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

IP breaking links, introducing trailing spaces despite warnings

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

---

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

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): [1] and
• at 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:A016:1263:1835:9C78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [2]. 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: [3], [4]. @Liz:, could you have a look, please? Robby.is.on (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

The IP kept going with the disruptive edits, was warned again, and was blocked for 31 hours. Let's see how it goes. (I wonder who or what is behind that IP range. Why would anyone break dozens of links – I guess around 50, maybe more – in a single edit? Is the IP running a script that moves punctuation into links? Strange.) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The vandal came back in full force as soon as the block expired. All edits had to be reverted. Reported at WP:AIV. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked again. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:09, 4 April 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. [9] 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)
  • It does mean that the article has been flapping back and forth for the past 3 months with you apparently on both sides of the talk page issue. And if HawkNightingale175 were that sockpuppeteer, that would have been discovered by now, given how many CheckUser investigations have been run. So blanket reversion on those grounds seems quite wrong, especially when your edit summary instead says that you are making an article adhere to "site policy". Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

    I wish I would have been able to get this and many other articles into a more polished state by my own positive effort—I haven't expended none, but again that seems mostly immaterial here—but I understand how that pattern can be mistaken with this one.

    They are distinct situations, though: here, I had and gave specific, fairly ubiquitous and uncontroversial reasons as to why their additions were wrong—it wasn't blanket reversion at any point. I can't help that this article also happens to be a favorite target of one of the more insistent LTAs onwiki. Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

    Cant have this type of editing over multiple pages. looks like multiple talks need to be started. Moxy🍁 01:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

    @HawkNightingale175 has shown no interest in engaging with site guidelines that I can detect. Rather, I've only seen indications that any they haven't seen are of no interest to them—(I do not need to adhere to your own interpretation of what the rules entail.)—but if they indicate otherwise I'll try to rearticulate them. I'm not going to chase them down and beg them to listen when they've already told me flat out they don't care what I have to say. Remsense ‥ 论 23:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

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

• @HawkNightingale175:, your commment here is utterly incorrect. The Wikipedia rules are not designed for users who are new to editing, and content that is [not] biased or factually inaccurate can still fail policy. They are designed for everybody. You are required to follow Wikipedia policy, and wilful refusal to do so can lead to an indefinite block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am not sure why you claim that I am refusing to follow Wikipedia policy, because as far as I am aware, I am not explicitly breaking any site rules, and I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users. The editor that you replied to was the very editor that engaged in multiple actions of wikihounding against me and just openly admitted that they are capable of engaging in misconduct, and as such their arguments should be taken for question. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) You are WP:EDITWARRING on First Sino-Japanese War, along with your WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS of Remsense WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Also, your statement I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users is incorrect, as you stated and do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  @HawkNightingale175: Forgot to ping. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are clearly misinterpreting what I am saying. I did not say that I did not need to follow the site rules, I merely said that I have enough experience editing on this site and as such do not need beginner's guides to learn how to edit. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  That was not a beginner's guide. It was the manual of style (MOS:IBX). It states Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. People have been blocked for ignoring the manual of style. Are you saying you can ignore it? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  They certainly have acted as if their view trumps that of multiple editors who have cited it as pertains to whatever article, while providing no meaningful justification why there should be an exception in that context. That's key here—whether they choose to acknowledge site guidelines as representing generalized editor consensus, they certainly choose to ignore evidence of direct consensus they think they know better than. Their knowledge of "the rules" is seemingly obtuse enough to ignore the primacy of consensus altogether. Remsense ‥ 论 04:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I am aware, I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited by the "manual of style". I do not know why you are so insistent that my edits are supposedly against the rules because I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Only if you choose to assume everything it says supports your prior intuitions with no friction or further introspection. That is,

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

  isn't a problem for you because you've already decided you're right and no one else can dispute your notion of what are "key facts". I suppose there's still the explicit problem that you're intent on including material that isn't mentioned anywhere in the actual article, but at this point I don't think you'd admit that that's a violation either, even though it's a pretty clear deduction for most other editors who read this guideline. Given you've already declared no one else should dare challenge your own interpretations of policy, what else am I supposed to come away with here? Remsense ‥ 论 09:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  While I usually feel that you are not worth responding to due to the fact that you engaged in actions of wikihounding against me, I do not see at all how my edits supposedly violated the rule you listed in the above reply. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  I am willing to explain, if you're willing to potentially accept my interpretation of what the rules entail. It is also worth reiterating that if you equate any third party noticing and commenting on your poor conduct – which you freely expressed in public and still have yet to even acknowledge – as wikihounding, that is likely not a mindset that is viable for an editor in good standing to maintain in perpetuity. It's your fault that you did bad there, not mine, and it's not harassment for someone to connect the dots as regards your character with the purpose of informing community expectations going forward. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 16:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  You explicitly stated you do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing, with regards to the Manual of Style. Also saying I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited...I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them is Wikilawyering. And you continue to cast aspersions regarding "wikihounding". Consider this a warning: do not continue to unfoundedly accuse Remsense (or anyone else) of Wikihounding. Continuing to do so is a personal attack and a violation of policy that can result in a block. Also agree to respect consenus even when it against you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive fancruft by IP Address 190.238.178.112 and User ErnestoCabral2018

User @190.238.178.112 has made a series of extremely unsourced edits to the Final Destination characters article. In it he claims that the protagonists of the first five movies are blood relatives of five other survivors of the 1960s disaster in Bloodlines. I rewatched the trailer multiple times and in NO WAY whatsoever does it mention them being related, and Iris (the grandma), says she saved a LOT of people that day, not five. Can you please block this IP from the Final Destination characters article? HiGuys69420 (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: User @ErnestoCabral2018 has also added Fancruft to this article as well. HiGuys69420 (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

can you link the specific edits youre referring to? ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 18:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The users claim that the previous Final Destination MCs are related to the survivors Iris Campbell (the grandma) saved in the 1960s disaster. Nowhere in the trailer says that. Also in the trailer Iris says, "I saved a lot of lives that night" and does NOT specify the amount she saved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Final_Destination_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1283159583

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Final_Destination_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1283527341 HiGuys69420 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Transphobia from Ergzay

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

---

Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle is about a custody battle over a trans child, who is now 13 and has identified as trans since 3.

Ergzay has made numerous bigoted and disruptive edits there in the last few days, attacking the subject, trans children at large, and 2 trans editors on the page (myself included, who he accused of promoting child abuse):

• Rewrites the article to misgender the subject with the (obscenely false) comment: Pre-pubescent child identifies as male so correct this[10] and Further fix incorrect gender uses given that his son identifies as male[11]
• Lies on talk, saying Reliable sources state the reverse, namely that he identifies as male. (I would argue that you yourself are highly biased on this subject that you're inserting trans flags into your signature). to @RoxySaunders
• He accuses Roxy of lying for saying it's a BLPVIO[12][13][14]
• Says, when it's noted she was diagnosed with Gender dysphoria at 6 that That pediatrician testimony was thrown out of court because the pediatrician actively lied in court. So that is not a reliable source. with no evidence[15]
• Removes warnings from his talk page[16][17]
• Says on talk that It's also worth noting that children cannot reliably identify their own gender so MOS:GENDERID does not apply. The entire concept of "trans children", especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality. You cannot have a gender identity before you have started going through puberty because you brain functionally cannot even know what that is.[18]
• When I note on talk that was bigoted, he says The only people bigotted here are yourself who are in favor of child abuse. Also trying to call it fringe when it's an over 70% popular opinion in the United States is crazy.[19]
• I close the talk page discussion, he re-opens saying Don't close topics you're personally invested in. [20]
• Then misgenders the kid again[21]

• Removes further warnings from his page with the comment: Remove incorrect garbage pushing for child abuse [22]
• Then leaves a section at my talk page titled Don't advocate for child abuse on my talk page stating Your recent edit on my talk page pushing for the abuse of children is gross and horrid. Don't do it again.[23]

INDEF CBAN for this nonsense. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As I wrote this, he went to @DanielRigal's talk page with a section titled Don't push child abuse on my talk page saying Your warning was inappropriate. I called the child by the gender that they have used when away from his abusive mother. Do not push that kind of garbage. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

For the complete and accurate record. I do not have "transphobia". I am fully in support of any trans person doing whatever they like in their adult lives. It is a free country and that also means freedom to modify your body in any way you want and say anything you want. However on the topic of children it is a majority opinion that gender affirming care is severe enough to be banned. Over 59% of Americans support a ban on so-called gender affirming care for children. Ergzay (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Not that it matters for this discussion, but for reference I'll drop the referenced survey via a reliable source. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/05/trans-poll-gop-politics-laws/ It was actually more than I remembered, 68% support banning puberty blockers, a super majority. Ergzay (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Why does what Americans think matter? This isn't a local website. Also peer-reviewed scientific literature is a gold standard - not polling some people in one place. Please leave polls out of this. Nfitz (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Additionally your characterization of me making "multiple" edits is also incorrect. I made a single edit split into two pieces at basically the same time and have not touched the piece since. I've commented on talk pages and pushed back against people attacking me on my talk page, as you personally have done as well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergzay&diff=prev&oldid=1283356769 Ergzay (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

At this point considering the vociferousness of responses I'm not going to make any more edits on the page as I don't want to deal with the extreme reactions of people that happened afterwards. I'll handle this subject in real life and at the ballot box and not on wikipedia. (The anything but friendly "neighborhood socialist" has also greatly contributed to my confirmation bias on various things. There is no possibility of building a Wikipedia under such conditions.) Ergzay (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Ergzay, do you believe that "socialist" and "sociologist" are synonyms? Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Was just going to ask that lol Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

ROFL. That's a slip on my part. I just realized. I read it as socialist every time. Makes sense now when I was trying to type it out manually several times it never came up and had to copy paste it. Though I'd bet the vast majority of sociologist are socialists. Ergzay (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Ergzay, . Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I said "I'd bet". I doubt anyone's ever done a survey study on the political leanings of occupational sociologists. Ergzay (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

They've done it for scientists and various science specialisation. Surprising if Sociologists weren't also surveyed Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Old but supports my view it's definitely been done. [24]. I'm not sure if identifiying as socialist was one of the questions asked but political leanings seems definite. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The abstract of that paper is sending me. Claiming sociology "distrusts reason" sure buddy. Say that to all the stats and methods classes I had to take for sociology. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't sounds like the surveys mentioned were done by the writers of that paper so whatever issues may exist with them (and there tend to be plenty), is probably fairly separate from possible issues with the paper. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Latest comment from Erzgay, quadrupling down on accusing editors of supporting child abuse and misgendering the girl (but, proving to be slightly original by accusing us of "fiction-writing" for not misgendering) for future note, I'm no longer going to reply here. Too many people are way too emotionally involved in this subject. Dealing with multiple people attacking me on my personal talk page on this is enough. I'm done. Let your fiction writing reign, I don't want to deal with it anymore. I hope you'll follow the idea of "believe child abuse victims" when his son becomes an adult and regrets the abuse he suffered at the hands of his mother and the state shoving drugs into him.[25] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Intentionally mangling by username doesn't help your case. Ergzay (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That was a typo, my bad Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith hurts yours Ergzay. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Insanityclown1 It may, but given I was personally attacked by this person I'm not sure why you'd expect me to assume good faith. It was also a mangling that people have done intentionally to me in the past. Ergzay (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone worth interacting with would want to intentionally mangle your username. It's not like Erzgay is offensive unless it's from someone who thinks there's something wrong with being gay. If you're hanging out in crowds where people regularly think there's something wrong with being gay, perhaps look for better crowds. (I mean obviously there are large chunks of the internet which are "broken" and you'll encounter trolls and other idiots in a lot of places. But the point is if you aren't regularly in crowds where such crap is normalised, you shouldn't be assuming everyday people you're interacting with would do it. Even in cases where you're in strong disagreement with them, unless they're homophobic bigots who's stupidity you know is best to ignore and you're only interacting with them to counter something they're saying.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

