Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Genre Warrior

User:98.220.102.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a genre warrior spree for some time. Recent disruptive edits include: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Disruptive editing has continued past a final warning. Anerdw (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Please alert this user to the opening of an ANI case regarding them. I have done so for you Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It would seemed their talk page has disappeared, I can't even view the history. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

User talk:98.220.102.33. Deor (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

I think this can be safely closed. The accused have been dealt with. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation at Talk:Vasojevići

• Aeengath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vasojevići (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was originally going to be an AE report, but it tuns out that despite having been around for 8 years and nearly 8 thousand edits, Aeengath has never received a proper DS or CTOPs notification.

1. March 14 Aeengath opens an RfC at Talk:Vasojevići. The main thing to note here is the intended text that Aeengath is proposing to add, because we're about to look at the quotes from sources that Aeengath asserts support these claims.
2. March 16 Aeengath lists several quotes to support their arguments in a discussion at Talk:Vasojevići. In particular, look at their readings of Murati, Vickers, and Elsie. While their reading of Elsie could be a misunderstanding within the realm of reasonable error, their reading of Murati and Vickers is directly counter to what the quoted sources state. I pointed this out to them. Others similarly took issue. Had I been uninvolved at this point in the timeline (and had Aeengath previously received proper CTOPS notification), I would have likely issued sanctions on the spot for the misrepresentation Murati and Vickers. Being involved, I assumed good faith and continued to request sources relevant to finding a way towards consensus.
3. March 16 Aeengath continues to engage in a superficially gracious and compliant manner. There's a bit more back-and-forth in this vein over the following days.
4. March 24 Aeengath presents the culmination of their efforts, which does not at all take into account the concerns regarding how Murati, Vickers and Elsie are being misrepresented. I point this out, and reviewing this now in hindsight the reduction of Vickers and Murati's clear assertions that the Vasojevici were at one point Albanian to Some scholars, such as Robert Elsie have suggested the possibility that the Vasojevići may have been Albanian-speaking prior to Slavicisation is way more egregious than the misrepresentation of Elsie, which I mistakenly focused my response on.
5. March 26 Aeengath states that they are struggling to see where they are misrepresenting sources.

I think this is clear-cut misrepresentation of sources and textbook civil POV-pushing. Aeengath is clearly perfectly capable of engaging with dense academic sources, but appears to lose all sense of reading comprehension when it comes to interpreting the word "Albanian" written on a page. I think this warrants a topic-ban from Balkan ethnic disputes. Aeengath has already complained that my conduct in this dispute is unbecoming of an admin, so I'll note that I have not only not used any admin tools or authority here, I played ball and continued to assume good faith and provide opportunities for Aeengath to correct their arguments well past the point where I believed that unilateral admin action would have been warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill, reading your report, but not the sources, I have a question about your statement that the editor but appears to lose all sense of reading comprehension when it comes to interpreting the word "Albanian" written on a page. To me, any action is dependent on whether this is an isolated case or a standard practice of misrepresenting sources on this subject. Are you aware of other instances of this occurring? Since you are considering what I consider severe sanction in a topic ban, I think it's essential that this editor has received prior warnings about this kind of conduct. I guess what I'm asking is, is this part of a pattern? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I've never interacted with them prior to this discussion (which I was summoned to by bot) and have no prior knowledge of their edits, nor do I intend to snoop through their contribution history for more dirt. If the community feels that a logged warning is more appropriate at this time, I'm fine with that outcome. That having been said, I think that this is a clear-cut case of repeatedly misrepresenting sources (albeit all in relation to one dispute) to an unacceptable degree, despite collegial encouragement to revise their views in light of what the sources say, and I'm skeptical that an editor with 8,000 edits should receive kid-glove treatment around something so fundamental. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I actively participated in the RfC in question because it is a topic that interests me greatly. However, for several years now, any attempt to modify the paragraph pertaining to the "Origins" section of this tribe has been doomed to failure. Yet, this section is problematic for obvious reasons of neutrality, something that Aeengath also noticed upon discovering this article, which led him to attempt to make the content more neutral himself. Having encountered the same issues I have faced in the past — namely, a group of users, always the same ones, blocking any attempt at modification — Aeengath eventually decided to open an RfC.

Now, throughout this RfC, Aeengath has always remained courteous, making an effort to consider all remarks, including and especially yours, Rosguill, as you were the most capable of engaging in discussion. He repeatedly modified the text he proposed as a replacement for the current paragraph, taking your feedback into account, something he was in no way obliged to do: your status as an administrator does not place you above the general body of Wikipedia regular contributors.

I now urge everyone reading this to carefully review the content of the RfC opened by Aeengath: his behaviour has been exemplary. At no point did he accuse anyone of anything, unlike Rosguill, who, running out of arguments, ended up accusing Aeengath of attempting to push a WP:POV and other things. If there is any behaviour to criticise here, I do not believe it is Aeengath’s, but yours, Rosguill. You have no right to accuse an editor in such a manner when he has put a great deal of effort into this RfC and has striven to take your feedback into account. Disagreeing on the interpretation of a text is one thing, but your opinion as an administrator does not carry more weight than that of Aeengath, myself, or any of the other participants in this RfC.

Finally, the fact that you've come up with such a request here, namely for Aeengath to be banned from all subjects relating to the Balkans, is just absolutely unbelievable. I seriously wonder what your interest is in this. Krisitor (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have sufficiently established my case that there is absolutely inappropriate misrepresentation of the sources based on the diffs provided. Anything further is up to the community. It is not possible to accept a summary of

• The Albanian tribes, it must be noted, had a broadly common culture with the Slavic (i.e. Serbian-speaking) tribes of neighbouring Montenegro since the border tribes were in close contact with one another over the centuries. Language was not always an element of division, nor in fact was religion. Some tribes are known to have changed language over time. The now Slavic-speaking Ku�ci tribe of Montenegro, for instance, was originally Albanian-speaking. The same may be true, at least in part, of the Montenegrin Vasoviqi [Vasojevic ́i] and Palabardhi [Bjelopavlic ́i] tribes.
• In Kosovo, especially in its eastern part, most Albanians were gradually assimilated into the Eastern Orthodox faith by numerous methods, including the baptism of infants with Serbian names and the conducting of all religious ceremonies such as marriages in the Serbian language. In Montenegro, entire tribes such as the Kuč, Bjellopavliq, Palabardha, Piprraj, and Vasovic were assimilated
• The process of transition of the Albanian element into the Serbian one, through different methods of assimilation, has occurred in many Montenegrin tribes, such as Kuč, Piperi, and Vasojevići.

as Some scholars, such as Robert Elsie have suggested the possibility that the Vasojevići may have been Albanian-speaking prior to Slavicisation. Editors are free to bring in other sources, or dispute that these sources are reliable (which has been your primary argument in the discussion, hence why I'm not accusing you of any malfeasance), but it is plainly tendentious to argue that the above cited quotes support the proposed text. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Though I disagree with your interpretation of some of the provided sources, I get your point, but this excess of WP:SYNTH that you accuse Aeengath of is also the main problem with the current "stable" version. For example, Elsie doesn't say that the tribe is likely of Albanian origin, yet his words are used to support that claim. Anyway, I'm not familiar with the process of banning someone from an entire area of Wikipedia, but I find this reaction disproportionate, especially considering that this was a discussion, not an edit war. Krisitor (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't checked whether these sources are representative of broader scholarship on this issue, but I can see that several of them have been misunderstood or misrepresented. They are not ambiguous, but clearly say that this tribe is of Albanian origin. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Liz: @Rosguill: I decided to not !vote on the RfC, as Aeengath's proposals were doomed since the beginning. I am surprised at the degree to which they have repeatedly misrepresented sources there. This is a patent case of disruption, and it should not be let to slip away. That being said, Aeengath had not received an AE alert before, so IMO a topic ban is too much. Instead, I think that the right thing to do is to issue an AE-logged warning about tendentious editing and misrepresentation of sources. Then it is up to Aeengath to decide whether it remains a warning or becomes a more severe sanction. IMO, this is what benefits the community the best, and I suggest to Liz to implement it. The discussion at the RfC itself seems to have reached its natural end, and everybody then can move on. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I find this resolution satisfactory although I'm not experienced with imposing AE editing restrictions or sanctions. But I'd like to hear whether this outcome has approval from other interested parties. It does set up a "last chance" scenario in case these editing mistakes are repeated in the future. I wish we could have heard from User:Aeengath. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Rosguill stated they would be fine with an AE-logged warning as well, so I don't expect them to find this an unacceptable solution. I think they have already given their approval. Indeed, it would have been good to see Aeengath say something; I think we can wait a bit to give them more time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Continuously disruptive editing by User623921

User has previously:

• Attempted to restore [7] forks of blocked users [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] regarding the page Arameans

• Changing text on pages that formerly said "Assyrian" to "Syriac" or "Aramean" and/or removing mentions of Assyrians despite expanding articles (please note that "Assyrian", "Aramean", "Syriac", "Suraye/Suryoye", "Chaldean", and other terms are used to refer to the same people)
  • Örebro school shooting - My edits [13] [14] [15] and user's edits [16] [17] [18]
  • Defense of Azakh - My edits [19] [20] [21] [22] and user's edits [23] [24] [25] [26]
  • Defence of Iwardo - Other user's edits [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] and user's edits [33] [34]
    • Please also note the posts on the talk page [35] and this ANI report from the user [36]
  • Haberli, İdil - My edits [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] and user's edits [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]
  • Öğündük, İdil - My edits [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] and user's edits [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]
    • Please note that on the talk page of this article, there was a discussion relating to content on the page and the sources, which is why the edit history may look a bit messy
  • Shamoun Hanne Haydo - My edits [64] [65] [66] and user's edits [67] [68] [69]
  • Mhallami - My edits [70] [71] [72] [73] and user's edits [74] [75]
  • Smaller instances on certain pages, such as...
    • Ethnic groups in Europe - My edits [76] [77] [78] and user's edits [79] [80]
    • Suryoyo language - My edits [81] [82] and user's edits [83] [84]
    • WCA (disambiguation) - My edits [85] [86] [87] and user's edits [88] [89] [90]
      • Please note this talk page discussion here [91]

• Improperly explained removal of football teams on List of Assyrian football teams in Sweden; User has attempted to justify these as "sports, not politics", which lead to this [92] talk page discussion and the involvement of an administrator
  • Before editing [93]
  • After editing [94] [95]
    • Please also note the created article Aramean (Syriac) football clubs and category by the same name as well as edits on the pages for Arameans Suryoye football team [96], Arameisk-Syrianska IF [97], Örebro Syrianska IF [98], Syrianska FC [99], Syrianska IF Kerburan [100], Syrianska KF [101], and Valsta Syrianska IK [102]

• Previous report for edit warring on the article Ricky Rich [103] and similar editing actions on Ant Wan [104] and Gaboro [105]

A previous ANI was made for this user but it ended up being a content dispute resolution for the article Ant Wan instead [106]. User623921 has propped up a stance of battleground editing and gaming the system to assert a specific POV, and deflecting that onto other editors (including myself) throughout the past two weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs)

To address point one, I mistakenly restored it. This was also brought up by Shmayo. It was marked as a sandbox when I accidentally restored it, but I immediately reverted to the original version and marked the revert as a mistake.

Now, regarding the Örebro school shooting, the referenced sources do not mention "Assyrian" at all. They only mention the Syrianska Riksförbundet, yet you inserted the Assyrian name into the article despite my previous corrections. I clearly marked my edits, stating that there was no reference to Assyrians.

Regarding the Defense of Azakh and every other edit I made, they were solely based on the referenced sources. I urge any administrator to review the sources, as none of them mention anything Assyrian-related, yet Surayeproject3 continues to push the Assyrian name.

As for the artists, Surayeproject3 already filed a dispute, and the admin ruled in favor of no one.

Surayeproject3 is accusing me of "gaming the system," even though I am not pushing an Aramean name. I am reverting/editing to "Syriac," as stated in the referenced sources. "Syriac" is considered a middle ground between both names, which is why I am using it, as the sources indicate and for the sake of compromise.

