but I didn’t think you had a strong take. Sorry for bothering you here.
    So it's a little confusing to me why you have invoked my name in a manner which seems to imply support for your contention that Randy is following you around.
    There are some direct parallels to what I’ve raised here and the behaviour you called out there. The only reason I tagged you was you’d explicitly mentioned the history of that kind of posting at ANI, and I fully expect randy to say this is all in my head. I didn’t mean to imply you were a co-litigant, merely aware of the situation (which it appears I overestimated). Again, apologies. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all in your head. Am I a litigant? Must update my resume. Anyway, I haven't read this long accusation list as yet and time will permit this evening, but until then Warrenmck, please consider, as I replied to you at my talk page, that you may be 180 degrees wrong on this and it reads out to me as you creating a lesson for yourself on viewpoints. You are justifiably angry only because on Wikipedia we take someone's feelings on good faith (that doesn't mean they have a clue). Feel free to tell me to "Go Fuck Yourself" while realizing I have a watchlist I am trying to keep under 13,000 which covers a wide range of topics and ongoing discussions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Warrenmck Do you have any diffs of Randy accusing you of vandalism after Valeree advised them of WP:NOTVAND? I also don't see any evidence provided for the WP:CIR allegation.
    Concerning the WP:FOLLOWING, it's by no means cut-and-dried, but this editor interaction report shows that often (26 out of 38 times it was less than 1 day between interactions) Warrenmck is the first to post, and Randy responds. I also note that there seems to be a pattern of Randy editing an article, not editing it for years, then responding in less than an hour when Warrenmck edits the page.
    Some examples of when Randy did not edit for some time (months at least), then edited within a day of Warrenmck's editing the page: Sojourner (rover), Bradbury Landing, Octavia E. Butler Landing, List of paintings by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Talk:Lunar regolith, Viking 2, Curiosity (rover), Pierre-Auguste Renoir Mars rover, List of rocks on Mars and Talk:Martian regolith.
    Some counterexamples: Great ape language, Talk:Church Fathers and Universe.
    Finally, among the examples, I note that 8 out of 11 appeared to be content disputes with Warrenmck as the Bold editor, and Randy as the Revert editor. One of the counterexamples is also a content dispute, but the roles are reversed. On the talk pages included, Randy and Warrenmck appeared to be in agreement when they participated in the same discussion. (E.g., both agreeing to a proposed move.)
    I lack the experience to draw any conclusions from this, but hope it will be useful to data. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any diffs of Randy accusing you of vandalism after Valeree advised them of WP:NOTVAND?
    I’m considering the “what else do you call it” coupled with it coming after repeated requests to strike accusations given the rest. A blatantly bunk vandalism accusation off the back of a bunch of edit warring accusations enough to include, but not the bulk of the problem.
    I also don't see any evidence provided for the WP:CIR allegation.
    It's through his entire engagement. If you look at content disputes, AfDs, etc. Randy has been involved in he often edits and votes independent of any policy on Wikipedia, except for WP:IAR and his guiding essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB. For a cross section:
    In content disputes, his only arguments seem to be he often relies on a tautological "it's good" or "it's been here a long time" with no other engagement.
    • Still waiting for the original template which has existed since 2012 to be brought back to this title and the pretty good navbox moved to its own title. link
    • This is a serious discussion about a very good template which has existed since 2012 and used on many pages[...] link
    • Wow. This article has been damaged by the gallery removals. I haven't looked at the page in quite awhile, and it used to be full of interesting and informative gifs and history told in the form of still and moving images. diff
    And just general careless and inappropriate behaviour:
    • Weighing in at an AfD by responding to something that wasn't raised and admitting to not reading the article diff
    • Again weighing in with GNG when the concern was WP:OR diff
    • Telling a CBANned user they did nothing wrong and it was just mob justice diff
    • "Keep, sources say it meets GNG" (never provided sources, topic didn't meet GNG) diff
    • Keep vote ignoring the clear WP:PROMO in the sourcing while claiming those sources means it passes GNG (it didn't) diff
    • Keep per Gidonb above and this page is a nice entry in Wikipedia's overpopulation collection. The topic is of value, and sourcing seems adequate to keep it around as a page needing a couple more references. diff
    ↑ Sourcing was a youtube video and some articles that didn't mention the subject (apparently)
    There's the issues with the Drbogdan ANI, where Randy Kryn insisted
    • Strong oppose, I've personally been very happy with many of his edits, and have been alerted to news and events by running across his postings. diff
    ↑ He was reminded by @XOR'easter that the latter is a reason to follow someone on social media. The former is suspect next to the outpouring of editors who talked about dealing with years of low quality churnalism junking up articles and subsequent indef CBAN.
    There's the above Skyerise ANI, where Randy elects to ignore any and all discussion of behaviour issues and, again, jumps in and votes admitting to not having enough information to do so because he likes the editor:
    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. link (emphasis added)
    Frankly, this, to me, is damning:
    Keep votes: 554 + 6 speedy (98.8%) Delete votes: 1 (0.2%)
    He as voted to delete an article once, ever. I do not believe that it's possible to arrive at this kind of statistic with a sincere read of these AfDs from a policy basis. It's clear he's skimming at best and not reading what he's replying to at worst, which per his WP:RULEOFTHUMB doesn't seem like it would be an issue to him. Couple that with the issues above at a content dispute where he demanded his preferred edit as a condition of even reading the discussion, and it's incredibly disruptive. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I see. That's not what I'd call WP:CIR (unable to contribute constructively), but I see how one might describe them as disruptive editing (unwilling to contribute constructively). Also, in the future, please consider condensing, if possible; a WP:WALLOFTEXT makes it less likely your report will get its consideration. I'll also note that being wrong is not against policy.
