Editing
Eurovision Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config |algo = old(7d) |counter = 378 |archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d |maxarchivesize = 700K |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadsleft = 0 }}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive |format=%%i |age=48 |index=no |numberstart=255 |minkeepthreads= 4 |maxarchsize= 700000 }} --><!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. ---------------------------------------------------------- --> ==Open tasks== <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} {{Clear}} {{Admin tasks}} __TOC__ </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> == Disruptive behavior by User:Wahreit == Per this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Alls_policy#Article_content_inconsistent_with_source discussion] on the [[Three Alls policy]] article, I determined @[[User:Wahreit|User:Wahreit]] appears to have added content to the article not supported by the source they cited. I am extremely concerned Wahreit is attempting to build a false historical consensus by writing whatever they wish and citing non-English sources that readers and contributors are unlikely to verify (i.e fictious reference). I have tried to avoid Wahreit and articles they contribute to as I have had many issues with them in the past, but as their false information was pertinent to the discussion on a related article,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuji_Okamura#c-Adachi1939-20260224010400-Adachi1939-20260223234300 [1]] I ultimately went ahead and corrected it. After I made my correction, Wahreit immediately followed up with WP:Hounding, wasting no time in following me to the related article and acting belligerent.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuji_Okamura#c-Wahreit-20260224183700-Adachi1939-20260224010400 [2]] In spite of working with others in the talkpage to reach a consensus and that my contributions to the article used reputable secondary sources, Wahreit began nitpicking over WP:Coatrack issues[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuji_Okamura#c-Wahreit-20260226214100-Adachi1939-20260225202100 [3]] and rather than work to correct the alleged issues, nor await the input of other contributors, has engaged in WP:Edit_Warring by completely reverting my contributions three times in a row now.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuji_Okamura&diff=prev&oldid=1340252107 [Diff1]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuji_Okamura&diff=prev&oldid=1340421064 [Diff2][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuji_Okamura&diff=prev&oldid=1340644803 [Diff3]] Around this time, the user also went and altered the [[Defense of Sihang Warehouse]] article, which in the past I had heavily contributed to and had past issues with this same user on. Nearly two years ago, it was determined through extensive discussion and a laundry list of sources on the talk page that the Imperial Japanese Army's 3rd Division was not a participating force, even though some Western sources claimed the contary.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse#Japanese_Participating_Forces_-_Summary_as_of_2024-07-18 [4]] Since this was determined nearly two years ago, no other editors have since taken issue with the participating Japanese forces listed. In spite of this, Wahreit has arbitrarily readded the incorrect claim of the 3rd Division's participation, despite it already being explained to them years ago.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=prev&oldid=1340648753 [5]] Even Stephen Robinson, who Wahreit relies on heavily as a source for this claim, has personally corresponded with me and agreed their inclusion of the 3rd Divison's involvement at Sihang Warehouse in their writing was incorrect. I am happy to send a copy of this correspondence to an administrator if necessary. While good faith should be assumed, just a month ago Wahreit went through a very arduous effort of collecting all of my negative interactions with them to try and have me banned, although it was ultimately unsuccessful.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1213#c-Wahreit-20260117062400-Harassment_and_Battleground_Behavior_from_User:Adachi1939 [6]] It would not be a stretch to say this user holds some kind of grudge against me and is engaged in deliberate harassment through their disruptive editing. [[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] ([[User talk:Adachi1939|talk]]) 23:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC) :This is now the third time @[[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] is trying to get me banned for content disputes (the first two being unsuccessful).[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wahreit#c-Adachi1939-20260117014300-Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wahreit#c-Adachi1939-20240715220200-RfC_about_the_the_IJA_3rd_Division,_Defense_of_the_Sihang_Warehouse,_and_the_Bat] :'''I joined that discussion because:''' :- adachi badmouthed me unprovoked[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuji_Okamura#c-Adachi1939-20260224010400-Adachi1939-20260223234300] :- adachi was pushing "an actual number of victims" for the [[Nanjing Massacre]] (lower than page consensus) and repeatedly calling a documented genocide "so-called" and "alleged" (which constitutes ''[[Nanjing Massacre denial|Denial]]).'' Editor @[[User:RelmC|RelmC]] has taken issue with this too,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuji_Okamura#c-RelmC-20260117110200-Three_Alls] but adachi has continued to revert their contributions without consensus[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuji_Okamura&diff=prev&oldid=1340080071] :Rather than seek consensus per [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|Bold-Revert-Discuss]], adachi has reverted everyone's edits to the page repeatedly[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuji_Okamura&diff=prev&oldid=1340293295][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuji_Okamura&diff=prev&oldid=1340453392][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuji_Okamura&diff=prev&oldid=1340080071] and now escalated to WP:ANI for the third time. :'''I now insist on a block for @[[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] because:''' :- adachi explicitly hounding me (by offering opposition to me, not content, across different pages) despite prior warnings from admins to stop[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Verdun#c-Adachi1939-20260116081100-Intothatdarkness-20260116022900] :- adachi's repeated visits to my talk page to insult me[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wahreit#c-Adachi1939-20250403222000-Adachi1939-20250402231000][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wahreit#c-Adachi1939-20240713053100-the_adachi_guy_challenge][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wahreit#c-Adachi1939-20240715220200-RfC_about_the_the_IJA_3rd_Division,_Defense_of_the_Sihang_Warehouse,_and_the_Bat] :- adachi's repeated attempts to get me banned without discussion, and edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wahreit#c-Adachi1939-20260117014300-Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wahreit#c-Adachi1939-20240715220200-RfC_about_the_the_IJA_3rd_Division,_Defense_of_the_Sihang_Warehouse,_and_the_Bat] :- adachi's continued reliance on personal attacks (despite prior warnings and blocks from admins) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Alls_policy#c-Adachi1939-20260116054400-Wahreit-20260116021900][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Shanghai#c-Adachi1939-20240715053500-Wahreit-20240715044700][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adachi1939#c-Adachi1939-20260117064100-Wahreit-20260117062500][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Alls_policy#c-Adachi1939-20260116212300-Wahreit-20260116205000][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Alls_policy#c-Adachi1939-20260116215600-Wahreit-20260116214800] :It is getting tiresome coming back to this page over and over again to defend myself because adachi won't resolve content disagreements. adachi has never been of any interest, I only edit wikipedia for the readers. [[User:Wahreit|Wahreit]] ([[User talk:Wahreit|talk]]) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC) ::also, adachi seems to "gain satisfaction" from making people angry and upset, per his own admission[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adachi1939#c-Adachi1939-20230512101300-203.221.62.213-20230512093400]. Just some food for thought. [[User:Wahreit|Wahreit]] ([[User talk:Wahreit|talk]]) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC) ::''>>adachi badmouthed me unprovoked'' ::Referencing the Chinese version of Wikipedia article, Wahreit wrote a completely different statement in English while citing the same Chinese source, as already explained above.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Alls_policy#Article_content_inconsistent_with_source [1]] This is not unprovoked "badmouthing", they have engaged in academic dishonesty and it was directly relevant to the discussion. The fact Wahreit has not only engaged in such academic dishonesty, but still refuses to acknowledge it nor take responsibility, should be more than enough reason to have their editing rights revoked. ::''>>adachi was pushing "an actual number of victims" for the Nanjing Massacre (lower than page consensus)'' ::This is rather disingenuous. I wrote: ::{{blockquote|text=Modern scholarship on the Nanjing Massacre, such as Wakabayashi's The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-1938 estimates the actual number of victims to range from 100,000–200,000 POWs and civilians killed}} ::The actual Nanjing Massacre article states "newer estimates adhere to a death toll between 100,000 and 200,000" citing the same source.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre#cite_ref-:18_3-1 [2]] ::''>>repeatedly calling a documented genocide "so-called" and "alleged"'' ::Again this is disingenuous, I have not denied a genocide. I called the term "Three Alls policy" "alleged" and "so-called" as it does not exist in Japanese documents, the very sources cited in the article on it state it was a term created by the Chinese Communist Party to criticize Japan's brutal annihilation/pacification operations.