Additionally, Surayeproject3 has been inconsistent multiple times, going against WP:C2D by changing "Sayfo" to "Assyrian Genocide," which I pointed out and warned him about on his talk page. User623921 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I have closed a dispute at DRN to which User623921 and Surayeproject3 were parties, concerning the article Arameans. DRN does not work on a case that is also pending in another forum. There were two other editors involved in the case at DRN who are not named here. If they wish to reopen the DRN case without the two combatants, they may file a new request here. This is the second case between User623921 and Surayeproject3 to end up here at WP:ANI in two weeks. Does something need to be done to keep these two users from disrupting the development of the encyclopedia? Interaction bans are difficult to administer, but may be less difficult than finding areas to ban these users from. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I will respond to all of the new points that have been made since I filed the initial ANI. Please note that I aim to simply state my side of the argument and in no way intend to aggressively or overtly attack or argue with anyone, and I hope that I state all of my points while still going alongside Wikipedia's guidelines. With that said, I will start with User623921's statements.

I intend for this ANI not to turn into another content dispute, however as they have primarily addressed their response by discussing my previous edit history on several articles, I feel I have to address them individually and that these help to prove my point. For 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, which is reflected in other articles relating to modern Assyrians (though not to delve too much into the now closed DNR). I am open to providing more details about the naming dispute if anyone wishes, but with this being said, allow me to address the edits:

• Gutersloh - The change from Aramean to Assyrian has been a previous issue for the article. The first time the community was mentioned was in 2011 [107], but then this was changed to Assyrian [108] and Aramean was noted as a common designation for Assyrians in Germany [109]. This was changed to Aramean in December of that year [110] before being reverted back to Assyrian [111], changed the next month by a German IP [112], and in 2013 was changed to "Assyrian/Syriac" [113]. It was changed to Aramean again in 2015 [114], but than I changed it back in 2024 [115] which caused a small dispute with another editor but nothing big. It was changed back to Assyrian in late February [116] and I added more information from the German version of the page earlier this month [117]. Please note that the German page labels the community as "Suryoye" with parentheses (Aramean, Assyrian, Chaldean) to couple all three identities [118]. As you can see, this is not the first time that this dispute has been on the article, but as Assyrian encompasses all three groups, I changed the name while adding more info about the community in the town.
• Isa Kahraman - Regarding the removal of the Aramean category, that category is used for ancient Arameans, and not for people who identify as Aramean today. The only source that mentions identity or ethnicity is the one linked [119], which labels him as Syriac (the news publication typically uses all the labels together when identifying the community and people).
• Syrians in Sweden - For this one no mention of Assyrians/Arameans was made until this edit in October of last year [120], but I changed it in January because they're used to represent the same people and it was redundant [121].
• Al Jazira (caliphal province) - About this article, I don't have access to the source so I can't say what it says about Tur Abdin. However, as will soon be seen with Place name changes in Turkey and two villages in the Tur Abdin area, the people who originate from there have roots to ancient Assyrian history and modern Assyrian identity, while noting that many from there identify as Aramean in diaspora. Plus, the article was linked to the ancient Arameans, so I changed Aramean to Assyrian.
• Syria - No mention of Tamurlane was made in the article that was sourced where I made my edit, but it did use all of the names and referred to the community as ethnic Assyrians. The fact that Syria has ancient Aramean origins is irrelevant.
• Place name changes in Turkey - The issue with this article seems to be the name to describe the village names changed by Turkey. It was previously called Assyrian but changed to Aramaic [122] while still noting its inhabitants were ethnic Assyrians. This was reverted [123] but it had the main page for the people written as "Assyrian/Syriac" [124]. As far as I can see, this wasn't changed to "Assyrian/Syriac/Aramean" until 2023 [125] but I changed it back the following year [126]. In any case, the section of the article was previously just Assyrian and noted the various names are used to recognize the same people.
• Haberli, İdil - This article hasn't existed for long, so it didn't deal with the naming dispute until recently [127]. When I expanded the article, I found quite a few sources that label the community as ethnic Assyrians, and the Assyrian genocide as...well, the Assyrian genocide [128]. However, User623921 made various edits afterwards that only changed the name to "Syriac" or "Aramean" [129] [130] [131] [132] and also removing any mentions of ancient Assyrian history or modern identity. His argument is that the Turkish word "Suryaniler" and "Suryani" translate to "Syriac", however this is not entirely the case and there are many instances where the word is used to mean Assyrian (even by Turkish sources) [133] [134], [135] page 183 of this link, [www.aina.org/books/stgabriel.pdf] pg. 103 of this link, [136]. While there are sources that correlate Suryani with Syriac, it has a greater connection to Assyrian identity and name and therefore I edited the article based on that.
• Öğündük, İdil - Same as above, see the pasted links in my first ANI post in relation to this article. All sources use the terms interchangeably, but given that Assyrian was used in English and Turkish, I wrote Assyrian
• Ethnic groups in Europe - When I first edited this article, I removed Aramean [137] because it was redundant and didn't represent two unique peoples. However, this was added back by User623921 a week ago and I was accused of POV [138]. When I re-edited the article I changed the section in "Non-indigenous minorities" on Assyrians to add the various other identifications [139], but User623921 changed this once again [140]. I added this back while expanding the "Indigenous minorities" section [141], and that's where the article stands. Something else to note is that User623921 did not remove the mention of "Chaldean" from the Assyrian section, only "Syriac" and "Aramean" and than linked them together elsewhere. But again, the only edits that were made were coupled with the two terms and nothing else.
• Örebro school shooting - User623921 is arguing that because the sources of my edits on the Assyrian victim of the massacre mention a federation with the name "Syrianska", that the victim should be labeled as "Syriac-Aramean". However, across the cited sources, I could find no such mention of a federation or an organization with the name that they are stating. The Reuter's source [142] describes the victim as a "Syriac-speaker" and the community as "Syriac-speaking", while the Japan Times source I added [143] names the victim and the community as "Assyrian", while the Assyria TV source [144] is a recording of his funeral. The CBS News source makes no mention of his ethnicity [145], but states they are Orthodox Christians.
• Shamoun Hanne Haydo - The issue of the name has been previously present on the article for Shamoun Hanne Haydo. When it was first created, he was labeled as Assyrian [146], but was changed to Aramean in late 2009 [147] before being reverted [148] and causing an edit war for the month of October. In November it was changed to "Aramean/Syriac" [149], and it was a back and forth between this dispute in 2010 [150] [151] [152], 2011 [153] [154] [155][156], 2012 [157] [158] [159] [160], 2013 [161] [162] [163] [164] [165], 2014 [166], 2015 [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178], up until the present day in a list of edits so long that I don't have the time to link to all of them. The talk page has the exact same disputes [179], while linking to a source that calls him both Aramean and Assyrian [180]. As you can see, this has been a frustrating back and forth for MANY years now, and up until now, the article did not have any modern sources that went into detail with the subject's legacy. All of the sources I added use all three of the names, but User623921 changed only text that called him an Assyrian and also removed one of the sources that called him an Assyrian (the source dealt with one of his descendants who is currently writing a cookbook, admittedly it may have come off as an advertisement but I can of course change this). All in all, User623921 continued the previous pattern of disruptive editing that this article has seen since it was created by simply changing the name without any constructive edits to the article.
• Regarding the naming of Seyfo - The common name for the events of 1915 is "Assyrian genocide". After having just done a search on Google, the number of results that appear for "Assyrian genocide" is 1,620,000 for a regular search, and 278 for a search in the news tab. Meanwhile, the number of results that appear for "Seyfo" and "Sayfo" is 363,000 for a regular search respectively, as well as 30 and 27 news results respectively. Additionally, the article for the topic itself was only renamed to Seyfo in late 2020 without an RM procedure, making it a controversial move [181]. Noting that Google Scholar was also mentioned in the linked talk page post, we see 1,280 results for "Sayfo" [182], 659 for "Seyfo" [183], and 16,500 for "Assyrian genocide" [184]. Since "Assyrian genocide" is the more common term in English, this is what I have used when linking to the article.
• I haven't researched Sodertalje mafia and Ignatius Aphrem II in depth yet to comment on them, but Sodertalje mafia has sources referring to it as an Assyrian/Syriac mafia while Ignatius Aphrem II has previously commented on distancing the name debate from the church and being united as one "Suryoye". I can make a more detailed clarification later if need be.

As you can see, in all of the edits that User623921 has linked, I had a clear and viable reason for changing the name Aramean and Syriac to Assyrian while noting that previous disputes have hindered and upset these articles for so long that they were never expanded until recent edits, and even after that, the only actions that they made on any of them was changing the name "Assyrian" to "Syriac", and sometimes linking to the ancient Arameans page. Because I was outright accused of edit warring and disruptive editing, I personally focused on expanding these articles and found many sources that affirmed the Assyrian identity and origins of article subjects or edits, and noting that the people who call themselves "Aramean", "Assyrian", "Syriac", or "Chaldean" are one and the same. I am confident, therefore, that as opposed to User623921 stating that I am pushing an Assyrian POV, they are pushing a Syriac-linked-to-Aramean POV that is acting disruptively on many of these articles.

Now to briefly address @Robert McClenon's points. I should mention that while this is the second time an issue between myself and User623921 has appeared at the ANI, it was not filed by either of us. Another user who was involved in the DRN for Arameans filed it after noticing the edit warring that User623921 was engaged in, as well as with the restoration of the forks, see this link here [185]. This is the same ANI I mentioned in my first post. They also filed a sockpuppet investigation against them for editing patterns from another account on one of the same articles mentioned (although it was determined they were unrelated) [186], and they also filed another sockpuppet investigation into the fourth user of the DRN, Kivercik (which is as of this moment still open - I noticed it around the time it was filed and added some of my own points that I felt were worth mentioning) [187]. As you can see, this level of disruptive editing has been noticed by and has impacted other editors besides just myself, which is partly what prompted me to file another ANI.

By the way @Robert McClenon, do you happen to be able to perform CheckUser or know of a user who can? I previously emailed the English Wikipedia's CheckUser email about this issue, but I haven't gotten a response and it appears I need to address my concerns sooner than later. If you can guide me in the right direction on this, I'd appreciate it. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Surayeproject3 - The way to request CheckUser investigation is to file a Sockpuppet Investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, regarding changing from "Sayfo" to "Assyrian Genocide", please stop doing that: we already have consensus for the appropriate title of that article, which is Sayfo. This is a Featured Article - it's been under a lot of scrutiny, so that's a pretty strong consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Do you know where I can see the consensus for the appropriate title, if it's not the already linked renaming discussion? I can imagine it may have been chosen during the discussion to make Sayfo a featured article, but I haven't come across it yet. Otherwise, if it's the consensus for the appropriate label, I will stop changing that text. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of related discussions if you look at the talk page archives. Following the links in the most recent move request will get you to a handful of them without having to dig too hard, but buidhe's comment there explains the reasoning pretty thoroughly. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I want to point out the "common name" argument you are holding against Sayfo:

A google search for Assyrian genocide does not give 1.6m results, simply because it is targeting any result that is mentioning the word "assyrian" and "genocide" separately in the same page. You've got to quote the word so it literally becomes "(the) ASSYRIAN GENOCIDE", and on a standard google search this gives 77 900 results.

Sayfo gives 225 000 results and Seyfo gives 389 000.

Same thing applies to google scholar, "Assyrian genocide" gives 563 results.

Sayfo gives 1280 results and Seyfo gives 659 results. User623921 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Making a reply to this as it's still currently the case that User623921 is changing article content to remove mentions or links to Assyrians, most recently on the article Beth Kustan, Midyat, even after expanding it's content: compared to previously, there are now more sources that affirm the village's Assyrian identity (including the Turkish word Suryaniler), and noting again that "Syriac people" redirects to Assyrians.