    Finally, I'd encourage you to check some of your assumptions. You wrote, [Randy] often edits and votes independent of any policy on Wikipedia... In content disputes, his only arguments seem to be tautological "it's good" or "it's been here a long time" with no other engagement. There may be a problem, but this sweeping generalization is easily disproven by going through his contributions, such as when he cited the MOS, cited NCASTRO, and made a reasoned argument here. Your argument will be more compelling if you stick to bald facts, not hyperbolic assertions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely don’t know how to make a case like this shorter. It’s pretty useless to just link some of those diffs alone, and I can’t ask a reader to read the entire thread to divine the context. I’m not trying to be hyperbolic, either. I’ll go back through and strike hyperbolic statements. I’d already removed some before you replied, missed others, I see. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the long explanation of AfD stats, including copying them over, is completely unnecessary (everyone here can read them for themselves, and by themselves they mean nothing). What's meaningful there: 0 !votes to delete, and correct only 59% of the time. To me that looks like someone who needs to stop participating at AfD as their contributions, at best, are simply noise and at worst may prevent consensus from developing. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your AfD stats omitted the one showing Randy is in the prevailing side 70 percent of the time. And while your sample size is much smaller, you only vote delete at AFD [151] ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jessintime, nearly all of those are "as nominator" and are them filing AfDs (hardly a vote). 66 percent of Warren's filings seem to be correct as well, so I wouldn't say that's a good argument. Also, Warren's only voted in/filed 24, many less than the >500 Randy's voted in/filed. — EF5 17:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no wish to defend Randy Kryn (or otherwise) but I must point out that all arguments about AfD stats are spurious. Some people choose which AFDs to comment on based on their preferred outcome, so they quite reasonably get close to 100% keeping or deleting. Some choose discussions to comment on because they disagree with the prevailing consensus, so they often choose the "wrong" outcome. Without delving into the exact reason for each comment such stats are meaningless, both here and at RfA. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an experienced editor and I say keep, so the closer should supervote in my favor is in fact my writing from 2023, when Randy invoked an essay he personally wrote to try and sway opinion in an AfD (closed as delete). He included the risible line if a solid keep argument is present and agreed on by several long-time editors, then that argument should automatically prevail. I've noticed his behavior at AfD to be consistently poor (as in more driven by appeal to emotion and personal opinion than any sort of interpretation of policy or guidelines) and that he has a tendency for theatrics, but beyond that don't have many interactions with him and I can't speak to the rest of this report. FWIW, in the discussion linked earlier Randy said Personally I don't !vote on the majority of RfD's and other fD's because I usually agree that the page should be deleted, or it already has enough support to do without mine. Take that how you will. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am turned off by the WP:CIR claim. Saying that Randy Kryn is not competent to edit here is just about as dumb as Randy's claim that Warren is vandalizing. I'm also turned off by the weird detour into Randy's AFD stats; what does that have to do with anything? It is hard enough getting an admin to spend time figuring out what is going on, without extraneous accusations getting thrown in just in case something sticks.
    • I believe what Warren is asking for is an interaction ban. If I'm reading the diffs right, there don't seem to be a whole lot of interactions, and they don't give off a "hounding" vibe to me. People are allowed to disagree, even multiple times. Hounding is primarily based on "trying to cause you grief", not "we edit the same topics and disagree frequently". If Warren is convinced there is hounding going on, they should put together a concise list of edits where Randy seems to be doing more than disagreeing. If I've misunderstood, Warrne should clarify what exactly he wants, and why it is a reasonable request. Have some sympathy for the admins trying to real this and figure out what the hell is going on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You know, I think that’s enough Wikipedia for me for one lifetime. I don’t think I can bring myself to care enough anymore to pretend AGF isn’t being treated as a suicide pact. Enjoy your WP:PROFRINGE guarded by power users (seriously, did any admin bother to look at the bullshit Skyerise was editing into articles and Randy was defending?), I suppose. Feel free to sanction me however you wish. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe the only accusation of Warren's close enough to the truth worthy of an answer (seriously), are my AfD stats on the side of 'Keep'. I choose which AFDs to comment on, usually from an article that shows up on my watchlist or it is included in a WikiProject listing. If I agree that an article either should be deleted or will surely be deleted I don't comment on it, and that as far as I know always end up deleted. I do not like directly participating in destroying someone's work (although I did vote to remove Abner Doubleday from the Level 5 article list). Sorry if that's abnormal here. But asserting that my comments on AfD should be ignored because I'm a Keep-only editor, as mentioned above somewhere, goes well beyond some kind of line or pale. As to you last line, to those who are trying to figure out what the hell is going on, me too but not that concerned about it, except for this AfD rebuke and call to ignore comments by inclusionists. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is going on is that an editor whose most edited page is ANI and who constantly gets into disputes/argumentsis once again dragging someone to ANI to cause more drama. I have to ask what has Warrenmck contributed to this encyclopedia besides drama and conflict? 206.83.103.251 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi 206. Please don't change the focus or question to Warrenmck. Hopefully they've learned from this about points of view, what a watchlist is, and how editors edit topics in their interest areas, and will not receive any sanctions per assume good faith (I have good faith that he thinks I'm a nemesis, without considering that I have an almost-13,000 page watchlist which includes many topic areas). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is going on is that an editor whose most edited page is ANI and who constantly gets into disputes/argumentsis once again dragging someone to ANI to cause more drama
    A (I believe overwhelming, but would need to check) majority of ANIs I file end up with sanctions for those I’ve filed against, so I think that’s a weak argument from a clearly logged out user. If you look through my edit history here you’ll see dozens of edits for both typos and to remove hyperbole, which pad out my stats significantly. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the IP may be right, that most of your edits are ANI? Jeez, hopefully this nonsense will end that. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had some trouble with Randy Kryn in the past at Vital articles. He was very passionate trying to get James Bevel listed at VA5, you can find the full discussion archived here. He just couldn't take "no" for an answer, he hounded me and others who disagreed with him both in the discussion and on our user talk pages pbp 03:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And a new contestant is heard from. If anyone starts reading this new batch of links please read them all. Will educate you about an extraordinary presence in world history that you may have never heard of. Of course I can take no for a final answer, but after a full discussion and not just a quick "He's not famous enough" from the editor who actually removed Bevel from Level 5 on that basis alone while at the same time claiming to be a student of history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyerise: Limited-time site ban proposal