INDEF/CBAN Survey

• Support INDEF / CBAN for this atrocious behavior. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bejakyo pointed out this was a double vote since I called for the same sanction in the original post to this board, so I'm noting that here so it's only counted once.[26] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support INDEF/CBAN. I have tried composing 3 messages responding to the above but they don't really express my opinions on Ergzays behaviour adequately, so I won't try. Accusations of advocating for child abuse for fairly calmly sticking to Wikipedia policy on neutrality, sourcing and BLP policy is crap. Really crap. I can't be bothered to even expand on that as the accusations alone are enough to support a ban.Knitsey (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support INDEF/CBAN - clear aspersions on Ergzay's part and just general WP:NOTHERE behaviour. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Comment - looking through Ergzay's talk page archives, I spotted a warning for edit warning, and this reply in 2020 to Doug Weller (It appears like WP admins can't tell fake material from the truth then. I don't care about your threats.) when this edit was undone. MiasmaEternal☎ 04:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Bans aren't decided by polls Just FWIW. Though I have little doubt I'll get a ban because any administrator opposing such a ban would themselves be attacked by other administrators. Ergzay (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  No but they are often decided by community consensus on en Wikipedia. In fact before DS, they nearly always were Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  You'll get a ban because you decided you were going to right a great wrong, and the community has no tolerance for that sort of nonsense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger I made a single edit and some talk page comments. I've never heard of someone getting banned from all of Wikipedia over that. Ergzay (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  It happens, but most editors don't make serious BLP violations and then accuse their fellow editors of supporting child abuse, so it's rare. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne To be clear, I do think I was in the wrong and I went too far. However the accusations were not completely random and were directly related to the material in question. And again I do think I was wrong to burst out and say what I did, however the mischaracterization is frustrating. Ergzay (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support INDEF/CBAN. Hate is disruptive, and all these aspersions/accusations are incredibly NOTHERE. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support INDEF block of user. The accusations of specific editors supporting child abuse (as personal position rather than a certain edit or dispute about certain sources, repeated and amplified widely after being called on it, is itself enough of a bright line. The additional unsupported claims of editors lying and other PA pushes further in that direction. CBANContent-/topic-centric restrictions, such as under GENSEX would remove the editor from the topic-area and solve the article-behavior problem, but there are too many and too severe of a fundamental behavior incompatible with WP. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @DMacks Just FYI I think you have WP:TBAN and WP:CBAN mixed up, the former's topic-focused while the latter's more weighty than even an indef block. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, I was seeing "C" as "content" (topic-centric) not "community" (editor-centric), as I usually only deal with users as an "indef block" action. I updated my comment (markup strike/insert). Thanks for the gentle clue. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose INDEF/CBAN but... Edit: support tban a clear warning or perhaps a gender-related TBAN is justified if a history of problems can be shown. This is an editor who has been on the site since 2006 with a clear block log. YFNS's actions come off as more trying to punish an editor for wrong think rather than for some sort of wide spread disruption. Additionally, the transphobia accusation is less than ideal given the context and absent some sort of additional evidence. Certainly the gender of the child is a core part of the dispute and it's understandable that some would question if Wikipedia should be using stated vs biological gender in a case like this one. As a matter of course Wikipedia goes with stated gender but it should also be understood that isn't a universally held view and reasonable people can disagree here. Absent some evidence that they have a long history of issues on trans topics I don't see a CBAN or INDEF as reasonable. If editors can show they have previously been warned about this I think a stronger case could be made for a tban vs a warning. If they haven't been given a CT notice for gender-related topics and have no prior issues in the area then an explanation and warning is appropriate. Springee (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Edit to remove warning and go with tban. I think the additional discussions have convinced me that a warning isn't sufficient. Namely the implication that editors here are defending child abuse. Springee (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  YFNS's actions come off as more trying to punish an editor for wrong think rather than for some sort of wide spread disruption. I'm sorry, are you arguing that an editor misgendering a living person (on a page that has warning markup, by text he edited, noting the talk consensus) in almost a dozen edits after being warned, accusing subjects of the article of child abuse, and accusing multiple editors of supporting child abuse and being biased for being trans is not disruption? And claiming that trans kids cannot know they're trans, and are being pressured into being trans by their parents, isn't transphobic? And multiple warnings for edit warring are not a history of problems? Are you actually arguing this is about wrong think? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  That disruption would be handled by a TBAN. Why is a CBAN necessary? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The disruption was open bigotry against a minority, living article subjects who are members of it, and editors who are. Besides, this is a question to Springee why they do not consider Ergzay's behavior transphobic or disruption and why they call it "wrong think" for me to report an editor for accusing me of supporting child abuse...

  WP:HID explains it well though: a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I really don’t buy that we can argue there is sitewide disruption from topic-specific misbehavior because some editors won’t feel comfortable with the misbehaving editor in question no matter what. “Being someone who was once disruptive” is not itself considered a form of disruption on Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  You don't buy it, but the majority of editors here consider open bigotry against editors, article subjects, and the minority they're a part of, after multiple warnings, worthy of a CBAN and not a ban on discussing the minority. So feel free not to purchase. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Uh, okay. Thanks. Are you gonna reply something to the effect of “that’s just what YOU think! Say whatever you want, it’s not what everyone else thinks!” to everyone who opposes your proposal? I think blocking editors because they’re permanently and fundamentally tarred with a fact that will make some editors feel uncomfortable collaborating with them is stupid. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  You replied to a question I asked of another user to ask me one I've already made my answer clear to in this discussion. When I reiterate my reasoning, and say you can disagree, you reiterate that you disagree and object to me pointing out you're free to disagree. How is this helpful?

  You think it's stupid to ban editors from the site for bigotry / personal attacks instead of a topic area, that's your prerogative. Your opinion has been expressed and noted. I won't change your mind and vice versa so we have to agree to disagree. I asked a question of Springee, and things they said about me, which I'd like an answer to, so I won't reply to you any further here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Springee, me and apparently @LightNightLights would like an answer as to why you think Ergzay's actions weren't transphobic and why you think reporting an editor for accusing me, and other editors, and living people of supporting child abuse is trying to punish an editor for wrong think? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  In reading the original complaint I don't think I gave the child abuse part enough merit. If the claim was "what is happening to that child is child abuse" I would view that as something that an editor is allowed to think. However, suggesting any editor supports child abuse, regardless of type, is not OK. That said, it also appears that this was said in the heat of the moment and after the editor felt attacked. They apologized the next morning, even reaching out to you to apologize directly. That further supports my view that an INDEF/CBAN is unjustified. Springee (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  And yet their edits show a pattern of bigotry, and the community appears to agree that a half hearted attempt at an apology is insufficient at this point. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Just for the record, as was linked in the original report here, they were given a CT notice for GENSEX 05:31, March 31, 2025 (before everything other than the two diffs in the first bullet point). They've also been given CT notices for American Politics (January 22, 2025) and BLP (October 26, 2021). That's just going by edits tagged with CT alert, they may fall under one of the other "presumed to be aware" things. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The proposed TBAN is a community sanction. The awareness rules are for WP:CTOP sanctions. This just happens to cover the same scope as an ArbCom-designated CTOP, but since the closing admin would be acting on behalf of the community, not of ArbCom, it doesn't matter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  +1, I was just responding to the part where Springee said If editors can show they have previously been warned and If they haven't been given a CT notice. Just figured it was worth pointing out that they have been given one CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/Cban. Everyone else has thoroughly explained why, but the fact they apparently think America rules the world is also...a thing. It doesn't matter what popular opinion in the United States says, its what Wikipeida standards say. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The article is about a case in America between Americans. That other countries are somehow relevant makes no sense. Ergzay (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is an international project so if you're going to accuse another editor of supporting child abuse because of what American's believe, then yes other countries comes in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  They came to my talk page calling me a bigot for having a political opinion they disagreed with first. Ergzay (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) No they called you out for trying to edit an article in violation of our policies and guidelines. I'd add articles should represent a worldwide view even if they only describe local events and people. If we have an article on something in Afghanistan, where some local person mutilated or murdered their (locally born) daughter or wife because of something the father/husband viewed as a transgression, then even if it's true most Afghanis think this person's actions were perfectly justified and not wrong our article is not going to treat this like the case. (Frankly I don't think we can really know what most Afghanis think under the Taliban but that's largely an aside.) If it can be sourced, our article will mention this local view, but the article will treat these actions as major wrongs. If an editor demands demands that this article is wrong because it demonstrates a worldwide PoV and argues it should only an American PoV, they'd rightfully be called out for it. And if you are going to offer your political opinions expected to be called out if they're horrible opinions. The best solution is to keep that crap to yourself and concentrate on how we can improve articles, not what you personally think. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going to disagree with the framing in most of your comment there, but I certainly agree that I'm never going to touch this topic again for a long time into the future after the hornet's nest this brought up. I couldn't sleep last night because of this garbage. Ergzay (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The problem is it's not just a matter of not touching this topic. It's clear from your replies you still don't understand how unacceptable it was to accuse another editor of supporting child abuse just because of your personal opinions. Also for clarity I meant "Afghani PoV" not "American PoV" in my comment above. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I do now think I went too far and have apologized on all parties personal talk pages. Ergzay (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/CBAN This is an editor who has broken BLP (by misgendering and just straight up referring to child abuse) and has not provided a single source to back up their claims. They then went on to accuse other editors of pushing for child abuse, a clear set of PA's. The doubling down of behaviour after being warned via CTOP notices and the like seems particularly worrying (particularly the subsequent PA's on the people giving those warnings). LunaHasArrived (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @LunaHasArrived I did not "double down on the behavior". I stopped responding on the topic and started messaging people to stop messaging me. I don't want anything to do with the topic anymore. This hornet's nest is way beyond anything I was expecting. Ergzay (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/CBAN - reasonable people can disagree on how content in articles should be presented and written, but once you cross the line and start attacking editors with unfounded and horrific allegations of pushing for child abuse, and then doubling down on those allegations, it's time for a forced break from the project. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Just a note that as a discussion on a community ban, but this discussion can't be closed early. I believe it must stay open either 24 or 48 hours (please check me). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I recently reported the message on my User Talk page to AIV so maybe that will deal with it faster. If not, then lets see what the next day or two brings. --DanielRigal (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• FYI, according to Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions, For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Indef/CBAN - Irrespective of any good that they may have done in the past we can't have people flipping an article 180 degrees from the truth as reported by RS and then trying to bully people just for fixing it and pointing out our policies. The vandalism is enough for a block. The personal attacks are enough for a block. Both, plus the unrepentant grandstanding here, are enough for a CBAN. There is no way that this user can collaborate with a mindset like this. It is sad when an editor with almost two decades on here gets banned but I can't see any other possible outcome given the behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN their BLP violations would be enough for me to support an cban, unless there was some very quick indication they understood the need for drastic change. I'd include the misgendering in this. What Ergzay wants to personally believe, I don't care but the requirements for what they say on wiki, even when not in articles, are clear and especially for a living person. But anyway once they accused other editors of such things, a cban is really the only path forward. While I'm not opposed to a simple indef as I think the chance of an admin unilaterally unblocking in poor circumstances is very low, a community ban does make it clearer how bad their behaviour has been and how far they need to go to edit here again. Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I still support a CBAN. The apology is a good start and I have some sympathies to an editor making comments in anger and not remembering exactly what they'd said until reminded. (Per 10:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC), it sounds like this is one of the reasons they continued to defend themselves even after having a chance to calm down.) I'd also note that the cban seemed clear while they were still defending themselves. So while I can understand the perennial concern an editor is just apologising to try and get out of sanction, it seems most likely to me this apology is sincere and came from a genuine realising of what they'd done. And even the time taken to get there is not such a severe strike. Uncle G's analysis raises some concerns, however they'd be far from the only editor who is probably letting their biases affect their editing a bit too much and I don't feel there's enough to justify a CBAN. Ultimately if it was only the comments and editing about article subjects, I might be convinced a BLP topic ban together with a GENSEX one might be enough. (But not solely GENSEX, rather their reason for making such serious BLP violations, I don't trust an editor who makes such severe BLP violations to make any editing related to BLPs.) But their earlier severe comments about their fellow editors IMO means even with their apology a cban is justified. Perhaps them simply staying away from the area would be enough that they can avoid doing this ever again, perhaps not. Accusing other editors of pushing for the abuse of children is severe enough that I'd rather not find out. Even if the editors affects are perfectly fine with it, I don't expect editors need to feel that way when such a horrific accusation. As always indefinite does not mean infinite, and so they continue to recognise the problems with their editing with some future appeal, it might be okay to risk letting them edit again, but not right now. Note I'm always opposed to blocking or site banning editors for their personal views no matter how horrific they may be. Frankly I'd even oppose it if an editor says something like "I feel anyone who supports trans-rights for children is supporting the abuse of children" or something similar provided they quick learn to STFU as we don't care about their personal views. However once you've actually directly accused your fellow editors of disgusting stuff, that's a clear problem. Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN Wikipedia should not tolerate this bigotry at all. Send Ergzay packing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Suport Indef/CBAN - blatent BLP violatons, as well as numerious cases of toxic bigoted incivility towards multiple other editors. Both actions are against important wikipedia policies. Such a culture cannot be allowed to festerBejakyo (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't attack anyone. People came to _my_ talk page attacking me for a _single_ edit I made. I deleted their comments and put comments on their talk page to stop and no longer put such content on my talk page. Ergzay (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  People came to your talk page to provide a good faith notification to stop edit waring, you responded to "a single edit" (which is evidently not the case), by calling RoxySaunders a liar, and YFNS a child abuser. This along with other instances of tenditious editing is simply not conductive to wikipedia

  For the benefit of others, the talk page notifications Ergazy removed one such notification here claiming DanielRigal was pushing for child abuse, and the removal of other such notifications here Bejakyo (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes they came to my talk page accusing me of being a bigot, if that is not a personal attack I don't know what is. Ergzay (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  requesting you to stop promoting bigotry is not a personal attack, nor would a personal attack merrit describing wikipedia editors as a child abusers as you have so done Bejakyo (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Calling someone a bigot is absolutely a personal attack irregardless of context. I don't know how to state this otherewise. Ergzay (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Being called out for bigotry is not a personal attack regardless of if it hurts your feelings. And again, even if being called a bigot were an attack, it is not justification to describe multiple other users as child abusers.