My recent edits - [188] [189] [190] [191]

User's edits - [192] [193] [194] [195] Surayeproject3 (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@User623921, you need to stop changing the terms in that article. You're edit-warring, and you'll be blocked if you continue. There's an open conversation on the talk page - discuss your edits there, not in repeated edit summaries. -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see the edit summaries of relevant pages, Surayeproject3 goes against the established fact that the population is referred to as Syriac. Please see the sources yourself, it's literally saying "speaking of the Syriac population". Mugsalot also changed it to Syriac but Surayeproject3 goes against it. User623921 (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering i also want to point out that the open conversations on the talk page are being ignored or not answered by Surayeproject3, @Surayeproject3 can you answer the latest reply... User623921 (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

What User623921 seems to be doing is taking statements that others say in relation to his arguments for how things should be on Wikipedia, and than apply that as if it's a final consensus and say on his editing. This has occurred in various instances:

• When me and User* were debating over the ethnicity for Ricky Rich, I suggested leaving it as Assyrian/Syriac because it factored both identities we were arguing for [196]. User* seems to have taken this to mean that "Syriac" is by default the middle ground and started changing other pages [197] [198] for the artists Gaboro and Ant Wan
• On the article Beth Kustan, Midyat, another editor sorted the page's content and happened to mention that "The sources do overwhelmingly use "Syriac"" [199]. He has since taken this as if it's a final consensus that other articles, if not all, should say Syriac instead of Assyrian to refer to the same people, even if not directly on Assyrian villages in Turkey. See these [200][201][202][203][204][205] and other examples can be found on his edit history. These instances occurred both before and after I expanded these articles.
• User* seems to also be arguing that because an outside organization named "Syrianska Riksforbundent" represents the community as Arameans (with the label Syriac applied) through certain terminology, than by default it means that a subject should be represented under the Syriac-Aramean label. This is in some of his talk page posts but see here [206][207][208][209]. I'm mentioning this because User* is throwing in the organization in edits on articles that aren't even related to it, only being used in arguments for the name.

User* is continuously assuming that there is consensus on these topics without broader agreement or input, violating Wikipedia's need for not only just consensus, but also a neutral point of view. It has continuously appeared that User* is also cherry picking select sources and statements in forums and present those to support his side of editing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

to answer point one: Ricky Rich was referred to as Syriac, I tried getting Aramean, you tried Assyrian, neither one got their opinions, thus Syriac was seen as the most middle ground, as this is what all relevant sources in Sweden state, same goes for the other artists Gaboro and Ant Wan, who actually are both referenced and known to be Aramean, yet Ant Wan was left without ethnicity after a comment from a admin, and well, Gaboro is literally representing his ethnicity on his mask, thus making it into the lead per MOSBIO.

--

About Beth Kustan, you're the one not seeming to understand that the references and sources overwhelmingly use Syriac, not Assyrian. The censunse of the population explicitly mention a "SYRIAC POPULATION", you are trying to push the Assyrian name on a population that is described as Syriacs. For example, the two references about the population on Beth Kustan writes the following:

"Helmut Ritter provides figures for the number of families and persons in all the villages (43 in all) which had a Syrian Orthodox population." - note that he writes this and references this: "H Ritter, Turoyo, die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen der Tur Abdin" (literally says Syriac Christians).

the other reference on the article writes the following: "The Beth Qustan village was a flourishing rural center, part of the food basket of the Fertile Crescent at the turn of the 20th century, with approximately 200 families living in the village; however, in 2017, only an estimated 20 families remained inhabitants of Beth Qustan. The Qusneans still speak a specific dialect of Neo-Aramaic, which is better known to the community as Turoyo, the language of Tur ‘Abdin. Figure 2 is a picture of the center of the Beth Qustan village."

there is no mention about a Assyrian population other than Syriac Christians on the two references in the lead.

the third reference to the population, in the history section writes the following: "The list only deals with the Syriac population"

--

What I am using the organization for is as a source to describe what Syrian means in Sweden, we could very well also use a study by Atto, read this: "A Syrian is a Suryoyo who first rejects the designation Assyrier and by doing so any links to an Assyrian past. Among the Syrianer in Sweden, especially people who are active in secular organizations and many of the clergymen, it is stated that the ‘amo Suryoyo has Aramean roots." [210]

You're accusing me for POV, yet I am not even pushing POV, which I am assuming you're thinking to be Aramean, I am literally seeking middle ground at Syriac, since it redirects to Assyrians and is the most accepted name amongst all groups, besides, Syriac is what the sources state. User623921 (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

User* is continuously assuming that there is consensus on these topics without broader agreement or input yes, this appears pretty clear to me. @User623921, your edits have been challenged, so you need to seek consensus for them. Yes, that does mean every time. If you want a consensus that applies across multiple articles, you have to get that consensus. I recommend starting with a discussion on Assyrian people, as @Robert McClenon suggests as a possibility below. An RFC may be a good idea at some point, once you've come up with a clear and neutral question to ask. You may first want to take various sources to WP:RSN. What you cannot do is get a local consensus on one article and then apply it across all kinds of other articles, over other editors' objections. If an experienced editor were doing this, I would be calling for a topic ban. Since you are a relatively inexperienced editor, instead I strongly suggest editing somewhere else for a while, so you can get experience with wikipedia editing about something you feel less strongly about. Personally, I can recommend WP:BOOKS topics. You'll never run out of notable books to write about, and it takes a pretty contentious book to get real arguments going. -- asilvering (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I mostly do it on the villages, since they all use same sources for the population. But sure, I'll keep this in mind, sorry. User623921 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

you are expanind the article, its great, however, while doing so, you are changing the already established terms for the population to Assyrian. Suryaniler means Syriacs, please see the Oxford dictionary of the Turkish language. [211] User623921 (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and POV by Surayeproject3

Surayeproject3 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly attempted to push a POV favoring the Assyrian name, contradicting the sources. I have tried to revert or change his edits to reflect the more accurate term used in the referenced sources, which is "Syriac."

About Gütersloh: Surayeproject3, without providing an edit summary, changed the Aramean name to his preferred term, "Assyrian." [212]

About Isa Kahraman: Surayeproject3 edited the article without a summary or consensus and removed the Aramean category. [213]

About Syrians in Sweden: Surayeproject3 altered the article, which had remained stable for nearly a month, to refer only to "Assyrian," removing any mention of Arameans. [214]

About Al-Jazira (caliphal province): Surayeproject3 modified the article, which had been stable for over a month, changing "Aramean" to "Assyrian" and deleting the Aramean mention. He did this without adding any new references or providing an edit summary. [215]

About Syria: Surayeproject3 removed the phrase "Assyrian and Aramean population," replacing it with only "Assyrian," despite the fact that the article referred to the Middle Ages in Syria, which is known for its Aramean origins. [216]

About the Södertälje mafia: Surayeproject3 changed "Syriac-Aramaic" to "Assyrian," contradicting the available sources. The article had remained stable for more than two months. [217]

About Place name changes in Turkey: Surayeproject3 altered "Assyrian/Syriac/Aramean" to only "Assyrian," even though the article had been stable for over two months. [218]

About Haberli, İdil: Surayeproject3 kept fighting me over the correct population name. The referenced censuses and sources stated "Syriacs," but he repeatedly reverted the article to say "Assyrian." [219]

About Ignatius Aphrem II: Surayeproject3 replaced "Aramean" with "Assyrian," even though the source explicitly stated "Aramean" and Ignatius Aphrem II himself identifies strongly with his Aramean heritage. [220]

About Ethnic groups in Europe: Surayeproject3 removed "Aramean" from the article, keeping only "Assyrian." [221]

About the Örebro school shooting: Surayeproject3 described the casualty victim as "Assyrian" and referred to the federation in Örebro as "Assyrian," even though the referenced sources clearly stated the victim was "Syriac" and that the federation was "Syrianska Riksförbundet," a Syriac-Aramaic organization. [222]

About Öğündük, İdil: Surayeproject3 fought me over the name of the population, trying to push the Assyrian name despite sources and censuses explicitly mentioning a "Syriac" population. [223]

About Shamoun Hanne Haydo: Surayeproject3 attempted to label him as "Assyrian," despite all sources [224][225] stating that he was a Syriac folk hero. [226]

Surayeproject3 also seems to label anything related to Sayfo as the "Assyrian Genocide," despite there being a speedy renaming request to change the categories from "Assyrian" to "Sayfo" for consistency with the main article and WP:C2D. I have also warned him about this on his talk page. [227]

With all this said, it seems that sources are being contradicted in order for him to push his POV and have the Assyrian name displayed. His user talk page even states that he wants to "increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people, which includes those identifying as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean."

I have repeatedly tried to fight this vandalism, POV pushing, and contradiction of sources, but it does not seem to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User623921 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)^<diffs>

• I believe this should be merged with the above report, no? ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 15:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Nathannah • 📮 16:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 16:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Do you two realize that you have offered over 130 diffs for editors/admins to review? This is excessive and no one is going to put in the time required to evaluate all of this material.

Could you briefly, in a few sentences, summarize the basis of your disagreement and the policy-based disruption you are claiming is happening by the other party? Otherwise, I think this complaint will just be archived with no action taken. Be concise, not exhaustive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Liz - This is a naming and splitting dispute. The question is about a group of Syriac Christians, and whether they should all be called Assyrians or whether there is a separate ethnic group who are called Arameans. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That's the content dispute. I haven't tried to determine what the conduct issues are. I was trying to mediate the content dispute before these reports were filed, and my objective was first to determine what the content dispute was so that we could ignore the conduct issues. But here we are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t really call it a dispute over ethnicity, but rather a matter of modern Arameans having WP:NOTABILITY and, in accordance with WP:NPOV, deserving their own article. This has been a topic of discussion for decades, as their identity is different from that of the Assyrians, with a unique historical claim, continuity, literature, traditions, and more. User623921 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand that my posts appear excessive, but I am just detailing them so that anyone who may wish to review can better understand my point. I'll summarize the above, hopefully in a more concise manner.

User623921 has taken a stance on battleground editing and gaming the system to advocate for a certain POV while deflecting this onto other editors involved, including myself. So far, they have attempted to restore forks made by blocked users on the page Arameans, improperly explained removal of various football teams from List of Assyrian football teams in Sweden, and they have also previously been warned for edit-warring and investigated for sockpuppetry. The biggest disruption they've made is change various amounts of text on articles from "Assyrian" to "Syriac/Aramean"; they have listed examples where I've done the same thing vice versa, but in my recent post, I explained that I expanded those articles with sources or content while User623921 only made edits to change the name again or remove mentions of Assyrians. This has impacted all the articles they listed and some more, and has been disruptive to more editors besides just myself. In my last paragraph, I mentioned that I emailed English Wikipedia's CheckUser email about this issue, but I have not yet received a response and it appears that sooner than later I should get my points across to one of them.

I hope that this is much more concise, quick, and easy to follow. If more details are needed, please refer to my above posts. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, who do you think is a sockpuppet of whom? -- asilvering (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering After re-evaluating I had greater suspicion of meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry, so maybe CheckUser is not the best for this situation. I noticed you were on the Wikimedia Discord from your user profile, and given the urgency I joined it and just sent you a message, if you're able to check. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Surayeproject3 has consistently engaged in name-based POV editing across a wide range of articles, often replacing terms like "Aramean" or "Syriac" with "Assyrian"—even when the sources cited in those articles clearly use the original terminology. These changes are frequently made without edit summaries, consensus, or the addition of new sources, and they’ve disrupted articles that had remained stable for long periods.

This behavior isn't isolated to one or two pages; it's a pattern that spans many articles, from biographical entries to discussions of historical regions, modern communities, and even the Sayfo genocide. In many of these edits, references to Aramean or Syriac identity have been either downplayed or removed outright in favor of an Assyrian framing. Surayeproject3 also appears to apply the label "Assyrian" to people or organizations that are clearly described in sources as "Syriac" or "Aramean."

Their user page openly states an intent to increase the visibility of the Assyrian name, including for those who identify as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean. This self-declared mission has translated into a persistent editing approach that often overrides or misrepresents cited material to fit that narrative. The issue has led to repeated reversions, edit conflicts, and broader disruption to other editors working on these topics. User623921 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@User623921, I really quite strongly advise you to avoid using LLMs at all on Wikipedia, but especially in discussions about conduct and policy. LLMs do not understand Wikipedia. You are harming your credibility and everyone else's ability to assume good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

im Sorry, I was not doing so for them to write my responses for me but rather fix grammar etc. Ill make sure to not use them going forward. User623921 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Cheers. Don't worry about grammar too much. Authentic mistakes are better than staid silicon perfection. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

User:User623921 - Use the grammar checker to check grammar. Using an LLM to check grammar is like using a jackhammer to drive finishing nails. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@User623921, vandalism has a pretty specific meaning, and this does not meet that bar. See WP:VANDAL. I don't see any indication whatsoever that @Surayeproject3 is a vandal. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Dealing with the Content Dispute

This dispute, like many cases at WP:ANI, consists of an underlying content dispute and conduct issues. We should work to start resolving the content dispute while the conduct is dealt with. The underlying content issue appears to be whether there are a distinct ethnic group at the present known as Aramean people, who are not the same as the Assyrian people and should be the subject of a separate article.