    [edit]
    No third-party appeals.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Skyerise and civility and latches onto the following part of the close: I suggest that if there needs to be further discussion, a new topic is opened, ...

    I propose replacing Skyerise's indef + revoked talk page access with a 6-months to 1-year site ban. So a limited-time site ban. The ban should be enforced with a block, and the block should expire after the duration of the ban. This way Skyerise will get the message from the community, and will be able to return to editing eventually. If this is not done and Skyerise remains indeffed and needs to go through UTRS, I think that we will lose this editor, because, well, Skyerise hasn't got what it takes to return to good standing under these circumstances. I can't be certain, but I'm close to certain. I also don't think that she would be able to effectively appeal an indefinite site ban. Skyerise obviously wants to edit, and after 6 months to a year, I expect that Skyerise will return, and we will see if there's a change. This would be a preventative community measure based on a rationale that Skyerise needs 6 months to 1 year to rethink her approach and change in certain ways. If it appears that the message was not received, that will become apparent soon enough, and Skyerise will simply be indeffed.—Alalch E. 18:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I'm not convinced an indef was ever warranted here (but I tend to have a nearly-impossible to satisfy standard for indeffing established editors), but at the same time we shouldn't accept 3rd-party ban appeals. If Skyerise wants to appeal the ban on UTRS in 6 months, she can do so. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Fremrin: created hoax article

    [edit]

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

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

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

    I agree. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a block until they acknowledge what they did and promise not to do it again. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to hear Fremrin's explanation, but as they haven't edited since 11 Apr and they edit infrequently, perhaps it would be safer for the project to apply an article-space block until the issue is resolved. IMO, deliberately adding false content to an article is one of the worst wiki-offenses. Schazjmd (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they do not respond here, I will partially block them. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025

    [edit]

    PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs) has been told [152] to not canvass [153] the editors who apparently shares the same view as them on Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025. Now they are openly WP:VOTESTACKING to circumvent the process [154]. Heraklios 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pings have been done by the other side too [155]. WP:VOTESTACKING mentions that it applies to RFCs, AFDs and CFDs, but doesn't mention RMs. I've participated numerous RMs before, and editors have very often notified other editors though pings or other ways. Only in AFDs, have I noticed that notifying other editors is strictly prohibited, but never in RMs. PadFoot (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what that guideline states. The votestacking section merely lists those as examples: such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD. The canvassing behavioral guideline clearly states Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.. Note the breadth of the definition: notifications that try to influence a discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that any decision coming from this RM will be lasting. Maniacal ! Paradoxical was supposed to leave a neutral statement/question and those opening comments have a clear POV. And, PadFoot, referring to editors with different opinions as "sides" shows a BATTLEGROUND attitude. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is correct that canvassing is as inappropriate in RMs as anywhere else; pings are acceptable only as long as editors are not notified according to their expected viewpoint on a discussion. However, RMs are not expected to begin with neutral statements like RFCs. In fact, it is expected that the editor suggesting the move will advocate for it (WP:RSPM), so there was no problem with the original request incorporating an opinion. Whether the opening statement was one that might reasonably be expected to convince those in disagreement and lead to consensus is a separate question. Dekimasuよ! 04:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, yeah. I'm not sure how you could be expected to propose a move with a "neutral statement". Wanting the page to be moved is kind of the point. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They only pinged users from the previous RM that agreed with them/were friends with, which is blatant canvassing, and then have continued to do so after being warned. Surely that’s sanctionable. Couple that with the original research conducted in the previous and current RM, and gaslighty WP:SEALIONING, like trying to argue ngrams, which gave a massive lead, can’t be used to assess common name because of WP:CIRCULAR, or that Maratha Empire is somehow a WP:POVNAME despite most reputable scholars using it. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous concerns were raised about Padfoot’s OR and POV pushing (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#PadFoot2008 - LTA RGW editing) by three experienced editors which archived without admin input. They raised concerns about anti-Indian bias. There is also User:PadFoot2008/Great Indian Sockwar (2022–present) which seems to be parodying historical conflicts and seems WP:BATTLEGROUND. There is also an ongoing AE case against him. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Padfoot was also warned for canvassing in a AFD discussion here Kowal2701 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having received that warning, Padfoot's comments above claiming that they didn't know canvassing applied to RMs now appear specious. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rsjaffe, as I mentioned before, I was thus aware that canvassing applied to AfD, because of that warning. However, since RMs are not mentioned, and as I have seen that editors often ping others in RMs, I had been under the impression that canvassing was not applicable to RMs. PadFoot (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 82.48.18.206

    [edit]

    82.48.18.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been IP-hopping, but seems to only be targeting this article. Dekimasu has protected it, and I believe that's the appropriate response. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User: BishalNepal323

    [edit]
    Indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User @BishalNepal323 has repeatedly used AI to create pages [1] [2] [3] [4] and far far more. They have already been given a final warning [156] by @Est. 2021. Despite this, they have continued to go on with it, such as Draft:Banbasa Barrage (Mahakari or Sharda Barrage) where everything they've written is AI (submitted a day after the final warning). It is clear that this user has disregarded any warning. I have counted 15 articles of theirs moved to draftspace due to AI, and they have had 9/10 of their drafts denied. One of their articles has had a speedy deletion. They have been given at least 3 warnings now (I'm pretty sure it was more that I saw previously in edit history). Even Purnagiri Temple which is up has 100% AI text.

    The user has zero regard for Wikipedia and any sorts of warnings.

    Setergh (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:LLM ridden content is usually not sanctionable. If the user is submitting the drafts through AFC reviewer then at the best it'll be declined. Publishing LLM generated articles outrightly to mainspace would have been a different case. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely. I disagree with the comment above: although use of an LLM is perhaps acceptable in some situations, users are expected to take responsibility for any content that they submit. Mindlessly mass-submitting AI-generated articles without reviewing beforehand is akin to submitting a pile of trash and leaving AFC to sort out what is acceptable and what is not, and that sort of behaviour is not acceptable. They had already been warned appropriately and continued, so now they are blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block Rather than a pile of trash, it's closer to a pile of hoaxes that can fool the reviewers, as the articles can sound sensible while including false information. Dangerous to leave lying around. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mason54432 and social media election endorsements

    [edit]

    For the past month or so, this user has persistently added endorsements to the article on the upcoming Canadian election which are cited only to social media. Some examples: [157] [158] [159] [160] [161]. They have been repeatedly reverted and reminded by multiple users that citations by individuals must be cited to third party coverage of the endorsement (to demonstrate significance) and must be a clear and unambiguous endorsement (as a BLP issue), both per the endorsements guideline. They have ignored this advice and continue adding endorsements with citations only to Twitter, and restoring endorsements which were previously removed for the same reason, such as this one just a few minutes ago (which was added by an IP and reverted an hour or so before Mason54432 added it back).