  If you don't know how to state this otherwise you are freely able to WP:dropthestick and walk away Bejakyo (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I did not describe multiple other users as child abusers. And calling someone a bigot is absolutely a personal attack. I've seen people warned over doing so before. Ergzay (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  You did indeed describe multiple users as child abusers. Calling out bigotry is not a personal attack. the purposes of those notices is a simple friendly reminder to mind oneself when furthering bigotry unknowingly Bejakyo (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  And they doubled down on that in this discussion by calling me a "Transphobe" when I am not, as I explained in my top level replies. Ergzay (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Transphobe" is in quotes, even though it isn't quoting anyone. Nobody has used that word in this discussion, except you, in this reply. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's in the title of this section. Ergzay (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are twisting (well evidenced!) accusations of poor behaviour into personal attacks. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If you'd just wanted an editor to stay away from your talk page, you could have just said, "please stay away from my talk page". Occasionally an editor does this and I'm generally supportive of a harassment indef if an editor keeps posting on another editor's talk page when they've been asked to stop per WP:USERTALKSTOP. But that isn't what you did, as you well known. Frankly per my comment I'd likely still be supporting an cban or at least an indef even were it not for your child abuse accusation but as I said once you made it, cban is in my mind the best path forward. The fact you're now downplaying it as just asking an editor to stay away from your talk page is clear evidence that you haven't learnt the important lesson of how bad your comment was, so a cban is well justified as it seems unlikely you will learn. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  We're getting divorced from reality. My "child abuse accusation" was an accusation that they support child abuse by calling me a bigot for supporting a child's actual gender orientation that they have related to their father. This is how far we are down this rabbit hole. Ergzay (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes it was an accusation of supporting child abuse however you want to spin it. In fact it was beyong just supporting child abuse, you said "pushing for the abuse of children". Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne You're right, after reviewing, I did use those specific words and I agree that was going way too far. I did not remember my word use being that bad. That was not my intention. Apologies. Ergzay (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN: Accusing other editors of supporting child abuse because Ergzay doesn't care for their politics is a bright-line here. Like Bushranger, I'm likewise bemused by the premise that popular opinion in the United States is worth a tinker's damn in this discussion; this is not, after all, Conservapedia. That Ergzay has been around for a number of years doesn't confer immunity to civility policies. Ravenswing 09:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing I did NOT accuse other editors as supporting child abuse because of their politics. Ergzay (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  [27] I'm not really interested in "oh, it wasn't for THAT reason that I accused editors of promoting child abuse" weasel wording Ravenswing 09:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is not "weasel wording" when that edit you just linked is because a person came on to my talk page, without any interaction on an article talk page and made personal attacks calling me as being a bigot and making further false claims claiming something I did not do. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergzay&diff=prev&oldid=1283356769 Ergzay (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN. Obviously WP:NOTHERE. For what it's worth, they did leave an apology on my talk page in which they blame their actions on an emotional reaction they had to the alleged child abuse. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 10:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Saying that both YFNS ([28], [29]) and Daniel Rigal ([30]) are in favour of child abuse is an outrageous personal attack which we should not tolerate. Doubling down in this thread: trying to justify their comments because "they attacked me first" (e.g. [31]), denying that they made personal attacks (e.g. [32]) and minimising their attacks (e.g. [33]) is also not encouraging. I am pleased to see that Ergzay has now reflected on their comments and apologised on YFNS, Daniel Rigal, and Roxy's talk pages, and I think that in time they could appeal a ban, but these are such egregious attacks that right now an apology feels like too little too late. The level of compromised judgement required to make these comments in the first place makes me feel as though a CBAN is still necessary. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN This is grossly inappropriate behaviour that violates both WP:BLP and WP:AGF in the worst possible ways. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Have you even looked at the person's edit history? I have. The person clearly clearly is here to write an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Really, they’re clearly not here to build an encyclopedia? They have thousands of good edits. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• This is clearly going to pass, but Oppose Indef/CBAN - banning someone with 5,000 edits who has been here for 15 years for one spat is a ridiculous overreaction. And especially calling them WP:NOTHERE even more so - that essay is about the sum total of one's edits, and one doesn't cease to be here for behaving disruptively in one incident. No objection to a topic ban from the GENSEX area, but I'm not seeing why that wouldn't be sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The editor called two other editors child abusers. For declining to misgender a child. That's incredibly egregious. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, I shouldn't have said what I did to those three other editors, but it was not because they "declined to misgender a child", it was because I felt the child was being misgendered. And again what I said was beyond the pale and not conducive to good editing on Wikipedia. Ergzay (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose CBAN; support TBAN from WP:GENSEX and strong warning. One of the reasons we have CTOPs is that there are certain topics that have a tendency to, frankly, make smart people's brains turn off. Someone is a reasonable editor for years and then they see something on the news about Israel, or COVID, or abortion, or, yes, gender, and they start talking like somebody else entirely. That was my read of this situation even before Ergzay's latest comments confirming that that's exactly what happened here. However, before those comments I'd held off on opposing this proposal, because, as I've argued a number of times in the past, a TBAN from GENSEX is an inadequate remedy to harassing editors on the basis of gender. As I wrote some time ago at Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive § Appropriate remedies, a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.)
  However, Ergzay's apology by the cold light of day reads as sincere. It is of course up to those affected whether to accept the apology. And only time will tell which is the "real" Ergzay: the one who said some quite horrible things, or the one who apologized for it. But based on over 15 years of constructive editing, I'm not comfortable supporting a CBAN over one incident if the user has credibly apologized. Instead, I support a TBAN from GENSEX, a warning in the strongest possible terms for harassment, and an advisement to Ergzay that, even if not formally IBANned, they should avoid the other editors involved here if at all possible going forward. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose CBAN; support GENSEX TBAN per Tamzin's above argument. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how sincere the apology is, it came right after repeatedly insisting I did not describe multiple other users as child abusers.[34], said for _reasoned_ political support that a _majority_ of Americans hold. I really don't get what's going on anymore. Nothing I did was unprovoked and out of nowhere. (this ignores the repeated attacks on 2 living article subjects: the trans girl and her mother, which he seems completely unapologetic of)[35], and concluding I do not think any of them are actual child abuse supporters. Not anymore at least. I don't want to deal with this and I want to stay far far away from the subject going forward.[36]. His apology below continues to make digs at the subject's identity and claim that the father (who has been to spent almost a decade insisting his daughter was turned trans, forcing her to shave her hair, etc) has been mistreated and justified the content changes outraged by how the father was treated and what his child was going through and I went and looked on the wikipedia page about the court case. I was extremely angered to see the completely one sided take that the article had and made appropriate edits.. Not to mention thanking Springee for standing up for him after Springee said there wasn't disruption and that this was about "wrong think" after doing his perfunctory apologies[37]

  And wrt the 15-20 years of "constructive editing": The overwhelming majority of his edits have been between 2021-2025, with 2006-2020 combined not matching even 2021[38], focused almost entirely on Elon Musk and culture-war type things regarding him (and his rockets)[39][40], resulting in multiple trips to WP:ANEW[41] to say nothing of the stream of blanked edit warring notices and warnings for personal attacks from his talk page[42]. It's more so 4 years of highly questionable editing than 15 years of being constructive.

  Finally And only time will tell which is the "real" Ergzay: the one who said some quite horrible things, or the one who apologized for it. is a false dichotomy in my view. The "real" Ergzay said horrible things about 2 living article subjects (one because she's trans, the other because she supported her), and 3 editors (accusing them of lying, being too biased since they're trans, supporting child abuse, etc), repeatedly, and continuously lied throughout this discussion arguing they didn't. In my message on their talk page, I warned they should not edit GENSEX if they're coming with the claim the existence of trans kids doesn't "jive with reality", to which they claimed they didn't say that and then accused me of supporting child abuse, hence the ANI trip I did not want to make initially and had given him a chance to avoid. The "real" Ergzay, at the point it was obvious a CBAN was practically inevitable, started half-apologizing. People are responsible for their actions and horrible behavior from someone, whatever the reason, is horrible behavior from the "real" person in their totality - a dubious apology after the fact, in the face of sanctions, says much less about their character than the original.

  If these attacks were not in GENSEX, we would not even be debating a CBAN. Your quote of WP:HID sums it up perfectly in my view - this is somebody who went on bigoted tirades about editors and living people. Merely restricting him from the minority he railed against is an inadequate measure and sends the message that disruptive bigotry won't get you sanctioned any further than talking about the minority. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I give a lot of weight to apologies, and always have. I wouldn't be where I am in life, on-wiki or off-, if people hadn't accepted apologies for some things I said or did. If I'm wrong to extend this WP:ROPE, and there is a recurrence of this kind of behavior, I'll be the first in line to make the indefinite block—and an indef after escaping a CBAN for the same conduct is de facto a CBAN itself, in that few if any admins will overturn without community consensus. But sure, it's completely fair to interpret HID as cutting the other way here. This is just where I come down based on my own philosophy of apologies and atonement. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Commendable af and one of my favorite things about you for the record. Where I'm at is, even if I did find the apology completely genuine, I'd still think a CBAN necessary. At least for now (I supported removing Roxy's after a while even, though tbf it was much less egregious conduct). An apology is best imo when it accepts the consequences while apologies in the name of avoiding consequences are cheaper. To quote the late great PTerry, no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN - Accusing other editors of being apologists for child abuse is beyond the pale and (even without the GENSEX aspect) would be grounds for an immediate indef block for egregious personal attacks. Adding in the GENSEX aspect only makes matters worse, as his accusations now become egregious BLP violations writ large for reasons which should be obvious to anyone rational that can read and follow the conversation: He's accusing one or both parents of child abuse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• TBAN at the very least, but I would also not be opposed to an indef for this and this edit summary. I note that the user has apologised, which is something, but from reading this thread it took a significant amount of time before they stopped trying to claim they were justified in posting such offensive material. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose CBAN, Support TBAN from WP:GENSEX If editors show they cannot function or contribute constructively, or rather, without being disruptive in a single area, but are otherwise constructive and a net positive, we restrict them from that area. Was he out of line? Yes. Is a CBAN going too far? Also yes. The above comments such as ). An apology is best imo when it accepts the consequences while apologies in the name of avoiding consequences are cheaper. appears to not view a TBAN as a consequence, as well as potentially not understanding the the spirit of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. We block to prevent further disruption. If there is no risk of disruption outside that area, he should not be banned from the entire website. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE - a perfunctory half-apology (that still has not recognized that attacking living people on the basis of their identity is wrong) does not cancel out attacking multiple editors on the basis of their identity, attacking living subjects on the basis of their identity, and attacking an entire demographic on the basis of identity.

  The consequence of egregious compounded displays of bigotry in violation of multiple sections of the Universal Code of Conduct should be removal from the platform, not the slap on the wrist that is "you're no longer allowed to talk about this minority and otherwise you're off the hook", especially considering at no point has he apologized for 1) bigoted comments about the minority at large (as opposed to specific editors) and 2) bigoted comments about living article subjects.

  "You aren't allowed to make bigoted comments about minorities" is the baseline behavior expected of an editor. A TBAN for this behavior means we've shifted that baseline to "You are allowed to spend a day making bigoted comments about minorities directed at editors, article subjects, and the minority at large just this once as a freebie" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hate is disruptive insofar as it is expressed. If a topic ban would solve the issue of expression, then why does the genuineness of someone’s contrition, or a change in their viewpoint (which they wouldn’t be allowed to express anymore anyways) matter? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  The talk pages of transgender Wikipedia editors do not comprise a "topic". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't view this as a freebie, I'm saying he contributes positively outside of this field but is not able to do so in this field. Topic bans are by zero means "freebies". You appear to be seeking a purely punitive block which goes against the spirit of the policy. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  @DarmaniLink: Accusing other editors of defending child abuse with no real evidence is in and of itself grounds for a summary indef. Doing so in a manner that accuses other non-editor living people of child abuse is in and of itself grounds for a summary indef. Repeatedly continuing to defend such edits right up until the bouncer is about to hurl you into the trashcans in the alley nearby is an exacerbating factor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely unacceptable. I agree. Is there a risk of further disruption however that TBAN and an IBAN can't solve? I'm not convinced. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  They make it clear that why they may be here to help build an encyclopedia, they are not compatible with a collaborative project. Blocks/bans are not punitive, but the fact that they have, in fact, done this, and given an apology that reads very much as "not actually sorry, just sorry they got called out on it and are facing a ban" makes it clear that it cannot be trusted that this sort of attitude won't spill over into other areas if they're merely tbanned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  With respect, they've been here since 2006 with over 5000 edits. This isn't a new editor. They already have a track record. WP:ROPE DarmaniLink (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yep. They aren't a new editor. Therefore they should know better. As for the over 5000 edits, I point to Uncle G's analysis. This isn't the first time they've edited with a clear bias, and quite a few of these biased edits have been outside GENSEX. They are not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  They really should know better. Pardon my french, but when I look at UncleG's list of various incidents, such as 2020: Special:Diff/956623227 — removal of "hate group" appellation, I just wonder how in the hell someone can even argue that a Neo-Nazi terrorist organization isn't a hate group. Maybe I'm dense, but I thought that should be pretty obvious to any rationally minded individual. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  It was a claim in wiki voice that was sourced to the the SPLC. At minimum it should have been attributed. A number of editors have raised concerns about treating the SPLC as a RS. Springee (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)See correction below