Another DRN request has just been filed about Arameans. The existing article Arameans is about the ancient Arameans, and is probably not really part of the dispute. However, I don't think that DRN is the right forum for the content dispute, because a consensus process is needed to decide whether to create the new article, and DRN would probably conclude that a consensus process is needed. I see three possible routes to a consensus decision on whether a separate article is in order:

• 1. A split discussion in Assyrian people.
• 2. An editor can prepare a Draft:Aramean people, which can then be accepted, and editors who disagree as to its separate notability can nominate it for deletion and let the AFD be the consensus process.
• 3. RFC.

Which consensus process should we use? Then the community can decide whether there still are conduct issues, or whether they will subside when a consensus content process is pending. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I support option 1. This is ultimately a debate as to whether the umbrella term (Assyrian) should be divided into separate articles. I'm not an administrator so apologies if it is not my place to comment. Mugsalot (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I support option 2. It’s the most neutral option and the one that fits best with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Arameans have tried for decades to get their own article, but it keeps getting blocked by opposing Assyrians, even though Arameans meet all the necessary guidelines, like WP:NOTABILITY.

Have a look at the Dutch and German Wikipedia pages. They are good examples of how two separate articles can work just fine.

Check my comment proving Aramean notability here.

I also want to quote what Sorabino said on Archive 14 of the Assyrian talk page: "It is quite clear that modern Arameans do not want to be put under Assyrian "umbrella" (as you have put it), and it is my impression that large section of academic community is favoring modern Aramean self-identification. Besides that, the very notion of any "umbrella" term for all Syriac Christians from the Near East became practically inapplicable on formal grounds, since 2014, when Israel officially recognized Arameans in Israel as a distinctive community."

I also want to refer to what TurboSuperA+ said: "First of all, Wikipedia is not a court of justice or arbiter of what exists, we are not here to decide what those who call themselves Arameans today really are."

I, and I'm sure the other participant, Kivercik, involved in the previous dispute, can most likely work together on an Aramean people draft. And like you said, if anyone contests its notability, they can nominate it for deletion. User623921 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I support option 3. I feel like options 1 and 2 are basically affirming the other side of the argument and allowing them to create a separate article without a formalized consensus on if it's even necessary. As I and the other Assyrian editor noted in the first DRN, previous forks have been made for the group identifying as Aramean, and they have basically the exact same aspects of their culture and history. The same ethnic group does not need to have multiple pages about its identity, especially when it has previously been the focal point of edit warring and various disruptions in the past. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3, no one needs consensus to make an article, unless there has already been consensus to delete that article. Is there a previous deletion discussion available? -- asilvering (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

In regards to a deletion discussion, there was a WikiProject that originally existed called WikiProject Aramea, however I requested a deletion back in September because it was created by socks and blocked accounts [228]. I also noted that it had the exact same layout and several articles that fit under the scope of WP:WikiProject Assyria, and this is something that User* has previously suggested that "there are people working on" from this discussion (corresponding with the idea of potential meatpuppetry I mentioned to you as well) [229]. For articles, there was previously an article Syriac Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, which was eventually merged into the article for the Syriac Orthodox Church [230] (the discussion uses all the names, btw), and the article Syriac people also had similar content and was eventually merged into Assyrian people [231] [232].

I also suggest comparing the previous forks from blocked editors (this can be found in my first point of the whole discussion) with the article for the ancient Arameans and Assyrian people, as well as this former version of Syriac people [233]. Because there is so much overlap between these variations and the continuous disputes and edit warring that has been caused by them, it's not only unnecessary to create a new article but it will cause much more disruption from its creation. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon was also one of the commenters of the WikiProject deletion request from the looks of it. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I voted to Delete the WikiProject because it was stillborn. Most of the work of a WikiProject is done on its talk page, and no one had posted to the talk page of the project, so the project never had any activity. I was not voting on whether reliable sources discuss the existence of a modern Aramean people who are distinct from the modern Assyrian people. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Can I restore the WikiProject? Now that i am active on here and might invite some people that have contributed to Aramean related contents. @Kivercik would you be down to have a WikiProject? For structure and communication? User623921 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's precedent you might want to point to in an AfD, but it's not a discussion specifically about Aramean people, so the same thing I've said above to @User623921 about a local consensus not applying to similar topics applies here as far as I can tell. There's nothing preventing anyone from making Draft:Aramean people and putting it through AfC for a neutral check, and there wouldn't be anything preventing you from taking that article to AfD once that had occurred. -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surayeproject3 your arguments that it will be a fork based on previous attempts should not really matter when trying to create a Aramean people page, there are enough differences between the modern Arameans and modern Assyrians for it to not be a fork. And, if you're really against a Aramean article, you are free to challange the notability of modern Arameans, but until then, as it stands, modern Arameans meet the notability criteria for its own article.

@Asilvering since there is nothing stopping one from creating a Aramean people draft, is it possible for me to start working on it? And if so, what was the purpose of the 3 options for consensus, should option 2 therefore not be the naturally chosen one? It also seems to be the easiest one to work with instead of yet another discussion in Assyrian people page or a RfC, since we already have had multiple of those. Nothing seems to be stopping one from creating:

• "2. An editor can prepare a Draft:Aramean people, which can then be accepted, and editors who disagree as to its separate notability can nominate it for deletion and let the AFD be the consensus process."

User623921 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion as someone who is trying to help get this dispute to a reasonable conclusion, creating the draft is the simplest answer, and you're welcome to do so. But if I were in your position, namely the position of someone actually intending to write the content, that sure isn't the option I'd try first. I would start by expanding the relevant section on Assyrian people using the best possible sources, then go for #1 in the list of options. #2 is pretty high-risk. You could spend a lot of time and effort on a well-crafted draft and then have an AfD rule that it should be deleted. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering User* already made the draft [234]. Also note that 10 minutes after, User:Kivercik added similar content to this previous fork [235], so this makes me more skeptical of potential meatpuppetry and also ties back to my point on the consensus issue from earlier today. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

i have been inactive for the past hours on wikipedia, he may have found it because of the tag i did, i dont know. but please, stop with these accusations and stop always dragging me into accusations, both you and shmayo have tried it before but were dismissed.

i will delete the fork he published. User623921 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

ah okay, i understand. perhaps going for option 1 might be smarter, but it might also get denied a split. would there be some kind of admin intervention in that case? because from previous experience and from what i have seen, i already know Surayeproject3, Shmayo (been rejecting anything Aramean related for decades) and Mugsalot will be against it and it will just be words against words... User623921 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

There would not be admin intervention unless someone involved in the dispute does something that requires admin action - that is, there would need to be a conduct issue in play as well. As for the rest, this is precisely why I have advised you to work elsewhere on Wikipedia until you have more experience with content disputes in general. They are indeed words against words; and experienced editors tend to be better at choosing the most effective words. -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, it most definitely was "specifically about Aramean people". The content of the old "Syriac people" article linked to above, is basically what is asked to be restored here, see parts of this this or this. "Aramean-Syriac people" was actually protected until last year (protection removed as there were "no disruption to related topics in a long time"). Shmayo (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Shmayo, you haven't linked to a consensus discussion about Aramean people, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

the old Syriac people article is 16 years old and you are using it as a argument against a Aramean article page? it will be nothing like it, just looking at it i can see how inadequate and very poorly written/structured and content wise.

we are not asking to restore it, we are asking to create a Aramean people page per WP:NOTABILITY. User623921 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

asilvering, the deletion discussion for "Aramean-Syriac people" is found here here. There was also another discussion for a split here.Shmayo (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I would say that both of those are far too old to be useful. Our notability guidelines have changed significantly since then, and furthermore the general trend in history over the past two decades has been towards greater acknowledgement of various minority groups, so we have significant grounds to believe that a new consensus needs to be established. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering What about this deletion endorsion? [236] About 10 years old but it was reviewed 6 years after the original deletion of the article, noting that such an article creation was more politically charged than about representation and that many who advocated for separation were socks or blocked accounts. Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a 11 year old review. It seems that you are trying everything in your power to be against a Aramean people article, I am genuinely curios as to why? I am pretty sure this is POV in favor of not having any other identity than your preferred Assyrian one on WikiPedia. User623921 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@User623921, you don't need to respond to everything in the discussion here. Just a tip. -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that one is still old, @Surayeproject3, but in that one @Future Perfect at Sunrise gave a very clear summary of the problem, along with a clear suggestion: fix the parent article. Since I more or less suggested doing that with I would start by expanding the relevant section on Assyrian people using the best possible sources, then go for #1 in the list of options., I imagine that the encouragement to fix the parent article was not taken up, and so I expect FP still holds that opinion. And so long as "fix the parent article" is not done, it certainly looks like any consensus discussion would end there. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

i just came to realize that for option 1, a split discussion would be more fitting in the current Aramean article, as it only deals with ancient Arameans, not modern. the current Assyrian people page only has three sentences about Arameans, there is not much to split there. User623921 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Partisan Bickering and Original Research on Article Urdu

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

---

• Urdu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AlidPedian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are continuously adding original research in the article and removing parts that do not align with their POV.

Previous version reverted to: [237]

• Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted AliPedian's content removal to previous stable version [238] but
• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted it back to AliPedian's version [239]
• I tried to revert the article back to status quo ante dispute. [240] but this edit too was reverted back by AliPedian [241]
• AliPedian has been engaging in copyright violations and disruptive editing in the article as [242] clearly indicate.

Attempts for dispute resolution I attempted to engage with AliPedian on the talkpage sometime back here and now here citing multiple reliable sources [243] regarding various disputes with their POV. However AliPedian Fowler&fowler has been engaging there with Original Research and Fowler&fowler has demonstrated Pro-Pakistan POV and denial of the Hindustani language as a Wikipedia POV, disregarding the academic consensus and reliable sources that exist in its favour. Both of the editors are trying to steer the article in their POV with dubious sources.

• The editors have also questioned whether I can read and write Urdu [244]. I really do not understand when did that became a qualification to edit an article on Urdu here in Wikipedia.Logosx127 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Before any other accusations are made against me or Fowler&fowler by him, I would like the respected admins and moderators to first visit Talk:Urdu and see who is neglecting the consensus and sources, by cherry picking. Secondly, I did not copyright anything. And when the respected user @Koshuri Sultan clarified and fixed my mistakes in this regard on the article, I did not even revert the edits back and compromised. Because, I don't want to push my edits and involve in edit warring in any way. AlidPedian (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  ‎When I was very new to Wikipedia, a respected user @Apaugasma] told me 'The most important thing that you can break though is your relationship with other editors: the hardest thing on Wikipedia, as well as the single most important thing, is to stay cool, to remain friendly to other editors at all times (even when they are not too friendly!). '

  ‎

  ‎But that's where I made a mistake, when @Logosx127 used inappropriate words about a well-known historian and linguist Tariq Rahman (accusing him of biases and being "Pro-Partition"), and then he got the opportunity to start discussions against me and suppress me.

  And yet, I expressed my anger while remaining patient, and refrained from doing anything like this user. AlidPedian (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

AlidPedian, you just said you have refrained from misconduct but you just made accusations against Logosx127. Feel free to strike them if you reconsider your words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I understand the importance of maintaining a civil tone in discussions. I did not intend to make a personal accusation but rather to highlight concerns regarding the disregard of the work and references of reliable historians.

‎

I have gathered concrete evidence demonstrating that Logosx127 has repeatedly dismissed credible historian. I believe this is relevant to the discussion and would appreciate your review of his replies on Talk:Urdu. 1 2 3 4

‎

I will be mindful of my wording moving forward. Thanks again for your reply. 🌹 AlidPedian (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, I also requested @Logosx127 to provide a single reference from a well-known and reliable historian supporting the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' as an accepted classification of the Urdu language, especially since he dismissed Tariq Rahman as biased and instead relied on the reference 'Muzaffar, Sharmin; Behera, Pitambar (2014)'. However, he did not address this request.