    I am now proposing that Mason54432 be topic-banned from adding endorsements to this article, preferably indefinitely but at minimum until after the election on April 28 (one week from today). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    From the guideline: "2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable sources, which may include the organization's own website or official social media accounts."

    At least Durham Regional Police Association and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2067 endorsements are their official social media accounts. For David Eby, the source has been changed to news article citation anyways. As for the random IP, I wasn't aware of that before adding it this is a baseless accusation assuming I have read all of edit history before adding content.

    If I am wrong just revert it there's no need to banning people from editing a specific topic as I was not edit warring or vandalizing. Mason54432 (talk) 18:01, 21 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. [162], [163], [164] 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,[165] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [166] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[167] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [168] 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 [169] 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. [170] 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" [171] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [172], 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 [173] 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 [174][175][176] 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,[177] 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]
    Accidentally misplaced. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    (edit conflict) Noting as a passerby: that request has been rejected by Ealdgyth, expressly because of the existence of this discussion, and because MAE's approach to that process was out-of-step with the purpose and procedure of AE. ManyAreasExpert, I'm not familiar with this dispute or the involved articles (beyond having read this thread, and having reviewed the diffs and some of the related discussion), but this looks like a pretty blatant attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP and derail an ongoing behavioural discussion regarding your conduct (that is, this thread). You cannot use the technicality of an AE request (bizarrely filed against yourself) to void or inhibit a developing consensus regarding your activities, regardless of whether that consensus has yet been rendered into a formal closure. This tactic is definitely not going to do anything to improve your standing with regard to this situation, nor the framing of your overall behaviour in the eyes of the community respondents. SnowRise let's rap 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to what Snow Rise said above, it's really interesting that after this complaint was raised and not immediately dismissed, MAE, who had been editing steadily for several months, utterly vanished - only to reappear within the day after this thread was finally (intially) archived from ANI. That's not behavior associated with an editor in good standing with no behavioral concerns. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert:
      First, we should attend an overwhelming support (except maybe @Tristario), expressed at ANI for "whitewashing of Nazi crimes" and "Holocaust denial" aspersions.
      Let’s face it: we were discussing subjects engaged in, or connected to, atrocities. The thing is, people (including me) are naturally against atrocities. The reason being, among others, simple survival. The atrocities are bad for people. The atrocities are terrible so much that when people read about something related to, or connected with, atrocities, and they encounter somebody supposedly insisting on not including something "bad" into the article, making the subject a bit "not-that-evil", people feel that their natural rejection of atrocities is endangered. They perceive this editor endangers their rejection of atrocities, is trying to hide atrocities, and is essentially wrong. Regardless of if editor’s arguments are simple denial, or they are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia rules.
      With that, Russia-relater articles are a contentious topic, with personal attacks not allowed (WP:ASPERSIONS - An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe). In related recent arbitration cases, even the editors with serious proof of violation of Wikipedia rules were not treated to similar accusations by the Arbcom. Instead, the editor who made "Holocaust denial" aspersions was investigated and sanctioned. As the arbitrator has said, "it is fine to argue that you think someone is POV-pushing, but implications of Holocaust denialism are very serious and hurtful and should not be made without extremely compelling evidence".
      I call the admins to apply the same or higher standards of investigation to this case as well. No, a talkpage response with the quote from a book by a historian is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to sources is not "Holocaust denial". To argue that "collaboration" and "alliance" are not the same thing, pointing to WP:OR (contested by @Rosguill), is a legitimate discussion and is not "whitewashing of Nazi crimes". The OUN wasn't "nazi"! (although, had some links to).
      With that, I’m not sure if the community can overcome (or even agree with) the issue described in the first paragraphs. There are and there will be editors willing to walk an extra mile and equate "collaboration" to "alliance", "nazi links" to "nazi", and so on, and many, as evident, are against MAE expressing arguments opposing that. As was apparent from ANI requests above, this approach is to prevail, and MAE will remain outcasted. Who would enjoy being called atrocities supporter for their volunteer work, after all. Still, the correct investigation of all the parties should be carried, evidence collected, and correct measures applied.
      MAE's contributions to the topic area should be considered. Most of my edits ( [178] [179] [180] [181] , lead fix, issue raised and fixed by others ) have been accepted within the contesting community of topic area editors. Some, however, are seeing UN reports and academic books getting replaced with WP:RIANOVOSTI banned in Ruwiki, WP:TASS and the like.
      @TurboSuperA+'s usage of accusations to leverage the discussion should be considered. [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] editors reminding the editor to stop accusing other editors. Did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles?
      @Carlp941's previous accusations of "wikihounding" and more which they had to withdraw should be considered. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This request for an investigation is... bizarre, to put it nicely. My dispute with that editor was resolved amicably, and we shared friendly exchanges after the incident in question. so I'm unsure why this is being drudged up a year later unless the intent is to try to flip the tables on me for asking you to not wikihound. This attempt at starting an investigation into me and others feels like retaliation. It is troubling that in response to being asked to not wikihound, you try to drag me into another forum so you can get your way and have me investigated.