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuji_Okamura#c-Adachi1939-20260224230600-Katzrockso-20260218013900 [3]] I have never denied the Japanese military flagrantly committed atrocities during these campaigns, only questioned the terminology and who was actually responsible. ::''>>adachi has continued to revert their [RelmC's] contributions without consensus'' ::RelmC expressed doubts with my contributions adhering to the academic consensus, largely due to confusion stemming from Wahreit writing a fictious claim on the Three Alls policy article as already mentioned above. After clarifying this,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuji_Okamura#c-Adachi1939-20260223234300-Adachi1939-20260223211700 [4]] I readded the changes and have not received further input from RelmC. I don't know why Wahreit thinks they are entitled to speak on behalf of this editor who has so far expressed no further concerns. ::''>>adachi explicitly hounding me (by offering opposition to me, not content, across different pages) despite prior warnings from admins to stop'' ::While the hounding is true, the allegation I was already warned to not do so is false. Wahreit's cited example occurred on Jan 16 2026. I was warned on Jan 19 2026 to stop.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1213#c-Toadspike-20260119200900-Wahreit-20260119194100 [5]] I have since stopped, however as seen above Wahreit has not. ::''>>adachi's repeated visits to my talk page to insult me'' ::All of these are old examples which have already been discussed on the Administrator's noticeboard before and are missing the context that in said noticeboard discussions, they were found to be guilty of the same behavior. An administrator noted about Wahreit: ::{{blockquote|text=I am extremely unimpressed with your behavior. You seem to be arranging inappropriate offwiki coordination with another editor against "a certain guy". It's hardly harassment for that "guy" to then show up to the conversation.}} ::Another user wrote of Wahreit:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexysun#c-TylerBurden-20260131094000-Wahreit-20260131040200 [6]] ::{{blockquote|text=does @Wahreit think talk pages are exempt of WP:CIVIL? The only embarrassing behavior I see is from you [Wahreit].}} ::''>>adachi's repeated attempts to get me banned'' ::Nowhere in these examples did I explicitly ask for Wahreit to be banned. I was requesting admin intervention for measures to be taken against their disruptive behavior. Perhaps Wahreit is unaware that an alternative to being banned is simply not engaging in prolonged disruptive behavior. ::''>>adachi's continued reliance on personal attacks'' ::As already discussed above, pointing out someone's poor conduct doesn't necessarily mean it's a personal attack. In the numerous examples Wahreit has cited, they have take responsibility for their misconduct in zero of them. ::>>also, adachi seems to "gain satisfaction" from making people angry and upset, per his own admission ::The full context here is that I was gaining satisfaction from the anger someone suffered as a consequence of their own stupidity. For that I am guilty as charged. [[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] ([[User talk:Adachi1939|talk]]) 02:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC) :::>>>''The full context here is that I was gaining satisfaction from the anger someone suffered as a '''consequence of their own stupidity'''. For that I am guilty as charged.'' :::@[[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] admits the truth on how he interacts with and treats newcomers. Just appalling. :::>>>'''''While the hounding is true''', the allegation I was already warned to not do so is false'' :::adachi admits to hounding me. And he '''was''' warned previously by an admin here to not to hound me:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#c-Liz-20240827083500-Adachi1939-20240826045300] Then he was warned again recently[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Toadspike-20260119200900-Wahreit-20260119194100] He still has refused to stop. :::>>>''Nowhere in these examples did I explicitly ask for Wahreit to be banned. I was requesting admin intervention for measures to be taken against their disruptive behavior.'' :::No. He did. Here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#c-Adachi1939-20240827014600-Timtrent-20240826093700][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#c-Adachi1939-20260117052000-Wahreit-20260117035300] :::So adachi has just admitted to hounding me ''and'' has not stopped despite two previous warnings. He has been blocked already for edit-warring twice too (see his block log). He gains satisfaction from "the anger from other people's stupidity" as he calls it. :::I really do believe the wiki community would benefit from a long block on adachi. [[User:Wahreit|Wahreit]] ([[User talk:Wahreit|talk]]) 02:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC) ::::hey just popping in here. What happened?? It doesn't look like any of you are in the right judging by what I see, it's better if we get someone here now [[User:Raizief|Raizief]] ([[User talk:Raizief|talk]]) 02:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC) :::::@[[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] has escalated to WP:ANI for the third time over a content issue, seeking to get me banned. He didn't try getting a consensus on a talk page or discuss substantially. :::::Adachi's also been hounding me across Wikipedia despite previous warnings from admins. I am bored of having to come here every time adachi disagrees with me. I'll let the diffs speak the truth. [[User:Wahreit|Wahreit]] ([[User talk:Wahreit|talk]]) 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC) ::::''>>No. He did. Here: '' ::::My apologies if I missed them, but looking over these two examples I don't see any examples where I explicitly called for Wahreit to be banned. ::::At this point I am fairly certain they lack the ability to engage in a constructive manner with me but that doesn't necessarily mean they need a sitewide ban, just blocking their editing privileges on a few articles could probably help. [[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] ([[User talk:Adachi1939|talk]]) 03:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC) :::::If you two want someone to assist a good first step would be to stop going back and forth with each other. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-13567-93|~2026-13567-93]] ([[User talk:~2026-13567-93|talk]]) 16:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC) :I support an interaction ban between these two editors. Both of them continually increase the temperature of discussions I have witnessed and seemingly have no ability to stop insulting each other or personalizing the dispute. :See {{tq|throwing juvenile tantrums and begging desperately (and unsuccessfully) for the admins to ban me}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=prev&oldid=1341866357] :and {{tq|This is perhaps the most disingenuous statement I've ever witnessed from an editor on this site.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=prev&oldid=1341928826] :for recent examples. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 02:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC) ::'''Comment:''' These two have been edit warring at [[Defense of Sihang Warehouse]] for two years now. Wahreit canvassed me three times on my talk page for my input but I've ignored it until now with the exception of some deletions of unsourced content back in [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Qiushufang&page=Defense+of+Sihang+Warehouse&server=enwiki&max= May 2024]. Their main contention seems to be that Wahreit mainly uses secondary or tertiary sources that have a Chinese bias while Adachi favors primary Japanese sources that have a Japanese bias. It wasn't until today that I noticed that Adachi is deleting pieces of the article based on the false premise of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=prev&oldid=1342677747 failed verification], which they then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=prev&oldid=1342680029 reverted with an explanation to see talk page]. There is obviously no consensus on the talk page since Wahreit and Adachi are still fighting each other, and I don't much any mention of the source involved (Harmsen), so I'm not sure what looking at talk page is supposed to do. I suggest a topic ban for both Wahreit and Adachi from WW2 articles, particularly Adachi for the [[Second Sino-Japanese War]], since this has been ongoing for years now. Looking at Adachi's history, they have been edit warring with multiple users [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Adachi1939&page=Defense+of+Sihang+Warehouse&max=500&server=enwiki since 2023]. [[User:Qiushufang|Qiushufang]] ([[User talk:Qiushufang|talk]]) 05:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::'''Response:''' Sorry if my reasoning in the edits was not clear, all of these passages in some way did fail verification, please see my explanation on the talk page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse#Removal_of_failed_verification_passages] :::The issue with Wahreit is not that they use sources biased towards China, it is that they are using objectively bad sources, including ones that have either copied or outright plagiarized Wikipedia to assert completely false notions like an entire extra Japanese division being involved.