The authors of the reference provided by Logosx127 have indeed contributed commendable work. However, they are not widely recognized as leading historians or experts in the field. Additionally, the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' is not universally accepted in linguistic or academic circles. AlidPedian (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@AlidPedian, I have never said that Tariq Rahman is an unreliable historian. Why do you insist on accepting only him? There are other sources as well. The problem is that you are not willing to accept any other historians other than Tariq Rahman. Logosx127 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Read my reply again. I requested you more than once to at least provide the reference of another reliable and well-known historian, but you kept avoiding my requests, and then started the discussion at the noticeboard. AlidPedian (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127, I've read the talk page and it looks to me like this is still pretty solidly in "content dispute" stage, which means there isn't really anything for administrators to do about it. I know that probably isn't what you wanted to hear, and it's possible I missed something while reading, but it looks like everyone is being civil and you simply disagree with each other. It doesn't look like you've tried any of the other possibilities on WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, so start there. You may want to take the "dubious sources" to WP:RSN for an outside opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I do not think it is mere content dispute. The users are removing academic sources and sourced content, and adding original research and copyvio in its place. Their editing is disruptive and are engaging in tedious discussion disregarding existing consensus on the topic. They are edit-warring with other users when they get reverted. Is this just my suspicion or is there some degree of meat puppetry involved? I believe all this warrant some sort of an admin intervention. Logosx127 (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127, I would be happy to take a look at any specific diffs showing original research being inserted into the article, but you haven't provided any. Who is supposed to be a meatpuppet of whom? I see the copyvio, but that's already been dealt with, so reporting it in the present tense isn't accurate, unless there's something else that still needs cleaning up. This is starting to skate uncomfortably close to WP:ASPERSION territory. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you for your input. I understand that content disputes should generally be resolved through discussion and proper dispute resolution. However, I believe that even a brief review of the talk page discussions (including this thread).

To my knowledge, no widely recognized linguistic or historical authority supports 'Modern Standard Urdu' as an accepted term for the Urdu language. If such a source of a well known historian, linguist or expert exists, I have repeatedly asked for it to be presented, but no response has been given except for selective use of a single source. I appreciate your suggestion to take this matter to WP:RSN, and I will consider doing so for an external review. Please let me too know if there is a more suitable approach in this case. AlidPedian (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem you are not ready to admit reliable sources. The sources that I have provided clearly says Modern Standard Urdu or Standard Urdu. That is exactly why this is not a content dispute. The issue is that you editing disruptively by dismissing altogether the sources that I have provided Logosx127 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

No one is against the term 'Standard Urdu", but you were not even ready to keep that term too. Do you remember?

You are repeatedly selectively using the same reference, for proving 'Modern Standard Urdu'. Do you know, you are harming the article by doing that? AlidPedian (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the administrators can atleast ensure a status quo ante revert in this article considering the fact that two users, including me, have opposed the edits (source and quote removal) by AlidPedian and Fowler. Logosx127 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Despite my attempts to engage in a constructive discussion, you continue to overlook my messages, which suggests that you may no longer have valid evidence to support your stance. This behavior raises questions about the strength of your position. I am tired of repeatedly making the same request to you. AlidPedian (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment There's not much for me to say here: perhaps only that the two battling editors here, Logos* and Ali* should avoid the use of interjection "Stop," or at least lessen its use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  My dear, I am not battling with him, I am just asking him to prove the term 'Modern Standard Urdu' from a well-known historian or linguist, but he is repeatedly selectively using a single source, which is not from a well-known historian or linguist. (at least from another historian, if he is not ready to have a consensus on the work of Tariq Rahman) AlidPedian (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Although I do agree that the predominance of the scholarly sources use only "Urdu," not "Modern Standard Urdu," I think it might be best for both of you to focus your considerable talents for a few weeks on other pages. Allow me, in my 19th year on Wikipedia, to repeat the advice (which some would say is benevolently paternalistic) I gave to other editors at ANI or ANE in this post I sincerely believe both of you and Koshuri* as well, should cut your teeth on other pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  I really don't feel I need to take an advice from you on which article I should edit and which one I should not. The problem is that you are not ready to accept reliable sources but your pov original research alone. Additionally, you asked me whether I know how to read and write Urdu, didn't you?. Logosx127 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Of course I did, because it makes a difference in a language article. Without any knowledge of, say, Chinese language, I wouldn't edit the Chinese language article, at least not edit war, with others on the basis of only an oblique English language source. I would be a great deal more circumspect. I mentioned in my edit summary that the Natonalism volumes are edited, that you should cite also the name of the chapter author, but you simply reversed my edit. On the other hand, if I did have competence in Chinese, I wouldn't bristle if someone asked me if I knew Chinese. I would say, for example, that I took two years in college and a summer course in graduate school at Middlebury College. It is not something I would attempt to drag someone to ANI even in my dreams, especially not if I'm on the cusp of violating 3RR, the last which I have self-reverted "for now," just before the ANI

  If you think an editor who is the chief author of the fairly stable articles East India Company rule in India, Indian rebellion of 1857, British Raj, and the Dominion of India, i.e. the period from 1765 to 1950 during which at first Urdu prose came to be developed and much later Modern Standard Hindi, not to mention the chief author also of FA India for the period after 1950, has survived for 18 years on Wikipedia on the "pov original research alone," I'm afraid I can't help you. This is my last post here. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler, I really like that AE comment you linked in your previous response. It's not just good advice, but good advice kindly and empathetically delivered. I have trouble reading in the same light this insistence that someone needs to have facility in Urdu to work on the article on Urdu. Sure, it's a reasonable assumption that someone who doesn't know a language is less likely to edit the article on that language accurately, but it's just an assumption. Comment on content, not editors, is in our guidelines for a reason. If the current lead is good, it will survive a consensus discussion.

  @Logosx127, it's true that @Fowler&fowler has an obvious POV, but so do you. That's normal. The aim now is to find the consensus version that exists somewhere in between these two POVs, according to what reliable sources say about the topic. It's not "original research" to have an opinion, so please don't accuse other editors of writing WP:OR for stating what they think.

  @AlidPedian, I don't know what to make of your comment here at all. It seems to me that you are the one repeatedly using a single source - Tariq Rahman. At any rate, I do think you should take @Fowler&fowler's advice.

  @Koshuri Sultan, please don't make comments like this. We do not at all have an obligation to keep a source in an article simply because the source is academic. The edit you reverted was perfectly acceptable. If you don't like the edit, that's fine - you're welcome to discuss on the talk page about why it shouldn't be removed. But You cannot remove it is simply not true. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  In my defense, I would like to clarify that I only mentioned Tariq Rahman till now, because he is not the only one who has never recognized the term 'Modern Standard Urdu'—he mostly refers to it as 'Urdu.' In fact, no well-known linguistic or historical authority acknowledges this term. That is why I requested @Logosx127 to provide a reference from a reputable historian or linguist, rather than repeatedly citing the same single source, to support the acceptance of this term. I am pleased to see that the discussion is now moving in a more constructive direction. 😊 AlidPedian (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate your advice @Asilvering. Yes, I am not a native speaker of Urdu. But I fairly understand and speak Urdu. Hindi has been my third language and I frequently talk in Urdu with Urdu speakers. @Fowler&fowler is one of the edits who is in 'Hindustani language denial'. I have absolutely no interest in proving my proficiency in Urdu. This is the first time read that it is a standard to know the language before editing on its article on Wikipedia. If that is indeed the case, I must disengage myself from language related articles other than Malayalam. Logosx127 (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  PS I agree with @Asilvering: and apologize. It did want to say that the proper citation for Logosx127's source should be:

  • Brass, Paul (2000). "Elite Groups, Symbol Manipulation, and Ethnic Identity Among Muslims of South Asia". In Hutchinson, John; Smith, Anthony D. (eds.). Nationalism: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Vol. 3. New York: Routledge. pp. 879–912, 890. ISBN 9780415201124.

  They did not have the name of the author, nor the chapter title. When I asked in my edit summary during my revert, they simply reinstated their edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Logosx127:, your edit summary here violates WP:NOTVAND. "Edits I disagree with" are not vandalism. Note that referring to edits that are not vandalism as vandalism can be considered a personal attack. Refrain from this in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Are you sure that copyvio and removal of sources aren't vandalism? Logosx127 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Please read WP:VANDAL again, very carefully. -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  It says: The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Removal of reliable sources against consensus is not very far from what this says. Logosx127 (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Can you just set up an RFC on the talk page to resolve your differences and determine the current consensus on this question? It's not the purpose of ANI to settle content disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Earlier comments of Fowler&fowler now subsumed by an RfC

That may be a good idea for the other editors, but it is not for me. I have no wish to interact further with Logosx127. We are entitled to our judgments and I judged my interaction with them not to have been productive for me. I am therefore walking away from this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC) PS But if someone wants to do this, they are welcome to use the sources below. There is obviously nothing called "Modern Standard Urdu." Urdu was standardized in the early 18th century. Modern Standard Hindi, on the other hand, was based on the "Khari boli" dialect, and did not come into being until the early decades of the 20th-century. The usage in the literature is: "Urdu" and "Modern Standard Hindi." No one made this clearer than my late friend Colin Paul Masica: Masica, Colin P. (1993). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge Language Surveys series. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 27. ISBN 0521299446. Counted as different languages in sociocultural Sense B (and officially), Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi are not even different dialects or subdialects in linguistic Sense A. They are different literary styles based on the same linguistically defined subdialect. Here are two more, the modern whiz of Hindi Francesca Orsini and Google ngrams: Orsini, Francesca. The Hindi Public Sphere 1920–1940: Language and Literature in the Age of Nationalism. Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 9780195650846. Urdu remained the dominant vernacular in Punjab, Delhi, and Awadh (Oudh) well into the twentieth century. The use of Khari Boli Hindi, which would later become modern standard Hindi, was more uneven The Google ngram viewer for (Modern Standard Hindi,Modern Standard Urdu) gives only the graph for Modern Standard Hindi (and that too after 1960s, but says: (!) Ngrams not found: Modern Standard Urdu Whoever does the RfC should advertise in WT:IN, WT:Pakistan, and WT:Linguistics. All the best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Liz: I have begun an RfC: Talk:Urdu#RfC_on_the_collocation_Modern_Standard_Urdu in the "lang, hist, and pol" categories and also advertised at WP:RS/N, WT:IN and WT:Pakistan Pinging @asilvering, @Logosx127, @AlidPedian, @Koshuri Sultan, and @The Bushranger Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Asilvering, @Liz. For now, I will be restoring what @AlidPedian had removed since two editors, @Koshuri Sultan and I, clearly disagree with it. @Asilvering, it's true that they are entitled to have their POV. But attempt to remove the reliable sources that are apparently against their POV, and that too when other editors disagree, is not very normal. That's the least I can say on this practice. Logosx127 (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@User:Fowler&fowler, That's simply not true. Your POV reflects an ideology that Urdu is pure and immutable. Urdu language can mean more than one thing. For example, there's a Dhaka Urdu and it is nothing but the Sanskritised variant, i.e, Hindi. Here, the nomenclature 'Urdu' clearly denotes there cultural identity. Therefore Standard Urdu is obviously the accurate nomenclature for the language that is officially defined as Urdu. Urdu has had various forms in its developmental history as well. So the name 'Modern Standard Urdu.
Again, your claim that "There is obviously nothing called "Modern Standard Urdu."" is absolutely wrong. There are ample sources in support of the term:

• Morphological Analysis of Modern Standard Urdu
• The History of the Urdu Language Together with Its Origin and .... The abstract says: The objective of this paper is to briefly review the Urdu or else further specifically Modern Standard Urdu...
• [245] : the Urdu or else further specifically Modern Standard Urdu.
• scriptsource.org
• [246] speaks of the modern convention that uses Hindi to mean Modern Standard Hindi, Urdu to mean Modern Standard Urdu, and Hindustani to mean the “undivided language”.
• [247] Some languages have standard forms. The Standard form of Urdu language is Modern Standard Urdu
• [248] Modern Standard Urdu, the formal version of the language, is deeply influenced by Arabic and Persian, reflecting centuries of cultural exchange and ...
• [249] Modern Standard Urdu is a standardized register of the Hindustani language.
• [250] This course is an introduction to the modern standard form of Hindi-Urdu
• [251] Urdu is widely known as the national language of Pakistan, but it is also one of India’s 22 official languages. Modern Standard Urdu, once commonly known as a variant of Hindustani, a colloquial language combining the modified Sanskrit words found in Hindi with words brought to India via Persian, Arabic, Portuguese, Turkish and other languages, is a language with one of the most fascinating and complex histories in the world.
• [252] It will cover basic grammar of modern standard Urdu.
• [253] A standardised register of the Hindustani language, Modern Standard Urdu or Urdu, as it is more commonly known, is historically associated with Muslims living in the Hindustan region of the sub-continent.
• [254]
• Muzaffar, Sharmin; Behera, Pitambar (2014).Error analysis of the Urdu verb markers: a comparative study on Google and Bing machine translation platforms". Aligarh Journal of Linguistics. 4 (1–2): 1. Modern Standard Urdu, a register of the Hindustani language, is the national language, lingua-franca and is one of the two official languages along with English in Pakistan and is spoken in all over the world.