  Yeah, forgive me, but that's a lame attempt at excusing that. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Correction: It was attributed to SPLC. That said, should any claim by the SPLC, or any activist organization, be DUE for inclusion without a 3rd party RS reporting on it? A number of editors (disclaimer, myself included) feel the answer is no. Thus this may be a principled edit rather than one trying to hide that it's a hate group (something I presume the rest of the article would make clear. Springee (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  And yet community consensus is that the SPLC is generally reliable in regards to extremism and hate groups. You're going to have to do a lot harder to try to explain away Ergzay's bigotry. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  The various SPLC discussions make it clear the community is mixed on their use. Additionally, a number of community members are warry of citing any activist organization absent a 3rd party RS making the connection. Also, saying Ergzay is a bigot is a personal attack. Springee (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  this thread has more than enough evidence to support a statement that ergzay's behavior is bigoted. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  And yet that has not been sufficient to downgrade the community's treatment of the SPLC as a source from generally reliable. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  You should keep in mind that the edit was made almost 5 years ago. Not every editor checks the RSP page before making edits. An editor, acting in good faith, could have seen that the SLPC designation was only in the first paragraph of the lead but not in the article body thus would be UNDUE for the lead (or should have been added to the body). Perhaps the editor saw the recent MOS discussion on the use of the SPLC in the lead of articles [43] and felt that no consensus existed. The problem is you have jumped to the conclusion that this edit could only have been done for problematic reasons. You haven't asked why they did it (which might be hard to recall nearly 5 years later). They didn't edit war to keep the sentence out. Are you suggesting that disagreeing with something like that is automatically an issue? Your comment "Egrazy's bigoty" could be read as a personal attack. Are you suggesting we should assume the worst and that you meant it as a personal attack vs a statement about their comments (not about them as a person)? We have a situation here were the edits *could* have a policy, good faith, compliant explanation. Why should we jump to the negative conclusion without even asking? Certainly we shouldn't use such edits as any sort of evidence of a problem absent some additional evidence related to those edits. Springee (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  And we also have a problematic pattern of behavior by Ergzay. I'm not suggesting disagreeing with someone is automatically an issue. But when we have an issue at present and a long running pattern of behavior that would support a tendency towards bigoted behavior, its very difficult to view any of the listed edits in a positive light. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Any of the list"? What is wrong with this edit [44]? Before this goes any further, would you edit your previous entry to make it clear that "explain away Ergzay's bigotry" is about their statements, not the person? Springee (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Bigoted statements from a person = bigotry from the person = the person's bigotry. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is a difference between saying somebody is a bigot, and noting they said a lot of bigoted things (ie, were engaging in bigotry). Statements like claiming that The entire concept of "trans children" ... does not jive with reality, accusing editors of supporting child abuse for not misgendering a trans child, misgendering a trans child repeatedly after being warned (BLP applies to talk), and accusing trans editors of bias and being personally invested is indisputably bigoted. Signed, a grown up trans child, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that there is a difference between stating someone is a bigot vs saying a comment is bigoted. However, the comment, "explain away Ergzay's bigotry" reads as something about the person. "explaining away their bigoted actions/comments" would make it clear the comments, not the person's qualities/self are the issue. Perhaps Insanityclown1 could clarify. Springee (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Ergzay's bigotry" seems like a perfectly valid way of describing bigotry from Ergzay. To paraphrase the Emperor's New Groove: Oh, right. The bigotry. The bigotry from Ergzay, the bigotry openly displayed by Ergzay, Ergzay's bigotry Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Amusing post-hoc policy justification for an edit that simply claimed they are "not a legitimate source", again, to remove the designation as a hate group from the page of a neo-nazi organization REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  +1. It's good that we've gotten past the pernicious mindset (that haunted Wikipedia for so many years) that after a certain undefined number of edits, an editor was immunized from having to follow civility and notability rules; that let the MickMcNees and Lugnutses to rampage for so long. I'd rather not see that syndrome return. Ravenswing 10:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support INDEF/CBAN. I was going to support a GENSEX TBAN until Uncle G's review of recent edits made it clear that the pattern of biased editing goes well beyond GENSEX. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  • More particularly — Ser! observes the gender edit where the subject is a Japanese sportsperson and not related to U.S.A. politics. — the problem does not align with gender and sex. It aligns with Elon Musk and U.S.A. politics (e.g. Special:Diff/883238779) including where the politics intersect with Tesla and the private space companies and anything that might seem — even when it in fact is not — negative about those companies (e.g. Special:Diff/1236105668 and Special:Diff/1021939886/1022051783). If Ergzay had stuck to the physics (e.g. Special:Diff/513744054), chemistry, astronomy (e.g. Special:Diff/262522805) engineering, rockets, and indeed Japanese railway stations and anti-vandalism (e.g. Special:Diff/771740709), xe would not be here in this position now; as xe has remained conflict-free for 2 decades in those areas. I hope that xe has learned in those 2 decades that not every encyclopaedia reader has an intimate knowledge of MacOS (Special:Diff/84854361). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

    "the gender edit where the subject is a Japanese sportsperson" – I'm not sure what you trying to say, but just to avoid any misunderstanding: The edit Special:Diff/1111303837 by Ergzay was perfectly fine. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support INDEF / CBAN. The appalling behavior displayed here deserves nothing less. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support INDEF / CBAN. Pretty revolting behavior. Absolutely unacceptable. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 23:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Hate is disruptive. Once I saw Springee defend this, I knew it was bad. 174.171.79.146 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE blocked by Izno theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, log in. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Why do that? It would link a user name to the edit history of an IP that was blocked for trolling [45]. Springee (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  So, uh, any response to YFNS's reply to your !vote? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Log in lol. jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support Tamzin's proposal. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• When you're trying to build an encyclopaedia collaboratively, you need a community of people you can collaborate with. This person isn't one of them: their discourse style is harsh, rude, hectoring, tendentious, and exhausting. CBAN.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support Tamzin's proposal. Xe knows whereof xe speaks. --GRuban (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
  • And a pass is given for the non-GENSEX biased editing, I suppose? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment And quite frankly, anyone trying to defend this offensive transphobia as "wrongthink" needs to have a good think about whether they are a good fit for a collaborative encyclopedia. Would they be defending it if it was racism or misogynism? I'd guess not, because we block for that sort of thing; apparently transphobia is still allowed a little more leeway. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I’m going to have to go with a CBAN here. Transphobia and other personal attacks aren’t tolerated, and hopefully never will be. E_F⁵ 23:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support a temporary 14 day - 3 month CBAN and a permanent, but appealable TBAN for WP:GENSEX. This user has been constructively contributing for several years. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN replace the topic with race rather than GENSEX and we wouldn't even be discussing a potential topic ban we'd straight up indef, so why should we tolerate transphobia? Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's a question I find myself asking all too often on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN per above by Lavalizard101 and the fact that they have now, under the heading "Do not make edits to the this talk page", written "If you desperately wish to talk to me, send me an email. I do not want to talk to anyone at all. I'm traumatized by recent events and can't even think about Wikipedia without getting panic attacks right now. Just don't talk to me. Ergzay (talk) 1:22 pm, Today (UTC+1" Doug Weller talk 12:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  As someone with an anxiety disorder, this seems like a rather silly thing to have panic attacks about, but to each their own. Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Don’t let your decency fly out of the window just because you think you’ve found a deserving target. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN The comments made were really beyond the pale and were doubled down on time and again. The apology below does not read sincere at all. And a topic ban is clearly not enough in this case. Being able to work collaboratively with such an editor anywhere on Wikipedia after this is thoroughly shot and it seems likely they'd just keep to any TBAN by then working to undermine any other topics trans editors work on other than this area. I see no way around such an issue when the whole purpose is collaboratively building of an encyclopedia, which they do not seem here to do. Also, the point by Lavalizard101 just above really exemplifies the entire problem with the opposing statements further up. Silverseren^C 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN So, like Tamzin, I do take apologies seriously, and reading the apology below I actually do think that it seems basically sincere, and while it wouldn't dissuade me from a TBAN (among other things its missing important bits like misgendering the child) it might've dissuaded me from a CBAN on its own. However, to get to the apology you also have to scroll through a list of this editor's contributions over time, and that list strongly suggest to me that this is not just a GENSEX problem and that this person has been POV-pushing consistently over decades. I also have to say that while the apology seems sincere, there's a big difference between a sincere apology as a reaction to widespread condemnation of your behavior and a sincere apology caused by you reevaluting your behavior on your own. Loki (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

5100 edits since 2006

I thought that I'd take a little look into this; because both the people who are waving "not here" around and the people waving it as a defence haven't reviewed the history in detail. Reviewing it, it supports the conclusion that Wikipedia tolerates people for their expressed political views and it is only when those cross the line into outright politicized attacks on editors and article subjects that the community gets up in arms.

There are many article content edits, and there is work on improving the encyclopaedia and dealing with sockpuppets and vandalism, and clearly the "not here" accusation is false. But equally there's a clear agenda to the editing going all of the way back to 2006. Examples of both:

• 2006: Special:Diff/57138693 Special:Diff/57136728 — on the "myth" side of climate change
• 2007: Special:Diff/176116583 Special:Diff/84345237 — personal view that "some Roman Catholics are not Christian"
• 2007: Special:Diff/117873826 — wording proposal for carbon nanotubes
• 2014: Special:Diff/605323952 — removal of poorly sourced conspiracy theories
• 2015: Special:Diff/656544761 — reverting addition of Oprah Winfrey (suggested on the talk page in 2007) to business magnates
• 2016: Special:Diff/715457804 — "these protestors are environmental terrorists" "They've committed a great crime"
• 2018: Special:Diff/842251814 — content about gender-neutrality sourced to two language professors and a researcher removed for being "biased" and "poorly-cited"
• 2020: Special:Diff/956623227 — removal of "hate group" appellation
• 2020: Special:Diff/984648029 — "Removing fictional information" sourced to the NYT and a UTP book
• 2021: Special:Diff/1053908654 — reverting vandalism
• 2022: Special:Diff/1111303837 — "he" to "she"
• 2023: Special:Diff/1160172932 — historical name correction
• 2024: Special:Diff/1229280724 — sockpuppet report, which was confirmed
• 2025: Special:Diff/1270806377 — removal of women from Mexican-American War

Predictably, where xe gets onto noticeboards and disputes it is when xe is involved with Elon Musk and U.S.A. politics articles such as Missy Cummings. But xyr involvement in topics like South Padre Island, Texas and many others seems trouble-free over the years. Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are you using the neopronoun xe for this editor? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Uncle G does that for all editors, and has been doing so since before some people in this thread were born. There's a reason that very specific example is given at Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns § Across-the-board practices. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Am I missing something on the 2022 diff? That appears to have been a legitimate correction as the rest of the article used "she"; the subject doesn't appear to have changed genders at any point. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
  • As I said, examples of both. That one seemed worth pointing out when I came across it. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  The 2020 hate group removal needs context. The removal seems to be because the content is directly sourced to the SPLC. Quite a few editors question if the SPLC should be used for wiki voice statements of fact. When presenting the changes it would be best to also present the reason why as in this case it seems to be a sourcing issue. Springee (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Also, the 2020 removing fictional information sourced to the NYT also should have had context. It was removed from the lead while a nearly identical block of text exists in the controversy section. Uncle G shows it as if this was outright removal of content from the article vs a dispute if 50% of the negative content from the article's controversy section should also be in the lead. Untimely people may not agree with the difs but the two I've looked at seem like changes a reasonable, good faith editor might make. Springee (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  That doesn't change the fact that they claimed the information was "fictional" when it was not. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  or that they referred to individuals exercising their first amendment rights to assemble and protest as "terrorists." you consider that defensible @Springee? Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Simon, perhaps it would be best to ask them but they did open a talk page discussion that appears consistent with part of the removal, a part that isn't in the current lead for what it's worth. Springee (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't feel a need to ask them considering the evidence presented. It's clear their beliefs regarding trans people have skewed their editing behaviour irreparably. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

bludgeon

officially requesting that User:Ergzay to wp:dropthestick and stop wp:bludgeon all those who disagree and allow the discussion to be conducted propperlyBejakyo (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

So I'm not even allowed to defend myself when people try to claim I did something I did not do? What is this really. Ergzay (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

something I did not do?

here is you calling one user a child abuser, here is you calling a seperate user a child abuser.

beyond getting sidetracked, if you want to excuse your actions then do it the main section, not the survey section. per bludgeon, if you're so convinced that your right then your points will speak for themselves. Bejakyo (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

_BECAUSE_ they came to _MY_ talk page attacking me and calling me a bigot for _reasoned_ political support that a _majority_ of Americans hold. I really don't get what's going on anymore. Nothing I did was unprovoked and out of nowhere. Ergzay (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As being called out for bigotry regardless of it upsets you or not does not warrent describing numerous other editors as sexual criminals. YFNS clearly layed out the fact that such a callout was not unprovoked, regardless of if you think a number of some people in a single country agree with you Bejakyo (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bejakyo Seriously, why can't you be accurate. I did not call anyone a "sexual criminal". I did not call anyone a sexual abuser. This is frustrating that you keep escalating the terminology. Ergzay (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You've very plainly been calling multiple editors child abusers due to their good faith edits regarding GENSEX and attempted to justify doing such for being 'a fit of rage' or because you were 'insulted'. This simply is not fitting conduct for wikipedia Bejakyo (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

And furthermore the beliefs of Americans are immaterial. This isn't Ameripedia - it's Wikipedia - and we go by what reliable sources say, not the opinion polls of America. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have opinion polls on this subject in other Anglophone countries (e.g. Britain, India)? I am rather skeptical that, for example, Nigeria has more socially liberal attitudes on it. jp×g🗯️ 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s a shift in subject. It’s accurate that this editor didn’t call anyone a sexual criminal or make intimations about sexual abuse of children; only “abuse”. You should at least acknowledge this. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

And to be clear I do not think I was "right" to call them supporters of child abuse. I do not think any of them are actual child abuse supporters. Not anymore at least. I don't want to deal with this and I want to stay far far away from the subject going forward. Ergzay (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

regardless of what you claim about if you see it as right or not, you still did it Bejakyo (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• In fairness, xe is far from the only person who has been replying a lot. I'm inclined to give someone a little latitude when there's a pile-on like this. Think how it would be for you if you were in this position. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Personal vows

I apologize to anyone I've offended over the course of this discussion. I now think the words I used went too far and I should not have attacked people over what they said on my talk page. I've apologized directly to everyone who I wrote directly on their talk page and while I'm not asking for leniency because of that please at least know that it was genuine. The context is that I had recently watched a long form interview with the father and was feeling extremely saddened and outraged by how the father was treated and what his child was going through and I went and looked on the wikipedia page about the court case. I was extremely angered to see the completely one sided take that the article had and made appropriate edits. This was out of line and I should have followed the warnings in the in-line comments and on the talk page. I further went out of line making accusatory statements on the pages of editors who went after me for my edits. This was even further out of line. After a night's sleep and several enlightening discussions in the section of this page I now see I was in the wrong. I've been on Wikipedia for almost 20 years and I hope I can continue to edit. Given my personal upbringing and beliefs I promise going forward to stay out of any articles on trans subjects, especially as they relate to children, as I don't feel I can edit from an objective viewpoint. I hope everyone has a nice rest of their day, week and year. Ergzay (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This apology shows no contrition for attacking living article subjects, including a 12 year old girl, and attacks on a demographic at large re your claim that The entire concept of "trans children", especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality.