      Instead of attempting to get me and other editors investigated, would you please just answer the questions asked of you? This whole essay does not do that, and is mostly about a bunch of different content disputes. isa.p (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is ultimately irrelevant whether the POV motivating the edits was one of deliberate holicaust revisionism, of hard-core pro-Ukraine POV or one motivated by an otherwise good faith total failure to read the room. If you are pushing edits that multiple other editors are calling holocaust revisionism the appropriate course of action is to stop pushing those edits and do a bit of reflection. Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Manyareasexpert:, please directly address the concerns raised in this thread above. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. @Manyareasexpert, I am not deeply involved in this, however I think perhaps it would probably be helpful if you considered the critiques and concerns people have raised and then perhaps described how you could take steps to ameliorate their concerns and and edit in a more collaborative, productive, non-combative manner with other editors. I do think there is a bit of miscommunication going on here in general and some WP:AGF would go a long way, too. Tristario (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      He might be trying to counter Russian propaganda which portrays Ukrainians as modern-day Nazis? (Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to be a WP:YESRGW kind of editor but their behavior is not helping them. I am open to this being a misunderstanding, but MAE has now attempted to have me investigated after refusing to address any of my concerns. I believe I have done my best to demonstrate my good faith, I'd appreciate MAE doing the same. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And as I noted above, the timing of their vanishing act, combined with once they returned throwing out...this as their response, raises more red flags than a parade in Red Square. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. The core issue is "Holocaust denial" accusations [187] . No, a call to check if the wiki-article content corresponds to the source is not "Holocaust denial". The source was in the article before for who knows how many years, and I fixed the sentence per source [188] . I may agree now that saying As historian Ivan Patryliak writes, Nachtigall fighters had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews may be perceived as some justification "to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews". However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially. Not being "antisemitic" or "nazi supporter", I would expect this either to be fixed, removed, or discussed in a civilized matter, if the misunderstanding would arise (as it probably was). The edit was removed after ([189]), and the content not corresponding to the source was returned. I fixed the undisputed part per source after ([190]) . (Edit: Carlp941 actually removed Patrylak, returned previous content, and inserted another source, with me fixing the content after per new source, with the content corresponding to now-removed Patrylak as well). Later, the whole sentence was removed [191] because it's not about the article subject, and I agree with it.
      Now, an editor may express an opinion that Iwan Patrylak is "Holocaust denialist". Or, maybe saying that Iwan Patrylak, a living person, is "Holocaust denialist", without evidence, is WP:BLP violation? I see nothing about Iwan Patrylak being "denialist" in the article about him. But maybe the party raising the issue will support their opinion with some sources, who knows. Anyway, this opinion can be discussed in talk, in civilized manner, and the wiki-editor should not be accused of "Holocaust denialism" because he fixed the article per source which was already there for who knows how long.
      No, opening separate discussions on different topics is not "wikihounding" (Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500).
      With that, serious accusations require serious evidence. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence . I'm effectively been kicked out.
      What other questions need to be answered? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Coming to ANI for protection You didn't open this thread. It was opened about you by Carlp941. And accusing another editor of victimblaming is, in fact, a personal attack. Also I still don't see any explanation of your absence during the time this thread was up previously, and how you just happened to return within 12 hours of it being archived. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The explanation is there. How would you feel been falsely accused of supporting atrocities, coming to ANI for protection, getting more punches instead, and getting accused by admin of "personal attacks" in response to a request to investigate misbehavior supplied with evidence. I'm effectively been kicked out. Thank you. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In my view, this is not a good justification. I empathize with being frustrated, but a three week disappearance followed by demanding an investigation into multiple editors... isa.p (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Might get better results if you weren't effectively trying to gaslight people involved on this thread. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Manyareasexpert Another issue that some editors have expressed concern with is a combative attitude. Perhaps you could outline some areas where you may have gone wrong there, if you believe you did, and where you could do better in the future? Tristario (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I will get into the content later in this, but repeatedly accusing me of victimblaming is crossing a line. Please stop the personal attacks on my character. I have not requested any sanctions on you - I certainly have not victimized you. Your current block is the result of an admin observing your behavior and subsequent disappearance when you were directly asked about said behavior.
      I get that no one likes being accused of wikihounding, but my firm warning does not warrant your fixation. You should note that my initial post does not include an accusation of wikihounding. Yet, you think it necessary to include it here, in the reply above, and in your bizarre request for an investigation. You drudged up a long forgiven dispute to discredit an accusation I did not make here. Pardon the continued dog analogies, but maybe a hit dog is hollering. You'd help your case a lot if you stopped focusing on wikihounding and stopped opening new venues of discussion to dispute it.
      A lot of your post is just trying to rewrite the history of our dispute in your favor, so I am going to press onto the core of the dispute, which is this sentence:
      However it may also be viewed in a way that Nachtigall fighters' ideological grounds were that bad that it (grounds) justified atrocities, and that's how I understood Patryliak, and that's why it was included in my edit, initially.
      What does this actually mean? I keep rereading this sentence, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Nachtigall had bad ideology and it justified atrocities? Or that they had bad reasons grounding their murders? This sentence is incredibly unclear.
      Your edit, on the other hand, was crystal clear - OUN had "ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." The source had an extended diatribe about how Jews allegedly victimized Ukrainians, and how their murders were justified as revenge against enslavers. That is ahistorical Holocaust Revisionism, it has no business on Wikipedia. Troublingly, you have not addressed this, and instead allege that I am slandering someone. I made no comment on the historian's motives and I made no edits to his page, so in my view, BLP does not apply. Someone would have to dig into the edit history of a parituclarly obscure article to find out that one of his works engages in Holocaust Revisionism.
      Do you think this work did not engage in Holocaust Revisionism? Why did you deflect here? Why did you ask me to view the shooting of Jews with skepticism? isa.p (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I second this. You vanished for three weeks, right after this thread opened and only came back when it was about to close @Manyareasexpert. This has become an issue on its own which needs to be addressed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I have read through again and see you have responded to them. I sympathize with your feeling of frustration but do not see quitting for three weeks without word, then only addressing the point after being pressed multiple times, as an appropriate response. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It took me reading through this four times to figure out that this was supposed to be the explanation for their dissapearance, because it doesn't pass the smell test at all. Even with, as Hetman observed, it being a...odd response if true, it also doesn't make sense that they would completely stop editing so abruptly, and then return within twelve hours (looking at the history, it was seven and a half hours) after the thread was archived. That isn't the action of somebody who is blameless and was demoralised, that's the action of somebody who thought they could play possum until the problem went away, and on returning realised the pblock was preventing them from editing until they addressed it. (Also, again: you weren't getting accused by admin of "personal attacks". You made a personal attack and were called out for it.) And even if completely true, it doesn't change the fact that their response to the issue above is...let's go with "wanting". - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [192]
    2. [193]
    3. [194]