There are multiple other google search results including:

• • [255]
  • quora
  • Wikiquote
• Many sources tend to use the term "Modern Vernacular Urdu", which is linguistically equivalent to "Modern Standard Urdu".
  • [256] : The modern vernacular Urdu, also known as Standard Urdu, is based on the dialect spoken in Delhi. Logosx127 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

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

IP introducing trailing spaces despite warnings

Despite three warnings on their Talk page, 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:34D5:E60E:9C6:247F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on introducing trailing spaces before footnotes. Robby.is.on (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Robby.is.on,

I see warning notices on their user talk page but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong. They just warn them about "disruptive editing" which could be anything. How about forgoing the templates and write out a personal message explaining to the editor what is problematic about the way they are editing? I don't think you can expect them to change until they know what they are doing incorrectly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong I admit I could taken more time to explain the issues in detail, for example like Meters has done since (Thanks, @Meters:!). But in the first warning I did write "Please stop introducing trailing spaces". I also explained all my reverts in edit summaries except one. After half a dozen reverts, the editor could have stopped editing to ask what was wrong with their edits instead of persisting. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

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

• at 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:A4FF:8306:5E7:2D8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [257] and
• at 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:A016:1263:1835:9C78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [258]. Robby.is.on (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

And now at 2a00:23c4:aa80:e201:d0f8:4b19:19d0:edd3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), still breaking links by placing commas inside them: [259], [260]. @Liz:, could you have a look, please? Robby.is.on (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Issues on Mehul Choksi

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

---

The Mehul Choksi page has had some issues over the past two years (and especially this past week) that I believe fall under sockpuppetry, BLP, and 3RR – I don't know which noticeboard this is most appropriate for so I'm posting it here as it seems more general.

• Sockpuppetry:
  • Austintaker (talk · contribs · block user) and Justicelyleague (talk · contribs · block user) – Interaction Timeline
  • Both accounts initially make a bunch of small edits to build credibility, using identical summaries, i added clarity to sentences. They then move on to adding identical wikitext to Mehul Choksi months apart, eg. the "Kenneth Rijock's Report" section found in (diff) and (diff). They both also edit articles related to Dominica, for some reason.
• BLP:
  • Refbombs from unreliable-looking sources by Austintaker (diff) and Justicelyleague (diff). Most of the listed sources do not verify the contents of the sentence they are cited next to. For example (diff):

  • The Republic World has made it clear that the morning of May 24 was when the actual staged ‘kidnapping’ began. At 6 am, Emmanuel and Cole arrived at North Finger to pick up Choksi. He boarded the dinghy and seemed very nervous as he had bruises on the face to which Emmanuel asked is everything right but without giving any proper answer, he got inside the ferry with a hope that is carefully crafted plan would work.  

  • Republic World/Republic TV is a deprecated source known for spreading hoaxes and misinformation. All four citations listed are about Choksi's bail and medical issues; there is no mention of the details of his kidnapping in any of the news articles. You could pick any random paragraph and find a bunch of issues.
• 3RR by Austintaker:
  1. diff – 09:56, March 26, 2025
  2. diff – 12:28, March 26, 2025
  3. diff – 04:57, March 27, 2025
  4. diff – 07:49, March 27, 2025
  5. diff – 04:51, March 28, 2025
  6. diff – 06:11, March 28, 2025

The sockpuppet accounts have shown no inclination to communicate, and Austintaker has reverted at least twice more after a warning. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. I've put ECP on it for now, so you should be free to sort it out. You might want to ask at WP:BLPN for some extra hands. -- asilvering (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. Would it be appropriate to ask that these two accounts be blocked, as they seem (to me) to be single-purpose accounts acting in bad faith? Iiii I I I (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

They can't edit the article where they've been causing the most overt problems anymore, and I've handed out CTOP notices. So I'm inclined to leave them be for now, myself, but if someone else wants to hit them with the hammer I'm hardly going to get in the way. -- asilvering (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is a WP:BLP nightmare. Even without looking at the sourcing, it is obvious that guilt is being assumed where there has been no conviction, that (often sensationalist) opinion is being asserted in Wikipedia's voice, and that trivial detail is being spammed for no apparent reason. The entire article probably needs rewriting from scratch, by someone capable of summarising what properly-sourced biography-appropriate material is available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

looked at the history and imo some of this needs to be revdeled Localbluepikmin (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Both blocked as socks. Based on what I saw when I took a look this is likely paid reputational damage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

ugh the worst type of paid editing honestly why do people actually hire them when it never works Localbluepikmin (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There's probably tens of thousands of attack pages floating around on en.wiki alone. A bet a fair number of them slip through the cracks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

just more work for us... come on people think of the editors!!! Localbluepikmin (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This topic is also at WP:BLPN, and should not be discussed in 2 places. GiantSnowman 15:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding 'slipping through the cracks', I'm not the least surprised that the subject of this mess is an Indian national. Sadly, poor sourcing, grossly partisan editing, and routine violations of basic WP:BLP policy are almost the norm in that particular subset of WP's biographical content (pick e.g. bios of Indian politicians at random, and see for yourselves how long it takes to find such violations. It won't take long, and will very likely involve dubiously-sourced assertions that the individual was arrested for some serious matter a decade or more ago, accompanied by nothing to suggest that anything ever came of it). And given that the rate at which this stuff appears is grossly beyond the ability of any one individual to monitor, nobody who wishes to maintain their sanity will attempt to tackle it for long before giving up. Not so much a crack as a gaping chasm. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

References

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

User:GSansana19

GSansana19 (talk · contribs) seems to be an account created with the sole purpose of disruptive editing List of Portuguese football champions adding champions that weren't, and also restoring content that violate MOS:DECOR. This action were done in past by IP's but GSansana19 created the account on March 10 and did only 4 contributions so far, all the same disruptive reversion like those IP's previously. This constitute a WP:VOA.Rpo.castro (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

uhh you forgot to add a title to your post. please add that so it isnt mistaken for being apart of the last one Localbluepikmin (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

agh my wikipedia was bugging sorry bout that it didnt show it at first Localbluepikmin (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know much about Portuguese soccer so I can't verify for myself whether or not the Campeonato de Portugal champions that @GSansana19 added were champions or not, but if they aren't considered champions then this could be a VOA. If there's a reputable source to back it up, what GSansana could have maybe done is to create a separate article for them (I haven't checked to see if there is one already) or discussed it on the article's talk page. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 19:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

There is already an article for Campeonato de Portugal named Taça de Portugal that is the current name. This issue is only brought by Sporting CP supporters that want their title list to be increase. They have been asking for revisionism, the last time in 2022 but Portuguese FA (Federação Portuguesa de Futebol) confirmed once again that Campeonato de Portugal winners are not Portuguese champions and this is well known by everyone who knows portuguese football. [261]. [262] 2nd link shows that official website of FPF lists Campeonato de Portugal in same level as Taça de Portugal winners, as Taça de Portugal Wikipedia article states. GSansana intention is very clear. He can't present any source because there aren't, and the text contradicts the Taça de Portugal article. Besides you can see that the account was only created to make this disruptive edit. He has no other intention. Not a single edition besides reverting to this false version.Rpo.castro (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Snehaoberoi advertising escorts

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

---

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

Diffs:

13:52, 28 March 2025 "We provide services by Call Girls, College Girls, Housewife, Aunties & Modals. Get High Profile queens , Well Educated , Good Looking , Full Cooperative Model."

13:43, 28 March 2025 "We provide services by Call Girls, College Girls, Housewife, Aunties & Modals. Get High Profile queens , Well Educated , Good Looking , Full Cooperative Model."

holy jesus, please block them the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 18:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I blocked them, but I'm not Holy Jesus. I revdel'd one, Ks0stm deleted the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by IP

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

---

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

Normally I'd report someone after several more warnings, but their behavior seems awfully similar to that of 116.86.53.37 (talk · contribs), who was blocked a couple of months back for disruption (editing plot summaries contrary to guidelines, unsourced additions, and unexplained ENGVAR changes).

Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4 XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to assume they are the same person, but I agree that the similarities are strong. Here's a diff from 116.86.53.37 as an example. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 19:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible block evasion on Boot camp (correctional)

• Boot camp (correctional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been at least four previously blocked WP:SPAs on Boot camp (correctional) that keep adding the same content. It looks like a textbook WP:RGW situation, but it would be good to get experienced eyes on this if it's also WP:BLOCKEVASION.

• Current SPA: Human rights promoter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• DonaldJuniorTrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Truthpedic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Liberty666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Free258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-Amigao (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Pretty blatant block evasion. Making the exact same edits; The current account ("Human rights promoter") was created one day after "DonaldJuniorTrump" was blocked.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me and accordingly blocked. In the future, WP:SPI should be where you take this sort of thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruption of Boot camp (correctional) goes back quite a while. I semi-protected the article for 90 days on January 26. I encourage adminstrators and other editors to put this article on their watch lists and to act promptly at any sign of disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for Ordonnia

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

---

Ordonnia was blocked as a VOA and is using their talk page for vandalism. Could a sysop revoke their TPA? This is one of the many sockpuppets of the sockmaster and LTA NeverForgetToGoAround. They asked for it. Any sysop that is going to block an LTA account must include the parameter of talk page access being revoked. 24.55.33.220 (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done. TPA revoked. – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent misinformation and disruption by 183.99.45.103

Special:Contributions/183.99.45.103 has been on a rampage across locomotive articles. Their favorite activity is to violate MOS:SOB by changing links like ALCO 244 to ALCO 12-244, which is annoying on its own, but more malicious is their intentional addition of misinformation by messing with production numbers and dates. Most recently, they've been adding misinformation that the EMD SD40X had 12 units built [263], including in 1979; a quick glance at page 72 of Louis A. Marre's Diesel Locomotives: The First 50 Years shows this is BS; 9 were built between 1964 and 1965. Same story at GE Dash 8-40BW, where they're changing the production count from the correct 84 to the fake 156 [264]; Greg McDonnell's Field Guide to Modern Diesel Locomotives makes it clear on page 36 that the 156 number is bogus. They're also a fan of making all sorts of changes to production numbers with no sources, such as here: [265]. This IP editor will edit war to keep their blatantly false / MOS violating edits on articles; as I speak they're edit warring at EMD GP39 with 4 reverts in one day [266] [267] [268] [269].

They've also edited under Special:Contributions/2001:e60:3120:f2c::2a20:98a4 recently. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Caught another example: adding the fictitious production count of 156 to MLW M-420 [270]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I posted on AIV about this IP before seeing this. This LTA tends to IP-hop a lot - see the history of EMD GP39. Might be worth a long block on 183.99.40.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as that hits several years of socks with no collateral damage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the /21 range for a month. Editors from this range never seem to explain themselves on talk pages and they trigger the edit filter constantly. If you have a list of articles that ought to be semiprotected let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi - can you increase page protection on EMD GP40-2? 4300streetcar (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a similar pattern of subtle vandalism by Special:Contributions/14.137.223.64 - subtly changing numbers or removing words. 4300streetcar (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion on 71.35.0.0/19

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• 71.35.0.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) Block evasion. Blocked ranges:
• 71.35.8.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked 6 months)
• 71.35.19.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked 1 month)

The ranges were too narrow, we have to block /19. Maybe it should be globally blocked, might be a proxy.