This is further evidenced by continuing to insist that it's one sided to not misgender a young girl and that such edits were "appropriate" - I was extremely angered to see the completely one sided take that the article had and made appropriate edits

And this apology seems to sidestep over accusing editors of being biased for being trans. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It also felt like they went out of their way to avoid saying "daughter" or "her" in the "apology" when referring to the guys daughter. Instead chosing to use "his child".

I can't assume good faith after reading all the exchanges above in which I never saw Ergzay once refere to her as "her" hench why I feel this was just a subtle way to avoid correctly gendering LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought I covered that sufficiently but just to be absolutely clear, I also think I was wrong to make that single claim of an editor being biased because they had a trans flag in their signature in the page's talk page. That was wrong. (I didn't do it to editors plural as far as I'm aware and your summary at the top doesn't include any beyond the one.) That person I also apologized to on their talk page at the same time I apologized on your talk page. I should not have said what I said to either of you. Ergzay (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't close topics you're personally invested in. was directed at me hatting your discussion.[46] It was the 8th bullet on my opening post here. What reason am I personally invested if not for the fact I'm trans? There's absolutely no other way to read that but ~"trans editors shouldn't close discussions about trans topics".

And once again, absolutely no contrition for attacking the girl, making claims about her identity that contradict every RS (while refusing to provide any RS yourself), and making libelous and unsourced claims about her mother... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I would aver the basis for the claim is because you often edit in this topic area and have outspoken opinions about it. jp×g🗯️ 07:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

And I would aver that's a nonsensical explanation that goes far out of it's way to avoid the obvious answer - 1) his comment came right after saying another trans editor was highly biased for having trans flags in their signature, 2) editing in a topic area does not make you "personally invested" in it, and 3) the outspoken opinion that bigotry is bad also doesn't make one "personally invested" (unless one is the subject of the bigotry, in which case we are back to square one). Occam's razor applies... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

If I decorated my signature with, say, the Israeli flag, it wouldn’t be beyond the pale (though it wouldn’t be helpful) for someone to say I have a bias of personal investment on topics relating to Israel. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's evident from your responses that it is an area you have a great emotional investment into well beyond your identity. This isn't to say that you aren't allowed to have that emotional investment, however, that a personal investment does exist. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

an area you have a great emotional investment into well beyond your identity - evidence? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Scroll up. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Should've guessed you wouldn't bother providing any. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Assuming you genuinely cannot see it and this is a request for evidence in good faith, you need to be able to identify when you are in an emotional state for the purpose of this collaborative environment. If you would like me to articulate this for you, I will do it in a different venue, such as your talk page, as doing here would be disruptive. I'm not accusing you of misbehavior, nor am I saying you shouldn't edit in this area. As someone else put it, you have very outspoken opinions on this topic that can influence your neutrality. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Since the above thread has been sidetracked, I just want to note for the record that Ergzay's apology above and subsequent comments show absolutely no contrition for for attacked living article subjects and his attacks on a demographic at large such as his claim The entire concept of "trans children", especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality. When pointed out he didn't apologize for any of that above, he continued to evade the subject in replies. This is barely even half an apology. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Kapartem Continuously Disruptive Editing/(almost) Edit War

@Kapartem has been disruptively editing the with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from header on Generation Z to his own opinion for nearly a year now.

Last August a consensus was reached on the talk page. Talk:Generation Z/Archive 6#"with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012" with the user even cosigning it.

Since March 16, 2025 @Kapartem has made four unauthorized edits again breaking the consensus that was reached back in August.

[47] - March 16, 2025

[48] - March 16, 2025

[49] - March 21, 2025 (Which was done after I reverted the page to a version before March 16)

[50] - March 31, 2025 (Changed again after being told to reach a new consensus on the Talk page)

Ongoing discussion is happening on Talk:Generation_Z with a possible Sock puppet account (@User:Mirenism) being used by Kapartem as well.

Thank you. Zillennial (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not edit the page disruptively. Danbloch, who has been contributing to the page for years, stated that the consensus is Gen Z started in the mid to late '90s. Yet, you keep editing it to make it start in the late '90s. What you're doing goes against Wikipedia's neutrality policy, especially since Google's front page shows Gen Z celebrities born in the mid-'90s. Kapartem (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kapartem: there does seem to be some very weak consensus to say "Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012." and so you continually editing away from this when there is dispute isn't acceptable. Please continue discussion and stop trying to change this until you get some new consensus. If you continue to edit war in this way you can expect a block. Any discussion should be based on our policies and guidelines and the lead should summarise what the article says based on reliable sources. What people find when they search Google is largely irrelevant. One things is for sure, whatever our article says it should not be "Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from the mid-to-late 1990s to 2012" which is extremely poorly worded since it's almost complete duplicative. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I've only reverted the article twice following unauthorized header changes. Please start a consensus discussion on Talk:Generation_Z before changing the header. A consensus was previously reached in August 2024. I'd suggest (also) reviewing WP:Code of conduct too. Thank you. Zillennial (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Zillennial, the discussion you link to was a brief discussion between three editors including you and Zillennial. It didn't arise out of an RFC and I wouldn't consider it to be a strong consensus since it was just a short conversation occurring between only 3 editors. I think if you want to arrive at a solid consensus you could refer back to, you should start a formal RFC and let it run its full length. Otherwise, I can see these years being continually contested for the near future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk : Sukavich Rangsitpol

Why the same person kept deleting his achievements

In 1995, Thailand's Minister of Education, Sukavich Rangsitpol, introduced significant reforms aimed at improving the quality of education and contributing to national development in an increasingly interconnected world. The reforms, which began in December 1995, focused on four key areas:

School Reform: Standardizing education quality across all levels, expanding access to education, and improving learning environments. Teacher Reform: Overhauling teacher recruitment, training, and professional development in both public and private schools. Curriculum Reform: Updating curricula and teaching methods to enhance overall education quality. Administrative Reform: Decentralizing decision-making and empowering local educational institutions, with a focus on community and family involvement. In 1997, School-Based Management (SBM) was introduced, decentralizing education management and promoting community involvement, with strong representation from local Provincial Education Councils.

Key Outcomes: Expansion of Schools: By 1997, 40,000 schools had undergone reforms, improving educational access and increasing community involvement. Education for All (EFA): 4.35 million children from underprivileged backgrounds enrolled in schools, helping to establish the Education for All initiative. International Recognition: Thailand received the 1997 ACEID Award from UNESCO for excellence in education. UNESCO Findings: The reforms led to increased education spending, the introduction of English and computer literacy in early grades, and the establishment of free 12-year education for all children, as outlined in Thailand’s 1997 Constitution. Economic Impact: Following the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, education reforms played a key role in economic recovery. From 1998 to 2001, income in northeastern Thailand rose by 46%, and nationwide poverty dropped from 21.3% .

https://books.google.com/books/about/Education_Economics.html?hl=th&id=wGHqEAAAQBAJ

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=wGHqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT92&dq=sukavich+rangsitpol&hl=th&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL4pHqnbmMAxWid2wGHfb_H6IQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=sukavich%20rangsitpol&f=false

ISBN: 9791222095110 Number of pages: 290 Published: December 17, 2023 Format: Electronic book Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable Language: English Author: Fouad Sabry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:89A7:166D:2D01:7500:21C1:AD71 (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. AN/I is a place for reporting user misconduct, and it's not clear who you're reporting here. Can you elaborate? — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Context here, page was semi-protected for 1 year on 21 March 2024. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Boomerang

I just took a look at the page history of Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol, and it turns out that this whole poorly comprehensible, forum-y, spam post thing from the OP is something that has been going on for quite a few years now. Examples of talk page abuse: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5. Some previous IP addresses include 2403:6200:89A7:D762:8D10:E399:F008:FADB, 49.228.64.97 and 171.6.193.137. Alongside an abandoned account, User:สตาร์บัคหัวหิน. User:Paul_012 has been taking care of these abusive edits on that talk page for quite a while now. So it looks like we'll need to WP:BOOMERANG this through rangeblocks, semi-protection of that talk page, or perhaps an edit filter to take care of these types of edits. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

So far there haven't been edits to the article itself, so a renewal of the semi-protection hasn't been necessary yet. Not sure about semi-protecting the talk page, as it seems to be a rather extreme measure, though I would support it if policies allow. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ethnic Assyrian POV-push

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

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

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

• [51]
• [52]
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]
• [56]
• [57]

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

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

• I haven't gotten into the weeds yet to determine whether this discussion is strictly redundant, but it's clearly at least related to the discussion about Wlaak fka User623921 above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yeah, but there are clearly some issues here. This change to Assyrian is clearly not in line with the citation (which says Aramaic). This one says Syriac, not Assyrian. The rest of the OPs diffs are adding Assyrian categories when Assyria is not mentioned in the articles. The user says on their userpage that "My goal on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation is to increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people". Unfortunately, if you're going to follow your "goal" without actually sourcing these things, then that's a problem. Nominating an Aramean magazine for deletion, is typical. This is POV warrior behaviour, and regardless if the rest of their edits are useful, this sort of thing needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Should this be its own section then? Merging with the above conversation could make it get lost. Also, I agree that this is POV-pushing. Conyo14 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  A separate section does seem warranted after all, then. It may nevertheless still be helpful for some participants to refer to the other discussion, or at least to be aware of it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Rosguill, I agree with youthat a separate section for this issue is appropriate. The persistent edit-warring, systematic removal of Syriac/Aramean, and the addition of Assyrian without proper sourcing clearly show that Surayeproject3 is pursuing an agenda in violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality principles.

  As Black Kite correctly also pointed out, there are multiple instances where this user has made edits that do not align with the cited sources. Adding Assyrian categories to articles where Assyria is not even mentioned, as well as nominating an Aramean publication for deletion, demonstrates a consistent pattern of POV-pushing.

  Wikipedia has clear policies that are being violated here and the user at least violates 4 of them, namely:

  • WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view) – Surayeproject3 is making unilateral changes without neutral justification.
  • WP:OR (No original research) – The user introduces claims that are not supported by reliable sources.
  • WP:DISRUPT (Disruptive editing) – The persistent edits create conflicts and edit wars without any attempt at discussion.
  • WP:NOTADVOCATE – Wikipedia is not a platform for activism or the promotion of a particular ethnic or political perspective. The user explicitly states on their user page that their goal is to increase Assyrian visibility, which confirms their lack of neutrality.

  Given these repeated violations, a block or at the very least a topic ban on this subject seems to be the appropriate action. The pattern of recurring vandalism shortly after my edits is also suspicious and should be further investigated. Kivercik (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like I'm going to have to write another wall of text with linked diffs, but oh well. Anyways, I highly suggest that everyone involved read through the other ANI that involves this issue [58], as it contains a lot of points that are related to this discussion especially since Kivercik was indirectly involved with the content dispute portion. For much needed context, the community of Syriac Christians who call themselves "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Syriac", or "Aramean" are currently in a naming dispute regarding what is the most appropriate name to call themselves, but they are all recognized to be the same people. Throughout the history of English Wikipedia, there have been previous and similar arguments related to the naming dispute, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Assyrian is the default that reflects the community, as well as their history and origins. Additionally, please note that "Syriac people" default redirects to the page for Assyrians, and the Arameans page is dedicated to the ancient Arameans and not the modern Aramean identity (this is a copy+paste from above but it details basically what is involved here). The ANI dispute above noted that a solution to the issues of content regarding the dispute would be to edit other articles that discuss Assyrians/Arameans to offer better inclusion, but as of now this has not been started (I personally would like to in the near future, though). For now, let me get into the points of this new ANI.

  On March 20th and earlier today, Kivercik linked several diffs to articles where he proposes I was pushing a certain POV and causing disruption and edit-warring. As a result, I have personally went ahead and manually expanded most of (if not all of) them with new information from pre-added sources as well as new sources, while adding or modifying content to better align with them.