    I have had previous issues with the user not discussing, see [195], there response to this was by removing the request for discussion, [196], and ignoring me on Talk:List of 2024–25 Premiership Rugby transfers. I did not report this to AN/I or AN/3 then as they did no further reverts of my edits. This user also does not use edit summaries despite myself requesting them to do so. They have also previously been warned about possible Sockpuppetry. And multiple other users have requested them to engage in discussion and user edit summaries over the past years.

    I had previously posted this to WP:AN/3 but was advised it was more appropriate to post here. See [197] - SimplyLouis27 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    From content dispute to vandalism

    [edit]

    User @FuzzyMagma: and I were having a content dispute about 2025 Omdurman market attack and RSF atrocities in Khartoum. User kept attributing those attacks to the RSF, despite them denied any involvement and accused the SAF instead. Both Amnesty International and the United Nations recognized that both parties are committing massacres and war crimes, with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also pointing out that Markets have frequently come under attack by both parties since the conflict began in April 2023. Despite that, the user kept removing any mention to these facts. I assumed good faith and informed him of my concerns on his talk page, from which we later moved the dispute to Talk:RSF atrocities in Khartoum. Meanwhile, things got worse. The user kept removing both the relevant content about the UN and the maintenance tags I had added to the page (without even mentioning that in his edit summaries), despite me advising him against doing that. I then warned him on his talk page too,[198] and all they did in response was vandalizing my talk page[199] (note that we can all play this game. you need to engage, as this is all a game to him) and repeatedly deleting both the content and the maintenance tags again, always without even mentioning that in his edit summaries. This doesn't look like a content dispute anymore, but more like a POV-pushing edit-war mixed with vandalism, and I'm not willing to engage into that further. – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    let's breakdown this:
    I am really not sure what the editor is trying to achieve from this notice, especially when they refused to understand the context of their comment and source, quoting "we can't exclude the fact that RSF denied its involvement and accused the SAF.. I guided them to look at the War crimes during the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) (which I wrote) if they are interested in that but the RSF atrocities in Khartoum article is just about that, RSF and Khartoum.
    Can someone please explain to them the source they are citing is irrelevant to the article ? Also they need to do some reading on MOS:ACCUSE and WP:WEIGHT. Anyway, I will leave it to the community to decide. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also can I requested someone to have a look at 2025 Omdurman market attack, this editor is including the SAF as perpetrator (which I just removed) in the infobox although all reports (Aljazeera, france24, altaghyeer, BBC, Radio Dabanga, and The Gurdian) are pointing to the RSF (which they deny of course and accuse the SAF)?
    [edit]
    Blocked - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The above IP user has demonstrated a pattern of anti-trans and misogynistic editing, including the addition of transphobic slurs to article mainspace. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    doing a WP:AIV report here [200], that usually is proper forum for vandalism Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for a month. I agree with BTICM that AIV would be the spot for future situations like this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't much purpose in topic-banning an IP editor as their ip can change and enforcement is more difficult. Hard blocks are better. 206.83.103.251 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]
    Blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See 1 and 2, with 2 coming after a warning. Separate from the legal threat, they're making a vague and unsupported misconduct accusation against "whoever wrote this article". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    [edit]