Current and previous IPs:

• 71.35.29.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.35.17.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.35.19.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (globally blocked as open proxy)
• 71.35.10.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.35.12.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The vandal repeatedly blanked the user talk pages, check their history for a long list of final warnings. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked the /19 for 6 months. There's nothing there since 2019 that isn't this editor, and I noticed that some individual IPs in the range are globally blocked as proxies anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

GiantSnowball2026

Can somebody please review GiantSnowball2026 (talk · contribs) - name very similar to mine, one of their first edits was to create Draft:Darragh Power which is similar to my pre-existing User:GiantSnowman/Darragh Power. I suspect it's somebody I've blocked/warned and they've taken umbrage, but no idea who. Perhaps a checkuser would help? GiantSnowman 21:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

If it was just the username, or just the draft, then I'd say it would pass, but the combination does make it pretty obvious. I've ublock-double blocked. Not a CU so can't comment on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 18:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thelittlefaerie and population statistics

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

---

This is re: this discussion from January about User:Thelittlefaerie's continuous unsourced changes to population statistics in Afghanistan. User:MolecularPilot closed this discussion "with no prejudice to it being re-opened should subpar behaviour recur." Unfortunately, this is now the case.

Since the closure of this discussion, every single edit this user has made has been in regard to Afghani population data and is violation of Wikipedia policy, as detailed below.

1. Changes to three superlative lists using the US Census estimate, without sourcing it:

• Islam in Asia [271],
• List of countries and dependencies by population density [272],
• and List of countries by arable land density [273].

2. An attempt to change the population of Afghanistan in the main population list to the US estimate as opposed to the current consensus (the U.N. estimate). [274]

3. Completely fictitious populations for 2 Afghani cities:

• Kabul [275],
• and Mazar-i-Sharif [276]

4. Reverting the population of Kandahar [277] to a more out of date estimate, for no good reason.

I ask that this matter be reconsidered in whatever ways necessary. Kmhkei (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The user has not edited since February. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 13:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

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

LTA vandal changing images on medical articles

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

---

IP: Special:Contributions/203.177.33.202. Per title. Already reported at WP:AIV (by 3 different editors) but there's a backlog and the IP doing a lot of rapid vandalism and would be good to nip this in the bud. This is a LTA who does this exact thing every few weeks. Thanks BugGhost 🦗👻 12:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

They've been going strong for nearly an hour now. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! BugGhost 🦗👻 12:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! It's finally over. The Seal F1 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Almost. IP comments at their Talk page now suggest that TPA should be revoked? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Revoked. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Appeal Interaction Ban

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

---

On February 8, I was IBANned from User:Engage01 for the reasons listed here.

Whereas, Engage01 has been account blocked indefinitely for the reasons set forth here, the interaction ban is moot. Any questions? Kire1975 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Contact the imposing administrator first if you haven't already, and then go to WP:AN. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 14:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Please make a compelling case for a reduction of the ban and an uninvolved admin will weigh in on your request. I don't think it necessarily needs to move to AN since it's here already, but @GommehGaming101 is correct that AN would have been the better venue. Star Mississippi 15:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I have put a notice in the imposing administrator's talk page. If the reasons stated above are not compelling enough, please elaborate. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I see little chance of Engage01 writing a successful appeal. In addition, being under an iban can be stressful, so I'd support lifting the IBAN. If Engage01 were to get unblocked at some point in the future, of course, it would be smart to leave each other alone completely. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Kire1975, an indefinite block is not an infinite block, and there is a possibility that Engage01 might be unblocked at some point. That could certainly result in conflict between the two of you, and the discussion that led to the February IBAN showed that you do not deal well with such conflicts. In my opinion, the IBAN is to your benefit, and I believe that it is too soon to consider lifting it. All of this has transpired in about two months. My suggestion is to follow the wise advice that Paul McCartney offered all of us 55 years ago, and Let It Be. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

328 105.112.211.238 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Could you please state what the benfit of the IBAN is please? Kire1975 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Indefinite is not infinite. And if the iban is moot, then...it's moot. Which means there's no reason to repeal it either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  If anything, a community ban would greatly moot it, but it's to the benefit of Kire that they just keep their side of the IBAN active. At least for now. Conyo14 (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Could you please restate the reason? Kire1975 (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Either Engage01 is never unblocked and so the iban doesn't matter, or they are then it's better the iban stays in place. Nil Einne (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  The reason for the IBAN, I mean. The uninvolved administrator is entitled to know. Kire1975 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  The uninvolved administrator, who it should be noted supported the iban in the first place and thus isn't exactly 'uninvolved', can click links and remind themselves themselves. And my point stands. There is no need to rescind the iban. If Engage01 remains blocked, the iban doesn't matter. If they are unblocked, the iban is relevant. I strongly suggest you drop the stick instead of resuming your behavior from the previous discussion. I'll also note your initial request here, which you seem to be puzzled is inadequate, could easily be used as a template for how not to request the removal of a sanction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  I was referring to what Star said above: Please make a compelling case for a reduction of the ban and an uninvolved admin will weigh in on your request. The IBAN was unjustified. The uninvolved administrator who is going to review the request deserves to have the reasons for it articulated. Kire1975 (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  The consensus of the Wikipedia community was that it was, in fact, entirely justified. You'd be very well advised to stop digging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  The IBAN was unjustified? You yourself changed your opposition to support it. I think the matter here is whether you'd be allowed to edit on articles that Engage01 also edited on, right? Since technically that IBAN is in effect regardless of whether Engage01 is blocked or not. I agree with Bushranger on that, but also think that the behavior from editing those articles, along with the prior ANI report, is what prompted the IBAN (not saying the edits you did were wrong, just the behavior). It's best to steer clear of them for a bit longer then make the request at WP:AN. Conyo14 (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  I changed my opposition to support because the unjustified opposition and the emotional threats articulated again by Bushranger above and others were causing me medical distress. User:Femke cited "stress" as the reason for the IBAN. I'm asking for someone to articulate the actual justifications for the IBAN so that the uninvolved administrator Star spoke about can make a fully informed decision. Is there something unreasonable about this request? Kire1975 (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  You started off this appeal just saying it wasn't needed because if the indef. You're now instead appealing based on it being unjustified in the first place. If any uninvolved admin reviewing has questions about why the iban was placed they're free to ask themselves. Most of the time they stuff said at the time is sufficient to explain it to them. They definitely don't need the party with the iban saying they the assessing admin needs further explanation. It seems to me it's moot anyway. Any uninvolved admin is likely to reject your request since while you're now claiming it was never justified you haven't actually explained why it was unjustified. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Also IMO @Star Mississippi: has unfortunately given you poor or at least confusing advice here. Per the discussion you linked, the iban was by community consensus. It can therefore only be revoked by community consensus. The only thing an uninvolved admin will do is to assess any new community consensus on removing your iban, they won't be assessing your appeal themselves. They could help form the new consensus but there's no requirement to be an admin, or even uninvolved to do so, they're basically just a community member weighing in on your appeal. (But uninvolved editor views will generally carry more weight.) The rationale for why the community came to this consensus is in the linked thread, and no one can really "articulate" the reasons, or at least if someone does it's basically just their personal summary which may or may not be a good summary but cannot be said to be some sort of definitive explanation. In complicated matters especially with a very long discussion, the closing admin may have offered a more detailed summary which the community may rely on but there isn't a requirement for that provided it's clear that the admin adequately assessed the consensus. Also this is more about how the strength of arguments were assessed etc than an explanation of why the community felt how they did and with behavioural issues there often isn't much more to say than based on this behaviour "I feel it would be better for the community of this editor is (whatever sanction)". If any editor feels that the community didn't sufficiently explain why they were ibanning you in the linked thread, they're likely to support a removal of the iban, but the presence or absence of someone else summarising the community consensus is largely irrelevant to that. Generally if editor affected by the consensus approaches the closing admin they can ask for further clarification to help them understand the decision but this is primarily for their benefit and the editor should do it on their own talk page not at ANI and you really should have done it when the decision was still fresh in the mind of the closing admin. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  It was clear to me that the indef was enough to render the IBAN moot. Your opinion that he might be coming back is easy to disagree with, but elaborating would be making reference to the other party and per WP:IBAN, I am forbidden from doing so.

  All I am allowed to say about it is that it is unjustified and to point out the fact that none of the opposers have stated a valid reason for it, then or now.

  ...you really should have [asked for clarification] when the decision was still fresh in the mind of the closing admin.

  I was experiencing medical distress at that time. Kire1975 (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Kire1975, this is probably obvious from above but I suggest you drop this. However especially if you want to continue it I do have a question. Is there something in particular you're concerned about with the iban e.g. accidentally reverting something Engage01 did? Or are there some threads you want to participate in which involved Engage01 that you want to participate in? Or is it just that the you don't like having the iban and it's causing distress even if it has no effect on your editing and you barely even have to think about it as long as the indef remains in place. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  I do have a concern, but it would require making reference to the other party on Wikipedia. Is there a private mesage way to answer your question or do you have the authority to allow me to answer here? Kire1975 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Indefinite does not mean forever, that IBAN was put up with unanimous support for good reasons, and far from the reasons for removing it being "compelling enough," I haven't seen any reasons articulated why the community would want to do so. Given that, to be blunt, if the OP is claiming that the mere fact of being under an IBAN is detrimental to their mental health, then I can only wonder why the OP engaged in such behavior in the first place to merit receiving one, and over the likelihood the often-high stress environment of Wikipedia will prove detrimental to the OP in the future. Ravenswing 07:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  What is the "behavior" you describe? What actions justified the ban? Please don't speculate about my medical issues. Kire1975 (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Since Gommeh, Nil Einne and Conyo14 have suggested moving this discussion to WP:AN, that's what I'm going to do. This is not an urgent matter. Kire1975 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Sinatra editor

• 38.71.12.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 38.86.198.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:6000:c8f0:82d0::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rcowick48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ryanshawdrums (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From behavioral evidence, these are all the same editor, although the Ryanshawdrums account has not edited since last September.

This editor has been adding grotesquely detailed Personnel sections to articles about music albums featuring Frank Sinatra, listing every musician who played in the orchestra on each track of the album, along with details of the date, time, and city in which each track was recorded. The absurdity of these edits is most evident in The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings, where the section consists of over 15,000 words. There was a discussion of these edits on Wikiproject Music, where four editors participated and all agreed that the material is inappropriate. The editor was invited to that discussion but did not participate. In fact as far as I can tell, they have never edited a talk page of any kind, have not responded to warnings on their talk pages, and have not even used an edit summary except for 3 edits by the Ryanshawdrums account in 2021.

Rather than communicating, the editor has been edit warring to restore their edits. They have done this 10 times on The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings article in the past 6 days: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, warring against 6 other editors (@AwerDiWeGo, @Michael Bednarek, @Popcornfud, @Discospinster, @Valorrr and myself. They have been similarly edit warring on other articles during this period, although somewhat less prolifically, such as All the Way (Frank Sinatra album) (1, 2, 3); The Complete Capitol Singles Collection (1, 2); Ultimate Sinatra (1, 2) and others.

I have notified the two IPv4 accounts of this discussion.

Added: after submitting this report, I see that the first IP has been blocked by Drmies. CodeTalker (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• I just blocked one of them, for a month, but I have no objection to someone blocking more and longer. Yeah CodeTalker I saw you post the notification and had a look. It's crazy. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note also that the content in question is completely uncited. ... discospinster _talk 22:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: the editor's latest addition of the disputed content to The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings was reverted at 22:41 today by @Hy Brasil. The content was again re-added at 23:31, this time by the Rcowick48 account. In other words, they are still edit warring while this report is open. CodeTalker (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

  I've notifed Rcowick48 and Ryanshawdrums. I've semi-protected The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings for a week. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Hello! I just responded in the Wikiproject Music. But I’ll paste it here.