  Of the articles mentioned, here are the ones that I have edited.

  • The user who was the primary subject of the previous ANI, Wlaak, put most of the same diffs that Kivercik linked on March 20th, of which he linked the following articles: Gütersloh, Isa Kahraman, Syrians in Sweden, Al-Jazira (caliphal province), Syria, Place name changes in Turkey, Haberli, İdil, Öğündük, İdil, Ethnic groups in Europe, Örebro school shooting, Shamoun Hanne Haydo, Ignatius Aphrem II, Södertälje mafia, and the naming of Sayfo/Assyrian genocide. I have went over my reasoning for all these articles and my edits on them in detail above, so please be sure to read through it and potentially consider looking through the diffs too (though I understand it may be a lot). Please note that I may not have reviewed all of the articles to expand them or change/add content.
  • I'm honestly at a loss for words that a disambiguation page is being used in an argument like this, but I'll address it here. I admit that previously, I made an edit on the WCA disambiguation page that had the Assyrian name, however I recently defaulted back on this and removed it while adding more entries to the page. The user Wlaak created a disruption over the inclusion of the label "Syriac", since it was included in the name of the organization and what I can infer to be his arguments that Syriac corresponds to Aramean. However, I earlier today added the organization to the WCAS (disambiguation) page which includes this label, so this should serve as a firm compromise.
  • Typically, articles on villages in southeastern Turkey that have a history with the Syriac churches are categorized under "Historic Assyrian communities in Turkey", and I did the same on Düzgeçit, Midyat. However, after reviewing the available sources on the village, I could find no mention of Assyrians/Syriacs, just Mhallami and population data. Seeing this, I have removed the category from the page.
  • In the article Midyat Guest House, the edits I made were renaming the page to add capitalization, and adding Assyrian categories. I expanded this article as well but there aren't many available sources for it; though the article mentioned an Aramean family with the last name Shabo, none of the sources directly used the Aramean label, only one with "Suryani/Suryaniler". This was also a point of contention in the previous ANI, but the word can be used to mean both Assyrian and Syriac, so I have included both labels in the article and have kept the categories.
  • For the article Deq (tattoo), I added the Assyrian culture category and WikiProject Assyria assessment since the article mentioned Syriacs (noting above that "Syriac people" redirects to the Assyrian people article). After Kivercik's post, I went ahead and expanded the article with content from the existing sources and new sources, and in relation to this dispute, I mostly found only "Suryani/Suryaniler". However, please note that this source [59] has a quote reading "Siverek lost its importance while Turkish ethnic groups and Suryani (Assyrian) people left the area", which affirms the connection between the two labels.
  • I have not reviewed the article for Mike Josef, but I did not initially see the "Aramaic Christian" label in the source linked for his ethnicity so this was an oversight on my part. I will look for more sources regarding him and edit the article soon.

  Kivercik is making the claim that I am systematically replacing Syriac/Aramean with Assyrian without discussion. On none of these articles were there any history of editing that could be considered edit-warring; according to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, examples of such involve tenditious editing and inability to satisfy verifiability, engage in consensus building, or take note of community input. However, the edits that Kivercik linked did not engage in any form of disruptive editing or Wikipedia:Edit warring aside from the WCA (disambiguation) from Wlaak's end. Kivercik is also stating that I am vandalizing the articles that he edits shortly after; however, looking through Wikipedia:Vandalism, there is no form of vandalism that I can correlate with my edits that would allow them to be classified as such. Instead, these were one-off instances of editing, and on most of these articles linked above, having the new sources and information added shows limited to no presence of the Aramean label, while Assyrian and Syriac are more frequent. Additionally, though he claims this to be a highly contested issue and I have refused to engage in discussions, Kivercik has never attempted to create discussions on the talk pages surrounding the content of these articles to affirm a consensus that could be agreed upon in their writing, instead just jumping straight into the talk page posts and ANI. I have been involved with discussions and negotiations regarding the content of these articles with the other user above, which can be seen on some of their talk pages (though I blanked the talk page for WCA (disambiguation) recently). Kivercik's claims of continuous edit warring are inaccurate, and my recent edits now fall more in line with the issue of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:OR by adding new sources and content (both primary and secondary).

  It's also important to mention that Kivercik isn't exactly innocent in his own path of editing as he has previously been the point of concern in some instances. Allow me to detail:

  • Many times now Kivercik has appeared to employ the use of large language models/AI when drafting responses or blocks of text regarding articles in talk pages or elsewhere. This can be seen on his talk page [60], in several replies on the talk page for Arameans [61][62][63][64][65], and in his above replies. In a previous sockpuppet investigation against Kivercik (which by the way, he was investigated for being a sockpuppet), he also seemed to exhibit these AI tendencies, which I noted in the linked post [66]. It's clear that the use of AI is not allowed on the site, yet Kivercik has continuously appeared to have used it in his comments.
  • Kivercik is primarily accusing me of having an Assyrian POV, however who is to say that he doesn't have his own POV for an Aramean identity? He has already previously advocated for a separate article discussing Aramean identity, not to mention he edits on the Dutch Wikipedia using the Aramean label [67]. His account is still fairly new, but he had a gap in editing between January on the article for Salwan Momika until March 17th, when he started to contribute on the talk page for Arameans to support the argument for a separate article. The argument that Kivercik has his own inherent POV cannot be discredited in this discussion when it is apparent from his previous editing history.
  • Above I mentioned that Kivercik was investigated for sockpuppetry, but I added my points because I had reason to investigate potential meatpuppetry as well, which can be seen on the respective link. Most recently, Wlaak created a draft for an Aramean people article, of which the second edit was a reinsertion by Kivercik of a previous fork that was made by several blocked accounts [68][69][70]. The sock investigation also notes several edits on other articles which Kivercik restored that were previously made by blocked accounts, which not only bolsters the argument of a POV, but also shows a level of disruptive editing as well.

  Before I conclude, this discussion is certainly linked to the above with the other user (Wlaak) since it is about the same topic. Therefore, I invite other users who have participated in that discussion (@Shmayo @Robert McClenon @Mugsalot @Asilvering) to voice their opinions about the conduct and content issues present. It is only my intention to contribute positively to Wikipedia as I have done up to the present. This may unfortunately be a point of contention for a while, but Kivercik is prematurely accusing me and overexaggerating allegations of edit-warring, POV pushing, and violating other Wikipedia guidelines while neglecting recent developments in relation to this topic and having a POV of his own.

  By the way @Black Kite, I messaged one of the admins of the previous discussion privately on Discord with some concerns I had about the ANI case, and I figured I should message you about it as well since you're an admin and it is relevant to the discussion. I noticed on your talk page that you have email open, mind if I send you everything? Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  TL;DR Kivercik is accusing me of POV-editing, edit warring and vandalism when the edit history of the articles he links, as well as the sources I've included from editing them, not only show no signs of editing struggles but also affirm my previous edits by including new and reliable sources. Reviewing the pages for Wikipedia's guidelines that he linked also don't seem to affirm any of the points that he's made. Kivercik claims that I am replacing "Syriac/Aramean" with "Assyrian" systematically without discussion, but this hasn't been the case with other users and Kivercik himself hasn't previously made any attempts to engage in such discussions. Kivercik's actions on Wikipedia are also suspicious on their own right, including a potential use of AI, his own POV for an Aramean identity, and restoring edits that were previously made by blocked accounts Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Kivercik care to say anything on the AI accusation? I don't see any correlated use of AI, but they should advocate on that. However, Surayeproject3, why didn't you take action to the six points you made in your essay about checking the sources thoroughly before adding the categories/changing the races? Surely you'd know by now this is a very contentious subject that you're editing. Conyo14 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Surayeproject3, this is ridiculously long, I don't think editors are going to spend the time to read this long, long statement. Maybe you didn't have to address every single aspect of this dispute in one statement. Maybe hat most of this and offer a concise version of the most important points? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: They did: diff - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that was a continuation, I didn't recognize it as a summary. But by the time I got to the end of the statement, I was just skimming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think its quite funny actually that I'm being accused of using AI. Nah, this is 100% human rambling, no robots involved. But hey, if anything sounds too polished, I’ll take it as a compliment I think :) Kivercik (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite, @Rosguill, this DRV came up in the other ANI thread and is a pretty succinct look at the general problem, if you need one. -- asilvering (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Aspersions by Kivercik against Surayeproject3

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

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

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

To clarify the situation, prior to March 20th, I had already posted a warning on Surayeproject3's user talk page, here, including the relevant diffs to highlight my concerns regarding the edits I observed. After March 20th, I provided additional diffs following the warning, some of which I have already posted here on the ANI page, please take a look at them again.

• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• [76] (On the 3th of April, Surayeproject3 removes a just edited page by me referring to the people (as stated in the source) as Syriacs, only two days later Surayeproject3 removes the Syriac term once again and replaces it with Assyrian)
• [77] (Once again removed Aramean and replaced it with Assyrian/Syriac and removed Aramean architecture and replaced it with Turkish architecture YESTERDAY 4th of April)

I believe it is crucial that immediate sanctions be applied to address Surayeproject3's editing behavior in order to safeguard the integrity of Wikipedia’s guidelines! Kivercik (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych

• Roman Shukhevych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manyareasexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I started making some edits to Roman Shukhevych after waiting a long time after a previous contentious discussion with Manyareasexpert. My edits directly cited publicly available sources, with quotes and page numbers often included. [78], [79], [80] Many of my edits have now been jumbled and reverted. I'd normally be okay with trying to resolve this via the BRD cycle, but manyareasexpert's behavior and discussion style has been particularly grating and disruptive.

First, he is repeatedly asking me to read these directly cited sources for him. The talk page is clogged with walls of texts directly from the sources because I am doing his wikipedia homework for him. Almost all of these sources are free to the public. The reason I believe he is not reading the sources is that his objections keep shifting when presented with the text of the source. First, it was that not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres,[81] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [82] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[83] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [84] He didn't remove the sources, so he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it. So he just stuck my content near the bottom of the page [85] and restored his preferred wording. He broke citations while doing so. I am not sure how to engage with someone who repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits.

Secondly, I am deeply concerned he is engaging in Holocaust revisionism. [86] He asked to me to view a uncontested historical fact about the Holocaust (the shooting of Jews by members of Roman's battalion) with skepticism. Additionally, the source he provided for his claims, on page 364, says that the Battalion engaged in killings to on "take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians" alleging, on page 363, that "the indisputable fact is that in Ukraine, over the centuries, a significant part of Jews collaborated with the enslavers of the indigenous population" [87] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [88], claiming they "had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." I sincerely hope this is a lost in translation kind of thing.

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

Apologies, the references for the diffs are messed up. Fixed. isa.p (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I should note that this isn't the first time within the past month that MAE's conduct related to this sort of topic has come up - scroll down here to just above the subsection break and from then on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It's victimblaming, where the opponent adds WP:OR and blames the opponent for fixing it.

he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it - you should not reach the conclusion, it's WP:OR - On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

It's actually the opponent who, responding to a direct request to provide a quote from the source they supplied Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500-Carlp941-20250402212300 , responds with the wall of text Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500 from different other sources, combined with WP:PA and accusations of "wikihounding" and one quote from the source in question, which do not support their wording.

It's actually the opponent who provides misleading claims that "The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative" Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250403175100-Manyareasexpert-20250403162400, which is also factually wrong, given that "Neither Stepan Bandera or the OUN are a symbols of the current Ukrainian government and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not presenting Bandera or other OUN members as national heroes,[1] preferring to not talk about Bandera.[2]" - Commemoration of Stepan Bandera .

It's the opponent who returns [89] misleading "records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia" , deleting the source which challenges the sentence, and supplying source which do not confirms the sentence, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

content objections aside, your fellow wikipedia editors are not your "opponents." I am really concerned about your approach to editing if this is how you see it. isa.p (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be wp:battleground. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The one who disagrees is the opponent, no? anyway, if editors are protesting, will use something different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not opponents. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Having a disagreement does not make an opponent. We're all here to make an encyclopedia. Why would you think you have a rivalry? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

In some languages, an opponent is the one who disagrees, not a rival. Anyway, duly noted, will use something different. Now, let's attend more serious issues of original research and misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources and possible PA raised above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The only personal attack I'm seeing is you accusing them of victimblaming. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you see why it is so hard to engage with you? My warning of wikihounding was interpreted as a personal attack - you pinged me for two discussions on the same page, I was warning you to not continue that behavior.

On your second point, the goal posts have shifted again. Also, citing other articles on Wikipedia to make your point, especially ones you have contributed significantly [90][91][92] to, is poor form. Anywho, the page is about Roman and includes references to sources talking about a nationalist obsfucation of history. It is not about Zelenskyy's policy towards statues of Stepan Bandera and what he alone says about the OUN. You're not even objecting to my sourcing anymore, this is a red herring.

In re: Vinnytsia, I was trying to follow the BRD cycle, but given that the original source was engaging in obscene holocaust revisionism and was not in English, I had to change tack. I used a high quality english source that referenced the same primary document but didn't include a tirade about Jews oppressing Ukrainians. I then restored the original language. I did my best to follow Wikipedia policy. I certainly did not misrepresent the Ukrainian language source when removing it - I quoted it directly in my justification.