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

    • [201] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
    • [202] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
    • [203] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
    • [204] (Removal of record of previous reviews)
    • [205] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [206] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [207] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [208] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [209] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)
    • [210] (Removing the rejection rather than discussing it with the reviewer)

    — YoungForever(talk) 22:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP also has a habit of repeatedly removing and restoring redirects over and over for seemingly no reason. When asked about it on their talk page, they've either silently removed the messages or provided complete non-answers. On its own it didn't strike me as enough to warrant reporting, but I think it highlights a pattern of disruptive behavior on top of YoungForever's issues.
    A few of the IP's sprees of removing and reverting. [211][212][213] Taffer😊💬(she/they) 23:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking this over, it appears that two actions should taken at about the same time. The IP should be blocked, and the drafts in question should be semi-protected to protect against IP hopping or the creation of throwaway accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    CIR issue with Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira

    [edit]

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

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

    Oh, s---! Are you talking about me because of my so-called exaggerations on this site?! So... Are you guys going to sue me?! Sarah Vilela Anjos Pereira (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is going to sue you. However, several people have been spending a lot of time trying to communicate with you, and have been understandably getting very frustrated. Communicating with others is a crucial part of Wikipedia, and it does not appear that you have sufficient fluency in the English language to meaningfully contribute here. There are many other Wikipedia editions, including Portuguese. You would also have a more satisfying experience editing a Wikipedia edition in a language you understand.
    (Machine translation): Ninguém vai processar você. No entanto, várias pessoas têm dedicado bastante tempo tentando se comunicar com você e, compreensivelmente, têm ficado muito frustradas. Comunicar-se com os outros é uma parte crucial da Wikipédia, e não parece que você tenha fluência suficiente na língua inglesa para contribuir de forma significativa aqui. Existem muitas outras edições da Wikipédia, incluindo a em português. Você provavelmente teria uma experiência mais satisfatória editando uma edição da Wikipédia em um idioma que você compreende. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried extensively to get through to them, without any success. I hate to block anyone who wants to edit in good faith, but at the same time, I agree there's a serious CIR issue, and I don't know what else to do. There's just too much of a language barrier. You can see it up and down their talk page. You try to tell them something, and they respond with something like "I'm having a nervous" and then continue on some random tangent. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have p-blocked them from mainspace as an interim step to encourage communication and limit disruption to the project. Star Mississippi 01:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at her Portuguese Wikipedia contributions, she has good command of the language. She is not proficient at editing, but knows wiki markup and can add a couple of bare references. She caused a lot of disturbance there too, when created many articles about children's cartoon episodes back in 2016–2017. Most were deleted and redirected. (Could it maybe be that she thinks the English Wikipedia needs such redirects?)
    She should just be very politely told to go back there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and violation of 3RR in contentious topic by 2601:249:1B01:9890:9C3B:911A:B876:63EE

    [edit]

    2601:249:1B01:9890:9C3B:911A:B876:63EE is removing potential sources that satisfy WP:RS from the talk page of the article Samus Aran because in their opinion they are "lies" and "bullshit". All sources are linked to gender or trans issues. I have reverted them three times, and someone else has reverted them once. I can't revert them anymore without violating 3RR myself. The user was warned in an edit summary that further reversions would be reported. [214][215][216][217] Damien Linnane (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked the /64 for a week. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bananas1208

    [edit]

    Repeatedly blanking the Pope Francis page. Please block.

    1. [[218]]

    Mikewem (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1286815147"