  Hello! I got a notification on all of this, and have been trying to figure out what exactly is happening here. A few months ago, I went through and compiled the info on personnel for Sinatra records from the book “Put Your Dreams Away”. I’m not ann experienced Wikipedia editor but knew this info would be appreciated. Every edit I made has cited that book. As a musician myself who regularly performs and studies this music, this information was never available anywhere online. Since I found it useful, I decided to add the information specifically under Personnel for Sinatra recordings, album by album. (Many musicians I know are thrilled that this is now available). In my opinion, Wikipedia is the perfect location for this information, especially when it’s located in its own personnel tab.

  With that said, I’ve never edited a collection, because as people are pointing out, it’s overwhelming to list personnel that way, track by track. So I’m definitely not involved with the current edits. While I don’t get bothered by overwhelming information on musicians, I can see why the entire Reprise collection having this info is quite unnecessary. Especially since the info is available more succinctly by album.

  Ryanshawdrums (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding albums specifically, not the entries for collections, I just restored personnel information on the specific albums "Sinatra Swingin' Session", and "Nice n Easy". I am baffled that somebody would remove this info from album information the specific personnel tab. Musicians are fascinated by this information and it has never been widely available for Frank Sinatra recordings. It belongs on pages detailing Frank Sinatra's albums. Frank himself addressed the musicians at his sessions by name. He would want this information known. Ryanshawdrums (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. It is not encyclopedic information. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Sinatra having died before Wikipedia was founded, we have no actual clue what he would have wanted here or not, his personal familiarity with individual session musicians notwithstanding. Short of breaking out a Ouija board, we won't find out, even if any of this was in the least degree pertinent to how Wikipedia governs the inclusion of information in articles. Which it is not. Ravenswing 07:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ryanshawdrums, you might be right this information should be out there on the internet, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  @CambridgeBayWeather: Please note that at least one of these users (Rcowick48) is autoconfirmed and has continued to engage in disruptive behavior on The Complete Reprise Studio Recordings, despite your protection of the page. Alxeedo ゐ talk 04:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  Missed that. Given they haven't responded here I've blocked them from article space for two weeks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• I have a completely different problem with these additions: they are full of unexplained abbreviations that make this content so reader-unfriendly as to be useless in this worldwide general encyclopedia. I was in band in middle school so I'm pretty sure "wwd" is "woodwind", but is someone in Ghana or El Salvador who just heard Sinatra for the first time and wants to learn more about the recordings going to be able to winkle that out? I actually think that, if presented in a more broadly comprehensible fashion, much of this content is of encyclopedic interest, but as is, it's conceptually on a par with jargon-laden science-fiction television episode recaps. When in doubt, be nice to the readers and assume they came here to learn more about a new topic that intrigues them but has no further familiarity with the universe of the entertainment, be it an orchestra or Starfleet. Julietdeltalima (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

IP range 2405:6E00:2EE:6294:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2405:6E00:2EE:6294:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This range has been adding false information to multiple articles [278] [279] [280] [281] and their contributions have all been unconstructive. They've been warned multiple times here and here but still keep on doing it. Can we have their /64 taken care of? Parksfan1955 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Feel free to let me know on my page if you should see them resume after the block. Bishonen | tålk 09:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC).

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

Disruptive editing by Cytkory

User:Cytkory has engaged in disruptive editing by repeatedly adding unsourced info to page West End theatre

See [282],[283],[284]

I tried to engage on the talk page as can be seen at Talk:West End theatre#Operation Mincemeat limited run

Multiple talkbacks were left on Cytkory's user talk page - see [285], [286] which were acknowledged by being reverted [287]

Cytkory appeared to have dropped the stick for this dispute for several months, until they picked it up again today, still with no discussion on the talk page. DeputyBeagle (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

User:GlowstoneUnknown disruptive editing

User:GlowstoneUnknown disregards opinion of me and other editors requiring other editors to establish consensus with them specifically and undoes all edits that do not have consensus with them specifically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_system_of_government&diff=prev&oldid=1283262058 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_system_of_government&diff=prev&oldid=1278175745 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Systems_of_government&diff=prev&oldid=1278175949

Possibly look at whole history misusing word "consensus" where only consensus that matters is what they agree with personally.

Other users have done edits based on my edits, but apparently they have forgot to consult only consensus-builder.

-- Svito3 (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Your assertion that I [undo] all edits that do not have consensus with [me] specifically is inaccurate, as the diffs you've cited were specifically about the edits not having been discussed beforehand, not about whether it was discussed with me or not. The edits reverting TEMPO156's contributions were about their adding of new categories that caused issues with the colourblind accessibility of File:Forms of government.svg, and it was resolved through discussion after my reverts. I believe I've made it clear in the article's discussion page that the content of your edits is fine in principle, but your implementation had issues that needed to be solved through discussion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable way of going about things, @GlowstoneUnknown. @Svito3, can you please explain why you did not discuss the issue on the relevant talk pages first? Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@GommehGaming101 Can you formulate that question to be more direct what the issue you think is? Svito3 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Put simply, it's the thing that GlowstoneUnknown was talking about in the post I replied to. In other words, the implementation (not the content) of your edits. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 17:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, and prove me wrong, lack of consensus is established by an editor that first creates dispute, and if subject wasn't discussed there is no reason to cite any "consensus" or mark edit as "undiscussed" because consensus is established in discussion, before that whole subject of "lack of consensus" and "undiscussedness" is irrelevant because either you revert revert and continue dispute or go to talk and continue dispute and establish consensus there with other editor.

IMHO including "lack of consensus" or "not previously discussed" in edit summary for new edit that wasn't discussed previously is gaslighting and agressively combative move, because establishing consensus and discussing is NEXT step, when it has past tense in actual edit summary, establishing a fault with other editor, blaming and teasing them that THEY and only THEY didn't discuss it. Polite edit summary would be forward-looking "let's establish consensus" or "let's discuss this first". Instead it's the past tense, passive aggressive, "fuck you cowboy, I got here first". Svito3 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That's what I mean by misrepresenting consensus. If there new edits obviously they're not discussed. And reverting them isn't an issue. Gaslighting with past tense edits "well this wans't discussed with me!" is. There isn't any willingness to discuss in the past tense, there is only a fault. Svito3 (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Svito3, instead of arguing against what you thought they meant by their revert, how about you consider the explanation actually provided by User:GlowstoneUnknown here in this discussion? It seems like you read a lot into their edit that wasn't their intention. And yes, this dispute should have been discussed first before posting on ANI, either on the article talk page or on their User talk page. ANI is the noticeboard to come to when other forms of dispute resolution haven't been successful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

So you don't care about the issue. Good point, It's Wikipedia, where nobody gives a shit about people. Svito3 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time. Svito3 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say this discussion was a waste of time. But I'd recommend changing your attitude because you are continuing to misinterpret comments and actions in the worst possible way that wasn't intended by the original poster. You are being hostile when no one has been acting aggressively towards you. This IS Wikipedia where disputes happen every day and we have processes to deal with them. You opened this thread here but you seem to be upset when editors respond with their opinions. What result were you looking for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I have made a mistake even opening this ANI, and it was unlikely anyone would agree or provide sympathy to my argument. It's not a support channel for shitty editors like me. -- Svito3 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Svito3 these diffs only show one revert of your edits by GlowstoneUnknown. the other two are reverts of edits by @TEMPO156, who I would assume is a different editor. Either way three diffs of reverts are hardly enough to establish a pattern of overriding consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

This content dispute should be handled on the talk page, as @GlowstoneUnknown was trying to do at Talk:List of countries by system of government#Undiscussed expansion of article scope. @Svito3, WP:BOLD makes it clear that: Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted. Yet here we are for that very reason: you are upset that your bold edits were reverted.

@Svito3, you are also not assuming good faith of other editors: e.g., nobody gives a shit about people. This issue has been raised here before: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1164#Svito3.

I strongly advise you to read WP:AGF and apply it, even when you are mad at someone. The key is to treat others kindly, even when you strongly disagree. You are much more likely to get traction on an issue that way. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

TPA Needs Yanked.

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

---

This IP User_talk:50.218.168.202 TPA needs yanking. See edits summaries in history of their talk page. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding actions by User:Remsense

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

• Comment Please notify the subject (which, by the way, you'd be looking for Remsense (talk · contribs) rather than [[User/Remsense]]) and also please sign your complaint. Furthermore you'd need to provide diffs demonstrating that Remsense was, in some way, systematically misinterpreting Wikipedia policy with regard to Chinese military history in order for this complaint to be actionable. I'd caution you that anything to do with 20th and 21st century Chinese history is about as fraught as you're likely to find on Wikipedia outside of official CTOPs and, as such, it is sometimes a bit of a challenging space to edit within. I do regularly participate in that area and would say I'd be quite surprised if Remsense was actually misinterpreting policy here as they're usually pretty good at that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• (Not engaging with this one unless someone else has questions they want to ask. AFAIK, they don't know how their edits went against any rules because they don't care to know any rules—as they were linked to them, and the issue with their edits was explicitly outlined for them. FWIW, infantile vandalism of the kind we generally only see from middle school IPs is well worth denouncing when it inexplicably gets emitted by an established editor. It's much easier to do right by the rules when articles you don't care about for whatever reason seemingly aren't protected by rules at all.) Remsense ‥ 论 19:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Adding to this, I ran the Editor Interaction Analyser and the picture it paints absolutely is not consistent with the wikihounding accusation. [288] I don't think there's even smoke here, let alone a fire. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

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

In the hopes of getting them to stop trying to get edits in edgewise one day, I've adopted a 100% WP:BMB tact with BlueDIAMOND20s, except if I'm restoring blatant errors or BLP vio somehow. I'm not sure flags are really material to the issue here, but I generally avoid them if they're not necessary. Remsense ‥ 论 21:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct and personal attacks by JBL in content dispute (Markov chain)

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

---

I’d like to report disruptive behavior and personal attacks by User:JBL in the context of an ongoing content dispute at the article Markov chain.

I initiated a DRN request to clarify whether a source (a 2017 peer-reviewed Wiley book) meets WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. JBL responded not with content-based arguments, but with dismissive rhetoric and an explicit call for me to be blocked:

"The correct resolution... is that the forum-shopping disruptive filer should be blocked... volunteers not waste their valuable time with this inanity." → Diff to JBL’s comment

This comment:

Violates WP:CIVIL (calling the request "inanity", referring to me as a "disruptive filer")

Violates WP:AGF by attributing bad faith without evidence

Is entirely off-topic for DRN, which is meant to be collaborative and policy-focused

I’ve responded respectfully and with reference to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE at every step. I request administrative attention to this behavior so that collaborative dispute resolution can continue without intimidation.

Additionally, JBL removed a civil and policy-based comment I left on their talk page requesting constructive dialogue and warning about potential WP:HARASSMENT concerns. → [to diff showing deletion] (from 13:36 to 17:50, 31 March 2025)

Additional note regarding JBL's comment

I’d like to add that JBL has now followed up with a further personal attack:

“It would be great if this tiresome and disruptive editor could be blocked sooner rather than later.” — JBL (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully believe this further violates WP:CIVIL and confirms the need for administrative review. I remain focused on resolving the content dispute through policy-based discussion.

Thank you.

Notification on JBL talk page: Disruptive conduct and personal attacks by JBL in content dispute (Markov chain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricoLivingstone (talk • contribs)

It would be great if this tiresome and disruptive editor could be blocked sooner rather than later. --JBL (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess this is forum number 6 on which this has been shopped: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Improper_removal_of_Wiley_academic_source_from_"Markov_chain"_article_—_possible_coordinated_abuse, Talk:Markov_chain#Proposal_to_reintroduce_peer-reviewed_source_(Wiley,_2017), Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Markov_chain, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Wiley_(2017)_Markov_Chains_by_Gagniuc_a_reliable_academic_source_for_definitions/history?, Wikipedia:Teahouse#A_content_dispute_about_a_peer-reviewed_Wiley_textbook_on_Markov_chains. Everything you need to know about the relevant context can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#Indef_needed_for_aggressive_refspammer or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2024/Jun#Advice_on_dealing_with_questionable_citations_in_lead. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand, what is the problem with the book? It looks fine to me. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead an indef blocked for disruptive editing, if anyone wants to review the block or adjust it be my guest. I’d wager this’ll be an SPI issue before too much longer as well, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

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