Lastly, you have not addressed my concern of Holocaust revisionism, that is troubling. isa.p (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You don't get to say things like Now, let's attend more serious issues, especially when this thread was started about you. Everybody's conduct involved is open to discussion, yes. But Insanityclown1 is right - the only PA here was by you, and the concerns that arose about your editing in the last ANI you participated in (linked above) are being observed here too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Repeated wikihounding actions by User:Remsense

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

---

I recently made an edit to the article Korean War correcting some misleading information in the article. However, Remsense (talk · contribs), who has previously reverted my edits on other pages over the past months and recently engaged in wikihounding by posting on a thread on my talk page, reverted it again; I believe this to be another act of wikihounding. I also previously tried to make an edit to the article that would justify my other edits per their version of the rules, however they reverted it on the grounds that it was a "passing mention"; however, I believe that this is antagonizing behavior on the user's part. - HawkNightingale175 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are you opening multiple ANI threads? Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I reckon at least partly because they are a longstanding editor who has been editing on this site for many years and do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing. Remsense ‥ 论 03:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd merge this with the other one, but frankly I don't know how and I'm to busy with off wiki activities and just generally tired from being in school 4 days a week that I can't be bothered to learn how to. Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Did they actually say that somewhere? Because if they did that is not on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

See above. Remsense ‥ 论 03:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

[93] full context. Moxy🍁 03:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Caste-based Disruptive Editing by SENA$100pati

SENA$100pati is persistently inserting "Brahmin" term into articles. The additions into articles Lead section are either unsourced or sourced via self-published sites.

• Pushyamitra Shunga – diff

→ Added "Brahmin" caste claim citing wiki link itself as the source.

• Gautamiputra Satakarni – diff

→ Added "Brahmin" label using a self-published website.

• Vashishtiputra Satakarni – diff

→ Repeated same caste addition again via self-published source.

• Shashanka – diff

→ Inserted “Kulin Brahmin” identity without any sourcing.

• Mayurasharma – diff

→ Inserted “Brahmin” identity, unsourced.

• Lakshmeshwar Singh – diff

→ Added “Maithil Brahmin” caste, unsourced.

• Rameshwar Singh – diff

→ Same as above – inserted “Maithil Brahmin”, unsourced.

• Kanva dynasty – diff

→ Claimed it was a “Brahmin dynasty”, no scholarly source cited.

• Shunga Empire – diff

→ Added “North Indian Brahmin” identity to the empire citing self published source.

This user needs to be stopped from making further caste-related edits. I request an immediate Caste-related Tban, or Temporary block for repeated sourcing and neutrality violations. NXcrypto Message 03:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@NXcrypto: Sanctions would be be pre-mature at this stage since the editor's (undoubtedly flawed) edits may well be noob errors by someone unfamiliar with wikipedia's sourcing and content policies. Note that all these edits were made in a single burst two days back before they received any notice or warnings about the problems with the edits. I'll drop them another note. Let's see if they still continue in this vein and then re-assess. Abecedare (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Legal threat by DaveAndersonSonyMusic

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

At the article, 30 for 30 (song) this new user is linking an article that had nothing to do with the song or artists. [94]. They have then posted legal threats to their talk page. [95] and [96].

I believe this might be an attempt to get an unrelated artist into the article. See ip edits [97] and [98]. Knitsey (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This is the reference they posted, [99]] Knitsey (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Block for legal threats, according to the message in the diffs they are contact with the foundation so the foundation can decide what to do with it. I will note for the record that if - and that is a big if - this account is unblocked they are going to need to post a coi and paid editing disclosure on their user page because the diffs claim the man works for the company in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @TomStar81. Knitsey (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The Article in Question

According to Washingtonian's article "The Still-Confusing Case of Drake’s Non-Appearance in DC Last Week":

DJ Prince presents himself as a Suitland-raised music producer who claims—falsely, according to a Warner Media Group spokesperson, which says he has no affiliation to OVO Sound—to have signed to Drake’s label last year. The spokesperson says Warner Media Group’s legal team has sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to this individual, whom the company says has distributed fake press releases and created fake email addresses to connect himself to Drake and the label.

This is probably more of the same. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I did do a search before reverting but that link didn't come up, it can be a bit naff for searches in the UK. I looked at the usual music release sites and didn't see anything. That coupled with the ip edits plus Sony, going straight for a legal threat? Knitsey (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Apparently DJ Prince managed to briefly fool Vulture too. The original version of the Vulture story that's cited in the Hiphopdx.com link had a paragraph about how DJ Prince was the tour's DJ. The current version now says: CORRECTION: An older version of this story included incorrect information on the tour’s delay. The information has since been removed. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Oph, that's a little embarrassing. I must say, if little old Wikipedia editors can spot check a fake in less than a minute, it makes me wonder what sort of due diligence the completed for the article.

Also, it has been going on for 2+ years? Knitsey (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's been going on for at least five years. These are some other accounts of his:

• July 2020 to August 2021 – 65.213.247.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• March 2021 – 2601:140:8D80:F20:4CAD:14D4:560E:8BC5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• June 2021 – CJGibsonOVO (talk · contribs)
• June 2023 – 2601:14D:4A80:7D90:5968:1B1A:2A4D:C754 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• June 2023 – 2601:14D:4A80:7D90:4D6E:2BE9:D88F:B572 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

In addition to the ones already blocked by NinjaRobotPirate:

• March 2025 – 2600:1700:7b18:c40:bd7e:ace5:25a9:e6da (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• April 2025 – 2600:1700:7b18:c40:9f1:4ad3:f246:89aa (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I found these just through an insource:"DJ Prince" search, which only covers pages currently containing the text. There are probably many more instances that won't show up since they've already been reverted/removed. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps some semi-protection for the article will help? If this has been an ongoing issue forcing would be contributors to edit could help us establish if we are dealing with an SPI issue here or if it’s just one of those things of confidence things that’ll disappear once they can’t do it anymore. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Misuse of talk page

The IP address Special:Contributions/62.20.62.209 is misusing their talk page access while blocked. Please revoke it. Thanks. FlutterDash344 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done and extended the block on this extremely long-term vandal for another two years. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Given the number of simple TPA revoke requests that ANI seems to be getting, would it be worth having a noticeboard similar to AIV for that? QwertyForest (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Two IP addresses making disruptive or frivolous changes

These two IP addresses need to be assessed on whether they are being used (perhaps by students?) to make disruptive comments on articles. I will try and also put notices on their talk pages if they have them. I have deleted their edits as they were unreferenced and "jokey" edits. 86.19.16.185 on [of feminists] 2 April 2025, inserted the name of someone in 21st century table, who is not known as a feminist and it had no link or reference. 203.32.27.143 onSt Paul's Cathedral, Sale 20 March 2025, wrote two epithets before the name of a Dean LPascal (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, LPascal, it helps if you provide links to the accounts you are reporting and also to the diffs/edits that you are concerned about, not just a link to the articles. Otherwise, editors have to cut and paste and most are likely not to bother with this and move on to other editing activities. You want to make it as simple as possible to encourage editors/admins to spend a few minutes looking into your complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. I did want to provide more detail but I have difficulty using Edit Source which was the only option given to me to report this, then I had an editing conflict so it took me quite some time to write just that para and get it published. I had to leave some mistakes in there because I couldn't work out how to fix them in edit source rather than Visual. I have deleted the two messed up edits made from these accounts and put a message on the talk pages but I wanted someone more experienced to look at these IP addresses and their history of silly edits. Here's some links to their contributions if anyone wants to check them out.

Special:Contributions/203.32.27.143

User talk:203.32.27.143

Special:Contributions/86.19.16.185 [[100]]

LPascal (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Content blanking

Wayn12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wayn's been here for ore than a decade, yet recent edits include such basic enwiki flagrations as this clearly motivated removal, [101] (the user's previously also gotten in trouble for shenanigans at race-related categories) and this POV driven removal [102] in a sanctioned topic space. Both of these without any edit summary (this behaviour [inexplicable blanking of content without consensus that they probably didn't like] goes quite a while back if we go by the editing history).

Thought of leaving a mere warning at the user Talk but see that there have already quite a few warnings multiple times over disruption and edit warring among other things. Since the user's been here for quite some time now and has even gotten in trouble for socking; bringing to ANI. Gotitbro (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Wayn's been here for ore than a decade – Sounds like he's overdue to WP:STOPDIGGING. EEng 11:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Whats worse is they marked the POV driven content removal at Randy Fine as a minor edit while removing 11,000 bytes worth of sourced content. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just to point out that Wayn12 is not WP:ECP (having only 419 edits) and therefore shouldn't be editing anything in the ARBPIA area anyway. But yeah, whitewashing the article of a seriously nasty piece of work like Fine is not good (and does fall under PIA, if you look at what he removed). Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Given them a WP:CT/A-I notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1273428203 is pretty egregious. + editing to add the follow edits by Wayn12 and an IP following in the same vein. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Urgent Appeal for Review of Unfair Page Deletion & Administrator Misuse

Urgent Appeal for Review of Unfair Page Deletion & Administrator Misuse

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to formally appeal the unjust deletion of our organization’s Wikipedia page and to report concerns about potential administrator misconduct.

It has come to our attention that Wikipedia user Hootan Dolati, who serves as the Chief of the Media Commission for Iran National Front (5th Council), has been misusing his administrative privileges to unfairly delete pages related to competing branches of the Iran National Front, such as the International Branch under the leadership of Siavash Soltani. Similarly, (Redacted) (username: Mehrnegar) has also engaged in biased deletions.

These actions appear to be politically motivated, aimed at strengthening one faction of the Iran National Front while suppressing the presence of other branches on Wikipedia. These facts can be easily verified through publicly available sources on the web.

Request for Fair Review

We respectfully request:

1. Restoration and fair review of our deleted page based on Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and independent sources.

2. Investigation into potential bias and misuse of administrative tools by Hootan Dolati and (Redacted).

3. Neutral administrators to oversee this case and prevent further politically motivated deletions.

Our organization is committed to Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality, fairness, and verifiability. We seek a fair resolution and guidance on how to prevent such issues in the future.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response.

Best regards,

Public Relations Iran National Front — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.132.198 (talk • contribs) 10:47, April 4, 2025 (UTC)

There is no such user as "Hootan Dolati". Is this issue related to the English Wikipedia or the Farsi Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I considered removing this as a possible WP:OUTING violation but considering the only named account User:Mehrnegar exists but has no edits on the Farsi wikipedia, I guess it's not really an issue. As hinted at by 331dot, if this relates to something on the Farsi wikipedia, it's not something we can deal with here. Also even if it did relate to something going on at the English wikipedia, unless whoever you are accusing has connected their account to the people you're naming above, it's not something that can be discussed publicly, it would need to be dealt with privately either by WP:ARBCOM or WP:COIVRT. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It's attempted outing, which imo should be treated the same DarmaniLink (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It's outright outing. It may be on Farsi Wikipedia, but it's still outing on Wikimedia and I've revdel'd the name connected to the account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• BTW, we have an article Hootan Dolati. Checking the history of this article does find the user 85 is probably referring to, but this editor has barely any edits on en, affirming it's unlikely to be an issue we can deal with on the English wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  • There is a single-purpose-account on fa: (fa:Special:Contributions/Parande.azad) whose block log, edit history, and appearance on the Administrators' noticeboard over there last week will make everything clear. Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Cradleofcivilization disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

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

---

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

This user appears to have been engaged in two campaigns. The first was that they wanted to create an article on Hostile government takeover, a song. This resulted in several moves, to move the draft into article space and to change the capitalization of the title, and at least one move to draftify the article. They then mistakenly filed a Move Review, which was the wrong forum, but seems to have been a good-faith effort. The Move Review was procedurally closed, but brought their efforts to my attention. There is now a deletion discussion of the article, which is a right forum to decide the content issue of whether the song should be the subject of an article.

I then discovered the second issue, which seems to be conduct, on their talk page, which shows that they created 11 pages with nonsense titles created by banging on the keyboard. I asked them on their user talk page,User talk:Cradleofcivilization, whether they were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and instead of answering my question, they have ranted about the song issue, which will be decided by the AFD. I think that this user is not here to be constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to add that after trying to discuss with User:Cradleofcivilization, they have been giving almost nonsensical answers for their actions like if I kept my cool which I'll do from now on. I could of simply no index the original page and wait for the new page to become the canonical page and I was originally going to be given a fair shake now your just falling for propaganda[103] in response to asking why they created 11 keyboard smashing pages. After reading this I agree with Robert McClenon in that it appears they are just doing this to prove some kind of point. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 19:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

okay youre getting the order of events wrong. I never disrupted wikipedia to make a point the nonsense tittles were part of the original effort to change the title from Hostile Government Takeover back to it's original name Hostile government takeover to avoid redirects. this is campaign to defame me that has been occuring ever since I was rightly blocked by a user for accidentally writing the nonsense titles as a way of changing the page from Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover.

Essentially I tried to change Hostile government takeover the page that was redirected to Hostile Government Takeover when cambridgebayweather changed it to sentencecase I tried to change it back to Hostile government takeover. in order to do that I tried changing Hostile government takeover to a nonsense tittle since at the time I believed I didn't want to replace anyone's page. I didn't know that was not possible. I then tried to change Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover but repeatedly failed. I should have used noindex on the original page and then let the new page populate in google search results. It would have taken 2 days but everything that happened simply isn't worth it.

ToadetteEdit 8 days ago and I'm not entirely sure why you think this was the part that was in good faith. Youre pretty selective on everything. I believed ToadetteEdit had approved my page. my page did briefly show up in the api before cambridgebayweather changed it to sentencecase. that's not why I believed it was approved. I did geta notification at the time it happened. However there is no proof now.

Anyway essentially LettersandNumbers used the opportunity caused by my accidental vandalism to dratify the page. I believed the page was orginally approved so I filed a move review.

the incident that Robert McClenon doesn't understand because this subject is quite complex is that the user Cactus renamed a page in articles of deletion draft in order to get it sent to miscellany for deletion. I said I kept my cool when the user vandalized the page. it would have been very stupid to even look at the page. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I was already punished for changing Hostile government takeover to nonsense titles so I could change Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover. I am glad I was blocked at the time because I needed to stop doing what I was doing. However lots of people have used this as opportunity to attack me and then use personal attacks as a way of getting rid of the Hostile Government Takeover page. All I really want is to get it on Wikipedia and does meet notability requirements. However please read the first message as that perfectly explains the incident. this message unfortunately does not do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears according to the seccond accusation that hostile government takeover got moved to a talk page or something and it's page history essentially got tampered with causing me to be accused of something I was already punished for. but honestly I don't know anything about nonsense characters on a talk page. In the original incident I originally tried to change the page Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover.

I was already punished for changing Hostile government takeover to nonsense titles so I could change Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover. I am glad I was blocked at the time because I needed to stop doing what I was doing. However lots of people have used this as opportunity to attack me and then use personal attacks as a way of getting rid of the Hostile Government Takeover page. All I really want is to get it on Wikipedia and does meet notability requirements. However please read the first message as that perfectly explains the incident. this message unfortunately does not do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No one is punishing you. You were blocked to stop you doing silly stuff which was harming Wikipedia not to punish you. In the future, if you're confused or unsure how to do something please seek help from more experienced editors at WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse rather than just doing silly stuff to try and achieve what you want. Sometimes what you want may not be appropriate anyway. The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hostile government takeover is not to punish you, it's because editors don't think the subject is notable. There's a chance the subject is notable and it's simply that the sources haven't been found, if you'd left the article in draft space and allowed editors more experienced with creating articles to assess it they could have pointed out the problems for you without the risk of the article being deleted but since you were so impatient to move the article to main space, ultimately editors can only assess the current article and the sources you've already presented and that you and them uncover during the AfD. Again this isn't to punish you, it's just the natural result of you an inexperienced editor shortcircuiting the AfC process instead of using the process intended to help you develop an article which would hopefully survive AfD. IMO your best bet if you still feel you can developed an article is to propose in the AfD that the article is moved back to draftspace and promise it will not be moved it out yourself and instead allow the AfC process to proceed normally. (If someone else decides to move it out without going through AfC there's not much you can do, but at least you shouldn't be the cause.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Based on the comments above it seems to me that this might be a WP:CIR issue. I don't think the user is attempting to do anything nefarious but they are seemingly unable to constructively edit. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  If I am reading Cradleofcivilization's explanation correctly, then they have answered that they were not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They were, for some bizarre reason, creating the files with nonsense names either to try to change the capitalization of Hostile government takeover or as an experiment in changing capitaliization. That was a very silly idea, because if they did not know how to change capitalization by moving an article, they should have asked for an explanation at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. If they were experimenting with capitalization or trying to change capitalization by creating nonsense titles, then they were being cluelessly disruptive. I agree with Esolo5002. Their explanation is informative because it shows a competency issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Indeffed given their continued disruptive editing and, most recently, bludgeoning of the AFD. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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

62.28.10.10 copyvio pattern in comics related articles

• 62.28.10.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

IP editor has a pattern of WP:COPYVIO - first time warning in 2023 along with RDVLs in March 2022, April 2022, May 2023, June 2023 & September 2023. In terms of recent 2025 edits, I removed a copyright violation at Krakoa (copied from a CBR article) & when adding a warning, noticed the IP editor had been previously warned for copyvio at Jean Grey in March 2025 (edit was RVDL). Spot checked a few more recent edits & had to tag the 3 comics articles with copyvio issues (Lilandra Neramani, Cyttorak, Power ring (DC Comics)); I've added a request for a contributor copyright investigation since the IP editor has been editing comics articles since 2019. IP editor does not interact with talk pages (including their own) & has not acknowledged the various copyright violation notices. Not sure how else to get their attention about this issue beyond blocking them. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Shared IP 204.116.211.52 mostly vandalism and unconstructive edits

• 204.116.211.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Recent edits are mostly obvious vandalism, or else AGF unconstructive edits. Talk page indicates that is the IP address of a high school. That scans based on the edit history. Referring to administrators for your attention. For any future users of this IP who may be contributing positively to wikipedia, perhaps they would be better off creating an account! All the best, --Tomatoswoop (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

In all of 2025, this IP has only made 3 edits, so this doesn't qualify as an urgent problem that calls for sanctions. As far as encouraging users at this IP address to create their own registered account, I think you can leave a message stating this suggestion if there isn't already one present on the User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Eminİskandarli; persistent personal attacks, WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

1. 11:42, 8 March 2025 shut up
2. 19:17, 1 April 2025 It seems you're used to lying
3. 13:44, 4 April 2025 I don't take you seriously, sir.
4. 13:47, 4 April 2025 But you will not be able to understand this because you plan to destroy the work of others and delete their pages
5. 14:10, 4 April 2025 Even though I'm telling the truth, a liar is being listened to just because he has rewards.
6. 14:25, 4 April 2025 You are the last person who will teach me wisdom. You can shut up. (comment made in response for me asking them to adhere to our policies ("wisdom") WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS.
7. 14:25, 4 April 2025 I said I don't take it seriously. Another comment in response to being asked to adhere to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA.
8. 14:31, 4 April 2025 😂🤣😄😀 Laughing emoji in response to receiving their last warning for their constant attacks, very mature.

This just their behaviour. I could also get into their disruptive edits; them disregarding WP:NOTABLE so they can score easy victories or rather "points" for the faction they fancy. But I guess that is not going to be needed. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, not caring about the policies of this site at all, hurling abuse as they please. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Having gone through the diffs, i am inclined to agree with your interpretation of events, and think that at minimum a short block should be applied to @Eminİskandarli so that they can take some time to think about how they treat other members of the project. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

[104] their reply to the ANI notice sums up why they are WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk page misuse

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

---

Special:Contributions/103.247.19.87 is misusing their talk page access while blocked. Please revoke it. Thank you. FlutterDash344 (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

TP revoked. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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

IP user 2600:1702:5B81:6B00:0:0:0:0/64 lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia

2600:1702:5B81:6B00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Wikipedia admins. I am reporting the IP /64 range above due to lacking the competence in english to edit the English Wikipedia. Before this AN/I post, a week ago I posted a stern handwritten warning over at one of the previous IP's talk pages, suggesting them to edit the Wikipedia of their native language instead and that they could face a block from editing if they continued their nonsensical, incomprehensible edits. And here we are today, these are the following next edits they've made since that message:

• diff 1 on 18:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC): restoring the same old incredibly poorly written and unsourced edit on the Henry Tingle Wilde article that they've been attempting to make in the previous several weeks (example 1, example 2, example 3). This edit resulted in that article being semi-protected for a month.
• diff 2 on 15:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC): after the semi-protection of the Henry Tingle Wilde article, the IP posts an edit request on its talk page with no content whatsoever at all.

Yes, I know it's been four days since the last time this IP made an edit. Buuut, I had been busy with other things in life the prior several days, and so didn't really have the time to keep regularly monitoring this IP user. Hence the late report.

However though, I don't really have a doubt that they'll come back within the next several days, either to make nonsensical edits to other articles, or to do more so-called "edit requests" like this. So, I am suggesting that this competence-lacking IP user be blocked for a long-term period (e.g. 1 month) to stop wasting other peoples' time. Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems like this editor is fixated on that one article. Since it’s protected for a month, don’t see much risk of disruption for a while. There are good edits in the past on that same IP, so I’d leave it be until and unless disruption recurs. Might be a different person on that range when protection ceases. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and slow edit warring against consensus

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

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

Her edit history shows an established editing pattern of WP:REFCLUTTER on a number of articles, and in this case on Harry Potter, Wound theology objected to it.

Discussion ensued and determined it to be a combination of WP:OVERCITE, WP:SYNTH, and improper use of WP:PRIMARY sources. Consensus seemed clear early on, and after Wound theology removed the edit in question, she immediately reverted back to her preferred state, claiming consensus wasn't clear, and proceeded to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. This was reverted to the consensus version,[105] which she then proceeded to revert a number of times: [106][107][108], possibly [109] She was warned both via user talk and edit summary not to edit war. So she waited a day and has now reinserted previously objected to primary sources which appears to be trying to force her original edits against objections while avoiding 3RR.[110]

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

Further review of past incidents shows that abusing the 3RR brightline may be a pattern[111] ButlerBlog (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I waited a day to see if there would be further reply to my comments and there wasn't. The most recent version is significantly different than the earlier version to address concerns. There should no longer be any WPSynth concern and the primary sources are used to support pure statement of facts as is permitted and are also supported by the analysis line in the subsequent sentence . In the most earlier recent version there was also a statement supported by six different references and it is not more now. newsjunkie (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Also my earlier revision before the most recent edit was also an attempt to address the concerns by rewriting without the word "evolved" and already should no longer have had any WPSynth concerns. newsjunkie (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Title warrior and WP:OWN

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

---

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

For WP:OWN see [112] [113] [114] [115] [116]. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

For edit-warring, see [117], [118] [119] [120] [121]. Borgenland (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a topic or temporary block would be appropriate. This has been going on for weeks now and it's just draining to deal with. They refuse to use proper edit summaries, they keep begging others to not revert instead of listening to feedback, and a degree of WP:CIR going on with numerous typos and grammar errors in most edits. Not helping, almost all edits have been pointless or harmful. seefooddiet (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article-space for a month. See block notice for details. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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

206.174.65.103

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

---

IP came to a controversial move request at Talk:Denali. There, they posted that Oppose votes are "cancer", woke efforts to rename famous geographical landmarks, and called Mt Mckinley The traditional White name. The entire !vote was designed to generate ire and controversy, not a good faith argument. At the same time, they called another editor's argument "vandalism". I removed both comments here as trolling/NPA violations. I did warn the IP, and they have since removed that warning. IP restored their !vote here and accused me of "manipulat[ing] the consensus count". Admin Zathras reinstated the removal here, endorsing it. The IP restored the !vote here, calling Zathras a "clown".

IP is clearly NOTHERE and looking to WP:RGW, while loading comments with inflammatory language. I do not normally remove comments from RfCs or move requests, but I felt the racially-loaded traditional White name comment made it clear they were just trying to start a fight. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Block agree with this assessment, clearly NOTHERE. seefooddiet (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Blocked x 31 hrs. Yeah, looks like they are just trying to be provocative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. I do still believe their !vote should be removed from that talk page, as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Should be longer, the same IP address was edit-warring at 1967 Mount McKinley disaster two months ago, so this is both a fairly stable IP address and medium-term pattern of terrible behavior around this topic. Would also be good for someone to double-check their edits at Hanna Reitsch. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  While their past history factored into my decision to block them, it's still their first one. Longer blocks will follow if they don't take the hint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  The edits to Reitsch are... interesting. But it turns out the original text they "corrected" was wrong too, and AndyTheGrump provided a much more accurate quote than the IP did. So that's a wash.

  Their attempts to shoehorn a name change at 1967 Mount McKinley disaster seem to be the precursor to their edits at Talk:Denali, and show the same RGW attitude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  It shouldn't matter that the comment has not been removed from the talk page, because closers are supposed to treat discussions as discussions, not as votes. But in practice it does matter. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  My concern is mostly other editors getting baited into an argument with them, as well as leaving a rather racist comment on the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Problematic article creation from User:BigKrow

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

---

User BigKrow has been warned numerous times for creating largely unsourced and empty stub articles, yet they've continued to ignore these warnings and have carried on with their disruptive behavior. I've already recommended they use their own userspace for creating articles, but they clearly have ignored my suggestions, and do not seem to care about the consequences of their edits. A block seems adequate per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't vandalized anything! No block needed.... BigKrow (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't comitted anything wrong.... So i write short.... So. BigKrow (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

All articles, however short, need references. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Refs ok.... BigKrow (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do you keep creating unsourced articles, and articles like this and this. That is not ok. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about helping each other.... BigKrow (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine. BigKrow (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

If you honestly think those articles are "perfectly fine" to be in mainspace, then I agree with CycloneYoris on a block on CIR grounds, or at the very least a TBAN from creating new articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have to go ahead, but not indef ban, thanks!!! BigKrow (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: BigKrow (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

CycloneYoris, have you tried communicating with this editor without using a template? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Yep. See: User talk:BigKrow#March 2025, where I even apologized for the warning I had placed above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

bruh block me if you don't want me here.... @CycloneYoris: BigKrow (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I suffer from Mental illness by the way.... BigKrow (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Im not blocked on Simple English Wikipedia!!!! BigKrow (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean "Template"? BigKrow (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't if this user did or not.... BigKrow (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Support block per WP:CIR, if it were just the creations I'd support a ban on article creation, but the responses here have only confirmed their CIR problems. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

bro im not dumb ok im 35. BigKrow (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101: BigKrow (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Doxing edit needs removal

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

---

It looks like an IP just libeled and doxed someone at Directed-energy weapon. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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