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Warfare_History_Network_/_Eric_Niderost] :::If it was just Wahreit's poor sources being the problem, it would not be so much of an issue. They have been distorting sources for years. :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=next&oldid=1242077543 Ex. 1] Source says "The Chinese officers ordered their men to fire. Five Japanese soldiers went down" Wahreit writes "Five Japanese soldiers were killed instantly by gunfire" :::Did these Japanese soldiers die? Likely, but it is not explicitly stated in the original text. :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=next&oldid=1242077543 Ex. 2] Source says Japanese "brought forward tankettes", Wahreit changes it to "five Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, who Yang Ruifu observed advancing down the road." Cited source made no reference to the number of tankettes nor Yang Ruifu observing them (he's not mentioned in the source article at all). :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=prev&oldid=1234715740 Ex. 3] Source only lists one Japanese serviceman as fatally wounded near Sihang Warehouse, Wahreit adds false claim to article that it said "two" died. :::If the issues with these poor sources and Wahreit adding false/misleading/embellished information unsupported by their sources could have been handled years ago when it started, none of this would have ever escalated to this mess. Yes I do edit the Sihang Warehouse article a lot because the article sucks and needs a lot of work, especially due to disruptive editors like Wahreit and people that keep reverting problematic content back into it. [[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] ([[User talk:Adachi1939|talk]]) 05:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Warfare_History_Network_/_Eric_Niderost Other people seem to disagree] with your interpretation of bad sources or plagiarism per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Katzrockso-20260307092100-Adachi1939-20260307052500 explanation] by {{user|Katzrockso}}. [[User:Qiushufang|Qiushufang]] ([[User talk:Qiushufang|talk]]) 06:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::::I appreciate all the input Katzrockso has given me, but their judgement is off on this one. Also that's only a single opinion. :::::Not even getting into the misinformation of this article, the signs of plagiarism are damning. This type of content has no place on the Web let alone Wikipedia. Just look at the comparisons: :::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&oldid=150136480#Imperial_Japanese_Army 07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:] :::::: The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars." :::::: [https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/chinese-alamo-last-stand-at-sihang-warehouse/ Niderost, Dec 2007:] :::::: "The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes." :::::No web results other than the Wiki when searching "mint godown" before:2007-12-31: :::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&oldid=150136480#Imperial_Japanese_Army 07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:] :::::: "known also as the Chinese Mint Godown by those from the concessions" :::::: [https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/chinese-alamo-last-stand-at-sihang-warehouse/ Niderost, Dec 2007:] :::::: "Westerners knew the place as the Chinese Mint Godown." :::::Strange small detail for both to include: :::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&oldid=150136480#Imperial_Japanese_Army 07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:] :::::: "the defenders did not have a flag pole in the warehouse. Therefore, the flag was hoisted on a makeshift pole made of two bamboo culms tied together." :::::: [https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/chinese-alamo-last-stand-at-sihang-warehouse/ Niderost, Dec 2007:] :::::: "Because there was no flagpole, two bamboo poles were lashed together for the purpose." :::::These two paragraphs are nearly identical in their content: ::::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&oldid=150136480#Imperial_Japanese_Army 07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:] ::::::: "Attacking from all directions with cannon fire and tankettes, they pushed the 3rd Company out of their defensive line at the base of the warehouse and forced the 3rd into the warehouse itself. The west side of the warehouse originally lacked windows (as can be seen from the photos above), but the Japanese attacks conveniently opened up firing holes for the defenders. A group of Japanese soldiers tried to scale the walls to the second floor with ladders, and Xie just happened to be at the window they appeared from. He grabbed the first Japanese soldier's rifle, choked him with the other hand, pushed him off, and finally shot another Japanese soldier on the ladder before pushing the ladder off. ::::::: [https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/chinese-alamo-last-stand-at-sihang-warehouse/ Niderost, Dec 2007:] ::::::: "The west side of the building lacked windows, but Japanese shell hits had punched enough gaps into the wall to provide the defenders with loopholes. The Japanese, acting in concert with infantry, then brought forward tankettes. The fighting grew so heavy the Chinese Third Company was pushed back from its position and forced into the warehouse. Japanese infantry came forward with scaling ladders, a curious throwback in an age of mechanized war. The Chinese simply pushed the ladders off or peppered the advancing enemy with rifle and machine-gun fire. Xie personally lent a hand, fighting alongside his men. :::::: If we break down the Wiki article's sentences it's essentially the following: [Concept 1 - Japanese attack with tankettes → push back Chinese 3rd Company] → [Concept 2 - West side attacked by Japanese → loopholes made for Chinese Defenders], → [Concept 3 - Japanese try to scale walls with ladders → Chinese resist → Xie personally stops them] :::::: Looking at Niderost's paragraph, we can see the same content just paraphrased and rearranged, his is just constructed as [Concept 2] → [Concept 1] → [Concept 3]. :::::[[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] ([[User talk:Adachi1939|talk]]) 06:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::I now support a topic ban for blatant [[WP:BLP]] violations despite previous warnings. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 17:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::Definition of plagariasm as per Chabot College where the author in question is a faculty member [https://www.chabotcollege.edu/accreditation/exhibits/standard%20iib/iib3.4b_conduct.pdf] :::::::{{blockquote|text=The term "plagiarism" includes, but is not limited to, the use, by paraphrase or direct quotation, of the published or unpublished work or another person without full and clear acknowledgement}} :::::::{{blockquote|text=Plagiarism includes the deliberate misrepresentation of someone else's works and ideas, as one's own, as well as '''paraphrasing without footnoting the source.'''}} :::::::Per both Wikipedia's definition and Chabot College's definition no violation of WP:BLP has occcured. On the contrary, attempting to surpress these very real issues with academic misconduct is saddening to see. [[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] ([[User talk:Adachi1939|talk]]) 21:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::I concur. Look at Adachi's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuji_Okamura&action=history edit history] at [[Yasuji Okamura]] where they repeatedly edit warred with {{user|RelmC}} and {{user|Wahreit}} over the course of three months. I also just noticed Katzrockso's involvement at the talk page there, so they should know the extent of the issue better than I do. A logged out edit just coincidentally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=prev&oldid=1342695240 reverted me] after I warned Adachi of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adachi1939&diff=prev&oldid=1342684777 edit warring]. [[User:Qiushufang|Qiushufang]] ([[User talk:Qiushufang|talk]]) 12:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::Wow this goes back even further than I thought. Note that even before [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuji_Okamura#c-Katzrockso-20260219014600-Adachi1939-20260218045900 Katz had advized Adachi] to edit the [[Three Alls]] article, they had already done that back in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three_Alls_policy&action=history December 2025], eventually involving Wahreit as well as RelmC. [[User:Qiushufang|Qiushufang]] ([[User talk:Qiushufang|talk]]) 12:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::Wow I had forgotten that I was involved in this two years ago at [[Battle of Shanghai]]. See my comments on the issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Shanghai#c-Qiushufang-20240713071800-Adachi1939-20240713070500 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Shanghai#c-Qiushufang-20240715234100-Adachi1939-20240715215500 here]. I even predicted that none of the issues would be fixed because the users involved keep on using non-English primary sources that hardly anyone can verify. [[Defense of Sihang Warehouse]] has not improved to this day. The article is still ridden with primary sources, broken sources, and incomplete sources, all issues that had been templated for improvement. Adachi's most [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&diff=prev&oldid=1343125423 recent edit] even [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse#References broke a bunch of sources]. [[User:Qiushufang|Qiushufang]] ([[User talk:Qiushufang|talk]]) 13:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Thank you for your work fixing the Defense of Sihang page after my edits. I am going to go through soon and fix as well as better organize all of the citations. [[User:Adachi1939|Adachi1939]] ([[User talk:Adachi1939|talk]]) 20:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC) == Request for experienced closer == {{archive top|AfD closed as no consensus by OwenX [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 20:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)}} * In my opinion, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named in the Epstein files]] needs an experienced closer because there are BLP issues involved. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 13:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC) *:+1 I looked at that AfD and chose ''not'' to comment on it because, yikes, it's a hot one. Not volunteering to be the closer despite being uninvolved, lol, this should probably be an uninvolved party with a strong history of closing contentious BLP structured discussions. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC) *::I don't think the world has yet created a person universally respected enough to be able to safely navigate this one without a headache. I think you pretty much have to do a panel on this one to share the pain. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 08:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC) *:I'm sure that, whichever way this is closed, we haven't seen the last of it. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC) *::I just want to avoid seeing some newish editor doing a quick count and posting a NAC, not realizing that they are doing the wiki equivalent of painting a target on their back and then setting themselves on fire. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 18:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC) *:::Maybe a panel close would be best? I personally wouldn't want to [[Wiktionary:not touch something with a ten foot pole|touch that with a ten foot pole]], but as part of a panel it would insulate the individual closers somewhat. ~ ''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="color:#0cc">ONUnicorn</span>]]''<sup>([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])</sup><small>[[WP:P&S|problem solving]]</small> 18:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC) *::::I haven't taken part in RFA for a few years, but I would like closers (who are usually admins) to be both trustworthy and brave. Trustworthy in that they make the right decisions, and brave in that they state them fearlessly. I'm a bit agnostic about panel closes, precisely because they insulate the individual closers somewhat. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC) *:::::One alternative is to have one closer with other admins endorsing. That gives everyone a single person to yell at, which is apparently a popular sport around here. (Most of the time, when you read the words "admin abuse" it is the admin who is being abused.) If the issue is super important or there is a real question about how our policies apply (neither seems to be the case here), an admin might even privately ask other admins for advice before publishing the finding. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 21:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC) *::::::<small>{{tqq|Most of the time, when you read the words "admin abuse" it is the admin who is being abused.}} [[WP:OWB]] #37. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)</small> *:I can't help but notice that the nomination is for deletion reasons other than notability. Would this mean that votes solely based on notability wouldn't be considered when determining consensus on the actual deletion rationale? And for what it's worth, I second the idea having multiple closers in whatever form that may take. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 18:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC) *I have relisted it as an individual admin action, because I don't see sufficient engagement with the meat of the issue. I would be willing to serve on a closing panel. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 18:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC) *: For any admin who is pondering whether to get involved in this, here is a related discussion that I started before someone else posted an AfD: [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#We need a clear policy about being in the Epstein Files]]. IMO this is relevant because: ::[A] it looks like some editors have been working on resolving the BLP issues while others deny that any BLP issue could possibly exist. (Typical argument: "we say '' 'No wrongdoing is established by merely appearing in the documents' '' in the lead so BLP violations are not possible".) An important question for the closer is what BLP violations were fixed after the early !votes were cast, and whether the editors working on the page are willing and able to resolve any BLP issues that remain. ::[B] There are BLPs included on other pages such as [[:Category:Jeffrey Epstein]], [[:Category:Relationships of Jeffrey Epstein]], [[Connections of Jeffrey Epstein]], and various "Relationship of X and Jeffrey Epstein" pages. These should be discussed on the BLPNB, not on the AfD page, and they too may require administrator intervention. :: --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC) {{archive bottom}} == Michael Jackson--yes, we're still doing it == I wonder if any '''uninvolved''' admin could have a look at the work of [[User:Bhdshoes2]], spread out over a few talk pages and especially [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations]]. Thanks. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 23:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC) :Please do! I am getting absolutely dogpiled by superfans who keep smearing me like i am editing in bad faith (I am not) . We are still "doing it" because five new accusers just surfaced in the past week in the mainstream press (they filed a civil lawsuit), and the Leaving Neverland suit is the subject of new estate litigation. Certain single issue editors want [[Safechuck v. MJJ Productions]] deleted as well as [[:Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations|Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations.]] [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 23:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC) ::{{u|Bhdshoes2}}: As an uninvolved editor, I do believe that you're participating in good faith. But I also believe that you're causing yourself a lot of unnecessary grief by doubling down and assuming everyone else is acting in bad faith. I don't see any single-issue editors there, I see long-time respected members of the community citing legitimate deletion rationales. People are going to be understandably suspicious of your motive if you're so insistent on including content that's critical of someone, especially if you [[WP:BLUDGEON|argue with everyone]] who disagrees with you. Wikipedia is hostile toward people if it seems like their edits are meant to "expose" someone or spread awareness about a scandal. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 00:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :::OK but they started it. (That was a joke- please don't ban me). I will be less snarky. I would just ask folks to engage with the content of my edits and not me personally like I'm some kind of suspicious character! It feels like "hey look over there" and an excuse to revert good edits. [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 00:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::Bhdshoes2 what's up with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhdshoes2&diff=prev&oldid=1342429127] Did you intend to give yourself a single topic notification or someone else. If someone else I do hope you didn't intend to put that notice on Drmies talk page since that's a laughable claim. If you intended to give it to yourself that's fairly weird, there shouldn't be anything in there you need help remembering and this isn't CTOP alert it seems pointless to give yourself a notice so no one else needs to. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :::No to my page to ward off the superfan dogpile who post on my page. [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 09:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::::To be frank, Bhdshoes is a cold man. Michael's dead. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-15034-31|~2026-15034-31]] ([[User talk:~2026-15034-31|talk]]) 10:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :::::This comment is not helpful. Either engage positively or say nothing. • [[User talk:A Frantic Turtle|'''a frantic turtle''']] 🐢 11:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::::All of a Wikipedia account's activity is publicly viewable. The accounts you're calling "superfans" aren't even active in the Michael Jackson topic area. They're active at Articles for Deletion, where they routinely vote to delete articles for the reasons they explained. I've never seen this sort of doubling down and attacks against fellow editors end with anything except for being blocked from editing. I can only assume you'll accuse whatever admin imposes the block of being a "superfan" too, regardless of whether they've ever written anything about Michael Jackson in their lives. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 17:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :::::oh im sorry- I didn't mean to insult. Or to double down. What I meant was, was to tell that poster that I absoluteky meant to put that "single issue editing is uncool" sign on my page since they thought it was a mistake. I used that phrase as shorthand meaning my thought process at the time I posted it to my own page. [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 19:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC). ::::How about rather than posting pointless notifications to yourself, you just cease editing voluntarily so someone doesn't have to block you. Alternatively improve your behaviour so there's no need to worry about notifications. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 05:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::::I was unnecessarily accusatory in saying that Drmies was a single-issue editor in support of hiding well-sourced allegation material. My familiarity with that editing cohort is behind my mistake. FWIW, i did attempt to make peace just now on the talk page for yet another disputed Jackson page [[Safechuck v. MJJ Productions]]<nowiki/>not that I think Drmies has any obligation to engage!) [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 13:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ::@[[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]], Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTNEWS|not news]], and any single update to anything about the Jackson case(s) (on either "side") is not automatically qualified for mention on Wikipedia (undue, not notable, recentism, etc). When your edits have come under question, one of your [[Talk:Trial_of_Michael_Jackson#c-Bhdshoes2-20260306114600-Please_stop_deleting_the_category_entitled_Category:Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse|responses]] was, for example, "how will researchers find/do anything?" But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database on all Jackson information, just like how it's not a flight itinerary, a travel brochure, or a soapbox. It's supposed to have a balance of detail for the average reader, so not all information is included. This is why other editors think you're coming from Reddit (not in the malicious sense), where a lot of subreddits focus on trivial documentation of everything possible. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a ''Wikipedia'' thing. I hope this helps. [[User:Crystalespeon|Crystalespeon]] ([[User talk:Crystalespeon|talk]]) 02:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::That is fair. I do think though that if a reader wanted to know in 2 minutes how many accusers accused any other celebrity (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump) they can look that up on Wikipedia. Readers can't for Jackson. It seems like simple encyclopedia basic information to me, not an esoteric deep dive into Jackson minutia. But i hear you.[[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 10:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::I appreciate your response. I think it's important to remember that even if you are right (or you think you are right), if consensus says otherwise, you have to be patient and work together, and compromise with other editors. You should get a good result that way. Happy editing. :) [[User:Crystalespeon|Crystalespeon]] ([[User talk:Crystalespeon|talk]]) 17:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::::yup. Thanks for your kind words [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :I've only had a quick look because of its edit summary; something about [[Special:Diff/1342434083]] and the conversation leading to it is ... "cringe". The entire discussion could use a [[WP:FOC|focus on content]]. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 00:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::[[User:ToBeFree]], at some point it gets to be a ridiculous time sink, and that's where uninvolved admins need to come and step in. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :::user:Drmies I believe that comment was addressed to your comments as well. .[[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 15:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::::While true, I think the message got across :) [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 19:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC) : As I’ve posted elsewhere, this editor, along with a few other editors, appears to be coming from a subreddit. Some of which have already been banned already in the past. I previously took this user to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1191275447#Disruptive_editing,_WP:Canvassing,_Offsite_canvassing_on_a_General_sanctioned_page_and_topic admins’ noticeboard] for disruptive editing, WP:CANVASSING, and offsite canvassing on a similar topic, per the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1189778016#General_sanctions,_suspected_canvassing,_and_suspicious_edits suggestion] of NinjaRobotPirate about three years ago. HandThatFeeds even suggested blocking this user based on a personal attack mentioned in that specific thread. The editor stopped editing similar topics only to reappear after yet another discussion on Reddit, as you can see [https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/s/FGf2xPcrlw here] and [https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/s/rSUHIiYifk here].[[User:TruthGuardians|TruthGuardians]] ([[User talk:TruthGuardians|talk]]) 14:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ::this is total nonsense. Once again you refuse to engage with page content so pivot to smears. You accuse EVERYONE of canvassing on Reddit. I distinctly remember you accused me falsely 3 years ago, the last time i edited these pages. The obly reason I am back on theMJ Wiki pages is because 1) the Robson trial is back all over mainstream press given estate dispute and 2) five new accusers from the Cascio family are in the press of last week. nd 3) wikipedia should be an encyclopedia not a fanzine. . Instead of smearing, why not explain why you keep redirecting [[Safechuck v. MJJ Productions]] to a 1993 page? Or why you keep trying to get [[:Category: Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations]] (edit: fixed link)<nowiki> deleted? There have to be content reasons. ~~~~</nowiki> [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 15:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :This is still ongoing with Bhdshoes2 failing to understand [[WP:NOT|what Wikipedia is not]] and trying to pick fights. I find it hard to believe Bhdshoes2 can contribute constructively in this topic so long as they believe the editors cleaning up [[WP:ADVOCACY]] are actually some cabal of Michael Jackson superfans trying to sabotage coverage of the sexual abuse allegations. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 04:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::wait what have I done wrong since I got brought up on charges? Have deleted the S word from my vocabulary! [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 22:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::Going to respond to this and to [[Special:Diff/1343205380|the message at my talk page]] at the same time in this thread. Just looking at edit summaries alone from the last few days, these are the ones that make false accusations against other editors of, or falsely imply that other editors are, maliciously hiding information: :::* [[Special:Diff/1342983202]]: {{tq|why are we deleting out accusers Jane Doe and eldest sibling Frank Cascio (who has been in the media for 20 plus years as a Jackson associate) but leaving in a bunch of nonsense about HBO's nondisparagment clause from an old concert film? Smacks of burying the info. Re-added Frank.}} :::* [[Special:Diff/1342983824]]: {{tq|Removing the paragraph on HBO litigation over a 6 year old documentary based on an old concert film clause. Nothing to do with allegations. Hides the ball (obviously). Is covered in multiple paragraphs on the Leaving Neveland documentarypage}} :::* [[Special:Diff/1343002880]]: {{tq|can someone PLEASE explain why this section is full of statements from people who say they were NOT molested but someone keeps deleting this actual legal accusation by the firm behind the Safechuck suit. That makes no sense. If you can have Feldman Culkin Barnes you can have the accusers in a section covering accusations}} :::* [[Special:Diff/1343005678]]: {{tq|way too outdated lawsuit info. The case is over 10 yrs old. Also it is an absolute joke to have this posthumous sex abuse allegations in an entry on this page nowhere visually near the other sex abuse allegations in his lifetime. Smacks of hidiing the ball from readers trying for an overview. But that is a fight for a different day.}} :::* [[Special:Diff/1343034458]]: {{tq|Adding "now." Funny how you impartial editors had Frank Cascio's abuse DENIAL statements and testimony and book all over this page and the trial page in 2023 per the archive. Now the joint is scrubbed clean of him at every turn. He was newsworthy when he said Jackson never touched him. Now he is memory holed. I re-added him below.}} :::This accompanies the continued pattern of editing Wikipedia to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]]. If you're looking for advice, [[User:Thebiguglyalien/When interest compromises neutrality|my rule of thumb]] is that if you hold emotional beliefs about a subject, it is a bad idea to edit heavily in that topic area. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 23:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::::ok fine fair. I do actually believe that, not gonna lie. And if people who edit because "the wrongs must end!" should not be editing, then it is what it is. I hear you. [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 00:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::::Feeling strongly about a subject is nothing to be ashamed of, it's part of being a normal human being. :::::It takes a skilled, self-aware human being to learn and understand when that passion is so strong that it has the potential to impact our judgement on opposing viewpoints. :::::It takes a bloody amazing human being to be able to judge when this is happening and also have the self-control to step away and let others take over the reins. :::::Treat this situation as a rung on the ladder to becoming a bloody amazing human being. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 00:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::thanks. Appreciate it [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 10:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC) There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed '''My God! There are DOZENS of them!!''' --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :wait. I'm the drunk driver right? And this means you all think I'm wrong about these pages being "wildly inebriated" neutrality-wise? In that case ... .... I'm getting banned aren't I. Sigh. [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 23:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::People generally don't get fully banned from Wikipedia just for conduct in one topic area unless it's truly egregious. Usually it ends with any restrictions being limited to that one subject. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 00:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::I personally have no opinion about Michael Jackson and sexual abuse allegations. Didn't pay attention at the time, have never been curious since. I am just noting that it seems like a lot of people are disagreeing with you. That does ''not'' automatically mean that they are right. I wrote an essay just for people in your situation: You can read it at [[WP:1AM]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::this essay rules. Thank you. It captures exactly what (in part) goes on in terms of collective action from a contingent. [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 10:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC) [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]]; it's normal to be passionate about a topic. It's actually one of my favorite things about people, and what makes Wikipedia really great. What isn't normal ''on Wikipedia'' is getting to the point where everyone you disagree with is now seen as a "superfan" or "single-source/issue editor". Even if you are right (I wouldn't know, I started paying attention to society after any related scandal), [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]], and "winning" your arguments or disputes isn't the point of Wikipedia; it's to find consensus and to build a really great encyclopedia. If you can't edit about Michael Jackson in a manner that is collegiate and civil with editors, even ones you really disagree with, then you shouldn't edit there, period. I would rather the community not have to enforce that through a [[WP:TOPICBAN|topic ban]]. You've acknowledged that you went too far, so the next step is to course correct your behavior going forward. My advice to you would be to stop making accusations about people's motives, tone down the snark, and to take a step back for a day or two to try editing something else. It really is fun to hit "random article" and correct typos or fix some grammar as a palette cleanser, or picking a backlog to try your hand at. When you're ready to come back to the topic with fresh eyes, focus on the content like ToBeFree said. [[User:Sennecaster|<span style="color:#07643D">Sennecaster</span>]] ([[User talk:Sennecaster|<span style="color:#0F0E1B">Chat</span>]]) 02:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :thanks. Yeah. It really is what it is. Even if there is a long-standing community of Michael Jackson enthusiasts reverting every single edit, that definitely isn't every editor here as was pointed out above, and I can't change that by hollering about it. I need to just not edit the pages, at least for awhile. I mean it is frustrating. 13 former child companions have accused the dude as of 2026 and the fact those allegations were made (not saying they are true, saying they were made) is functionally scrubbed. But snark is just not a solution. [[User:Bhdshoes2|Bhdshoes2]] ([[User talk:Bhdshoes2|talk]]) 10:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC) == ''[[Roshni (album)|Roshni]]'' == Hi admin(s). I am coming here with a very heavy heart, only after multiple failed attempts in seeking proper guidance over my concerns and what I have presented in defense. I wrote an article on the subject, and nominated it for DYK. During [[Template:Did you know nominations/Roshni (album)|the review process]], disagreements occured between few users over [[WP:RSNOI]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. Another thread [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 212#Roshni (album) (nom)|started here]], but saw no outcome. I took queries to multiple other forums as well, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums&diff=prev&oldid=1339174519] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)&diff=prev&oldid=1339174592] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=1339175048] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1339175169] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies&diff=prev&oldid=1339530534], but still no response. Finally, a forced DYKTIMEOUT was established and my queries and defense still remains unaswered. I re-opened [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1342168969 another thread], and after <s>three</s> more days of no response, <s>I am here.</s> :(Update: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1343144394 stale and archived], I am now willing for a [[WP:PR]]. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']] 14:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC))</small> What I understand the other respected editors' concerns were, that I have used unbylined press-release style references disguised as news publications, and that this is a contentious topic. And my point was, that I have tried to keep the article tone neutral only establish the fact that the album exists, and tried highlighting notability of the recreated songs and of few of the artists involved in credits. No one highlighted if there was any problem in the article. Only one comment was to try GAN, and only one was to run AfD. I hope for a better outcome and that I can enjoy being on Wikipedia rather than being stuck. I understand that some sock editors have created a hard time for the reputable editors in Pakistan, and that some publications out here are of low quality. It definitely does not mean to strike everything out, so scrutiny is requested. Please, thank you! [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']] 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :{{non-administrator comment}} FYI Admins can't help with content disputes (they usually deal with behavioural issues), can you clarify what outcome you are seeking from admins as I'm not sure from your post what you are asking them to do? [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 10:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC) ::I cannot call a specific outcome. But I am seeking an independent scrutiny whether the article meets notability and can qualify for DYK, or not, despite a forced DYKTIMEOUT. I may agree that this was only a content dispute, but all concerns were and are still yet to be addressed. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']] 10:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC) == Thryduulf and concerning editing in LLM-related discussions == About a dozen editors have commented with concerns about Thryduulf's conduct across two LLM-related conversations # Bludgeoning the RFC at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Replace NEWLLM]], as described here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=1328151085]. Thryduulf argued [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=1328143840&oldid=1328141658] that he had not bludgeoned the process after having replied to 11 distinct support !votes and only 2 oppose !votes (both Thryduulf and I !voted to oppose, btw). <small>Concerns expressed by other editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=1328110856&oldid=1328097723][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=1328125614&oldid=1328110856][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=1328190901&oldid=1328173747][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=1328204200&oldid=1328203472][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=1328240262&oldid=1328238780][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=1328246331&oldid=1328245059][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=1326746922&oldid=1326736158]</small> # Whatever happened at {{slink|WP:AINB#Herbert_A._Parkyn_AI_enhanced_image}}, best described by Anachronist [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_AI_Cleanup%2FNoticeboard&diff=1340716661&oldid=1340713334]. Several of Thryduulf's edits in this thread were disruptive, but this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_AI_Cleanup%2FNoticeboard&diff=1340391135&oldid=1340390081] which baselessly implied the rationale for a block was probably the most concerning. <small>Concerns expressed by other editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_AI_Cleanup%2FNoticeboard&diff=1340440430&oldid=1340419355][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_AI_Cleanup%2FNoticeboard&diff=1340404485&oldid=1340398357][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_AI_Cleanup%2FNoticeboard&diff=1340397567&oldid=1340394089][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_AI_Cleanup%2FNoticeboard&diff=1340291822&oldid=1340289049][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_AI_Cleanup%2FNoticeboard&diff=1340408859&oldid=1340404715]</small> '''Attempt to resolve constructively''': Seeing a pattern of behavior that had already deterred editors from participation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=1328190901], I decided to address it instead of waiting for it to potentially happen again. At {{slink|User_Talk:Thryduulf#Approach to LLM-related discussions}} I asked Thryduulf to acknowledge the error at the AINB thread to rebuild some trust with editors who are active there. This conversation unfortunately did not go as I hoped, which led to concerns about general accountability. '''Pattern continues''': Similar conduct [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_AI_Cleanup%2FNoticeboard&diff=1342861317&oldid=1342848713] - assuming bad faith, groundless accusations of wikilawyering, tortured readings of LLM-related policy, general stonewalling of ''anyone'' trying to do ''anything'' about LLM content issues - is happening again at {{slink|WP:AINB#Hammer retarder and use of AI generated image}}, regarding an AI-generated image that a user subsequently identified as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_AI_Cleanup%2FNoticeboard&diff=1342872682&oldid=1342861317 a possible derivative work of a copyrighted image]. Before this latest AINB thread, I thought that a few admins having a word with Thryduulf would be sufficient. But now, I think that a topic ban from LLM-related conversations in project space would be most effective, although I am open to other suggestions. [[User:NicheSports|NicheSports]] ([[User talk:NicheSports|talk]]) 04:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :I don't always agree with Thryduulf on AI issues, but I can't see that they have done anything wrong there. They have simply disagreed with some other editors and said so. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC) *I don't see anything here that would be resolved by the proposed TBAN. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 10:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :I am not attempting to stonewall anything. I simply strongly believe that existing LLM policies and guidelines should be interpreted as actually written, and that any new ones are workable, proportionate, have as few side effects as possible and reflect the reality that issues with LLMs are not black and white. I'm not sure why pretty much every comment I make continues to attract accusations of bludgeoning and bad faith, but now we're here. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC) ::Probably because you keep responding to every argument against your opinion and reiterating your viewpoint? Not saying that is inherently bad, but this is probably why they don't think you are arguing constructively. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-68406-1|~2026-68406-1]] ([[User talk:~2026-68406-1|talk]]) 15:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :::Is it then fine for clearly incorrect statements of policy/guideline to be made but not to point them out? Is it fine for people who hold one viewpoint to repeatedly reiterate their opinion but not for people who hold a different opinion to do the same? Is it fine for those who support a (near) total ban on LLM use to respond to each different argument made in opposition to that view but not for those who oppose such a ban to respond to each different argument made in support? Only if the answer to all three is "yes" would that justify the labelling and accusations. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC) ::::I think that it's more than possible to rebut arguments without bludgeoning the process. Also, [[Special:Diff/1340391135|this comment]] is remarkably hostile. I can't dream of making such a statement, draw concerns from multiple editors regarding said statement and previous discussions, and remain intact on this project. It may be that a TBAN is unhelpful or ineffective. But I can't help but think of [[WP:SUPERMARIO]]. [[User:Iseult|<span style="color: #35b794">'''I'''seult</span>]]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>[[Special:Contribs/Iseult|'' Δx '']]</sup>[[User talk:Iseult|talk to me]]</span> 16:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :::::Why do you think my status as an admin has any relevance to anything here? I don't recall acting in an administrative capacity in any of the relevant discussions? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::No comment regarding the actual concerns, I note. Anyways, [[WP:ADMINCOND]] states {{tq|Administrators should lead by example and, just like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others at '''all times'''}} (my bold). Just because you did not use the admin toolset in these discussions does not mean that you are exempt. Also, {{tq|it's amazing you've not been the subject of a CIR block}} coming from a person with the capability to mete out that block is inherently chilling. This isn't a mere observation. [[User:Iseult|<span style="color: #35b794">'''I'''seult</span>]]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>[[Special:Contribs/Iseult|'' Δx '']]</sup>[[User talk:Iseult|talk to me]]</span> 19:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] I think your status as an admin has relevance. At a conceptual level I write about why that is at [[User:Barkeep49/Elite]], which I wrote after becoming an admin but before I got even more permissions. On a policy level [[WP:ADMINCOND]] does say at all times. I think there enough context within the diff itself (let alone the broader discussion which I've read) that {{tqq|it's amazing you've not been the subject of a CIR block}} isn't a veiled threat. However, I do think that entire comment is reflective of an editor at a wit's end, which hey most of us have been there, but does so in a way that falsely sets up a binary of either incompetence or bad motives. And that doesn't reflect well on you. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] do still think you being an admin is of no relevance? You have no responded so it is unclear if you accept that or refute it. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 20:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC) ::::{{tq| Is it then fine for clearly incorrect statements of policy/guideline to be made but not to point them out?}} Surely if it is so clear then actually it is not necessary to point it out? And surely if it actually is necessary then someone other than you will do it? [[Special:Contributions/~2026-86111-3|~2026-86111-3]] ([[User talk:~2026-86111-3|talk]]) 01:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC) * I find Thryduulf's efforts to thwart restriction on LLM use to be immensely frustrating, and I believe their position is one that would do immeasurable harm to the project if it became the standard. But expressing such an opinion is not a sanctionable offense on its own. Right now, the ideal solution is to have everyone read [[WP:PEPPER]], because there is definitely some bludgeoning going on. And then maybe codify our strict expectations around LLMs into policy so the letter of the policy aligns with the spirit of the policy. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 16:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC) *I share the concerns about bludgeoning and hostility in these discussions, and I don't think it's limited to the LLM context. I'm reminded of recall discussions like [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr]], where Thryduulf made fifty-five comments (apparently on the view that he wasn't bludgeoning because others hadn't adequately answered his questions) and used a tone that culminated in {{tq|Would you now like to answer the question, let [another user] answer the question I asked, make more irrelevant comments without answering the question, or just shut up?}} I don't think we're at the point where sanctions would be helpful, but I really hope Thryduulf will (in the spirit of [[WP:ADMINCOND]], which applies even when the admin hat is off) listen to the feedback he's been given and try to work on disagreeing without being disagreeable. Obviously this can be a tough area to strike the right balance in, but when people keep expressing their concerns and the response is {{tq|I'm not sure why pretty much every comment I make continues to attract accusations of bludgeoning and bad faith}}, that's when I start to get worried that the feedback isn't getting through. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 18:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC) *:@[[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] If I was making tens of comments of the same nature in the same discussion then I could understand the accusation. The most recent accusations have come after I've made literally one or two comments on a topic and are have no mention or implication of the faith of anybody (unless it is inherently bad faith to disagree that the only possible solution to issues related to LLMs is to ban them (almost) entirely with (almost) no thought to any possible consequences, interactions with other policies/guidelines and/or how such a ban might be enforced). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC) *::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]], other editors aren't coming to each new discussion on AI as a blank slate any more than you are. They're remembering all the ''previous'' ones as well. Editors' tolerance for bludgeoning doesn't go ''up'' the more they're exposed to it, but down. The effect is that you end up with fewer and fewer comments to work with in each discussion before editors start to feel bludgeoned. With AI, you may now be at [[WP:COAL]] as the limit. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC) *Not a new thing. I'm put in mind of [[WT:Speedy deletion/Archive 87#Post RfC discussion]] (context in [[WT:Speedy deletion/Archive 87#RfC: Status of G5|the immediately preceding RFC section]], and context for ''that'' in [[WT:Speedy deletion/Archive 87#Suggestion: Expansion of G5|the first section]] of that archive). —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 20:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC) *I want to see this project continue to have nuanced and well-thought-out discussions about AI, but frankly when I see Thryduulf's name appear in any of these discussions I tend to disengage because I know it's likely to devolve into bludgeoning, accusations of bludgeoning, and denials of bludgeoning. The "CIR block" comment directed at {{u|Gnomingstuff}} is particularly outrageous – even if he didn't mean it as a threat, an admin saying something like that can have a chilling effect. I don't know if any sanctions are appropriate but wanted to note that behaviour like this can be a barrier to constructive discussion. '''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns|''she/her'']] · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]] · [[m:User:ClaudineChionh|global]])</small> 21:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC) * Was pinged here. (Which to be clear I don't have a problem with in this case, the thread is referencing a comment made toward me.) I respect that their stance on AI is logically consistent with their stance on similar issues in the past (e.g. opposing the mass deletion of unreferenced articles on similar "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" grounds, apologies if this is a mischaracterization). Genuinely, I do. Obviously we don't agree on some AI issues (although we probably disagree less than they think we do). The difference is that I'm not out here saying that it's surprising they haven't been banned for incompetence. Whether or not they intended it that way, comments like this come across as "shut the fuck up." A recurring theme in AI discussions is how editors increasingly feel worn down, are losing goodwill, etc. That doesn't happen on its own. It is a direct result of comments like these. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 01:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC) * I don't think this is an issue specific to the topic of generative AI, as observed by Cryptic. I am reminded of Thryduulf's behavior here: [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect#Otherwise-implausible_redirects_originally_intended_as_editor_assistance_(i.e._possessive_redirects)]]. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect#c-MEN_KISSING-20260125031400-Thryduulf-20260125030600 mentioned] to Thryduulf that his participation in the discussion was starting to be counterproductive, and then I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect#c-MEN_KISSING-20260125031400-Thryduulf-20260125030600 explicitly stated] he was approaching something similar to bludgeoning after he continued. : There is also something to be said about a chilling effect when an admin, specifically, is exhibiting this sort of behavior. Something like the CIR block comment will be interpreted differently coming from someone who actually has the ability to block users, and being mindful of that is absolutely something we should expect from an admin. : All of that being said, I find Thryduulf to be a very collaborative editor with useful input almost everywhere else I've seen him on this project. I'm very glad we're having this conversation about Thryduulf's more troublesome behavior, and I hope he takes the advice to heart. : The strongest sanction that I would support is a formal warning against bludgeoning. [[User:MEN_KISSING|<u style="font-family:Arial Black;color:#64F">MEN KISSING</u>]] <em style="font-family:Arial Narrow">(she/they) [[User_talk:MEN_KISSING|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/MEN_KISSING|C]] - [[Special:EmailUser/MEN_KISSING|Email me!]]</em> 03:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC) *This needs to be a broader discussion because to whatever extent Thryduulf's conduct is problematic, Thryduulf isn't the only offender. Arguably he's not the main offender. On LLMs there are quite a few whose passion becomes long-winded on occasion. I do hope that Thryduulf is one of those who considers editing their comments to remove duplication of points.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 12:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC) == recent Balkans anonymous abuser == There's been a new series of disruptive edits on a single article from these accounts: * {{user|~2026-15312-44}} * {{user|~2026-15310-43}} * {{user|~2026-15512-16}} The style and network origin reminded me of these earlier ones: * {{user|~2026-13661-19}} * {{user|~2026-11866-11}} * {{user|~2026-12732-51}} * {{user|~2026-20527-4}} * {{user|~2026-18873-1}} I don't know if someone can recognize an earlier sockpuppeteer to connect the dots? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :I checked the addresses, and found that I had previously blocked one of them in May last year, so this is a recurring issue :/ :The overarching address space was pretty huge with IPv6, this is possibly the largest anonblock I've ever done. Please feel free to modify if it's too much. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :Let me just jot down for the record some of the disruptions caused by these: :* [[Talk:Dubrovnik Prayer Book#recent edit war]] - September '25 :* [[Talk:Andrija Torkvat Brlić#edits about ethnicity etc]] - May '25 :* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:187.36.171.230&action=history 2024 up to March '25] :* [[Talk:Josip Stadler#Role in "anti-Serb pogrom"]] - I'd say they were definitely at it in 2023, though probably [[Special:Contributions/189.95.0.60|also in 2022]] :--[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 17:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :A few days later they're back with :* {{user|~2026-16112-89}} :I actually noticed an earlier iteration in :* {{user|~2026-52860-9}} :--[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 17:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC) == Unblock request by The Anonymous Earthling == {{atop green|result=Clear consensus to unban; welcome back! <span style="display:inline-block;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contribs/HouseBlaster|'''Blaster''']] ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they)</span> 05:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)}} Per [[User talk:The Anonymous Earthling#Unblock request, December 2025]]. User is [[WP:3X]] banned. This was originally a CU block but the CheckUser aspect has been cleared. {{tqb| I did some mistakes that got me blocked on 28 August 2023 for sockpuppetry. Later I created some new accounts which later got blocked too (9 December 2023). But I want to mention that I never did a single vandalism from my later accounts. I was only providing valid information. On 5 June 2025. I submitted an unblock request. But my request was declined on 7 June 2025 by [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) stating I have been editing while logged out (I did was editing while logged out but again I never did a single vandalism, I was again only providing valid information). On 7 June 2025, I submitted another request to admit it but [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) declined stating my "best chance of being unblocked is to take the standard offer, and re-apply in 6 months time with no more accounts or logged out editing" On 8 December 2025, six months had passed and I never edited a single word on Wikipedia. But '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' declined on 15 December 2025 stating my request was written by AI/LLM/chatbot tools. And YES, I got some help from ChatGPT but most were entirely my own. I simply gave my prompt as, "Correct this." I am a non native English speaker so I was afraid my request would confuse the administrators. As [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) mentioned, "The admins much prefer to hear from you directly - it's fine if things aren't worded perfectly, they just have to come directly from you as a person." So today I write this request for an unblock which is entirely human written. Written entirely by me without any help from AI or another human being. I want to mention that I haven't edited a single word on Wikipedia since June 2025 staying true to my commitment to get the approval from the administrators which I believe will portray myself to the administrators that I will not cause any further damage or disruption to Wikipedia and that I will make useful contributions to the best for everyone. Finally, now I fully understood why I have been blocked in the first place which were Sockpuppetry, Meatpuppetry and Vandalism. I admit my mistakes and now it is my sincere decision to never commit any of these again if I have been given a chance to get unblock. Thank you. -- [[User:The Anonymous Earthling|The Anonymous Earthling]] ([[User talk:The Anonymous Earthling#top|talk]]) 06:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC) }} [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC) *I'd support unbanning TAE. They seem to have learned their lesson. [[User:PokemonPerson|<b style="color:red">Pokémon</b>]][[User_talk:PokemonPerson|<b style="color:black">Person</b>]] 02:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC) *Support unblock. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 03:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Support''' I see no good reason to keep this in place going forwards. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 12:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Support''' Deserves a second chance, and seems genuinely ready to contribute again. Welcome back! <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 01:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC) {{abot}} == Can an admin please deal with [[User:~2026-12969-72]]'s [[WP:Personal attacks]] please? == At [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lunarscarlet]] and [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopian Epic]], TA user [[User:~2026-12969-72]] (whose only purpose on Wikipedia appears to be defending the two reported users at those SPIs) is claiming that there's apparently a "concerted effort by a group of conservative editors targeting editors on the 'other side'" just for voicing our concerns and suspicions about sockpuppetry. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lunarscarlet&diff=prev&oldid=1341661929][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lunarscarlet&diff=prev&oldid=1343049627] By our, I mean: me, {{u|Ganesha811}}, {{u|Astaire}}, {{u|~2026-12618-57}}. Can an admin please tell that TA to knock it off with the personal attacks and aspersions casting? Thanks. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 00:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :Echoing the call for an uninvolved admin to take a look here. The above diffs are a clear [[WP:WIAPA]] violation: {{tq|Using someone's political affiliations as an ''ad hominem'' means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.}} [[User:Astaire|Astaire]] ([[User talk:Astaire|talk]]) 15:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::<small>Calling me a "conservative" editor is quite funny considering I've been indirectly called an "opinionated Democrat" elsewhere on this project. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 14:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)</small> What's also interesting is that after {{noping|ScholarlyTome}} / {{u|Ryuudou}} were blocked as sockpuppets [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ethiopian_Epic&diff=prev&oldid=1343076846], the TA in question started an SPI case against {{u|PharaohCrab}}, a user who's in dispute with those sockpuppets at [[Osiris]]. Also after the block, another TA {{noping|~2026-13060-07}} popped up to continue the edit-war on that page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osiris&action=history An admin might want to ECP or fully protect that [[Osiris]] page. And it's not lost on me that [[2020s Minnesota fraud scandals]], [[Feeding Our Future]], [[North Africa]] were all temporarily fully-protected at one point due to edit-warring by the users listed in the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopian Epic]] case. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 17:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC) * Both of the TAs mentioned, ~2026-12969-72 and ~2026-13060-07, are blocked and the [[Osiris]] article is protected. Are we done here? --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 01:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC) *:I see that {{User link|Lectonar}} has blocked {{User link|~2026-12969-72}} for 72 hours due to "abusing multiple accounts", but the personal attacks remain unaddressed. I'm not sure of the rationale behind a limited block given that [[WP:SOCK]] says {{tq|If a person is found to be using a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely.}} Combine the multiple accounts with the personal attacks, and I think the case for a [[WP:NOTHERE]] indef block is fairly clear. This TA's sole purpose appears to be making unproductive comments at sockpuppet investigation cases (including filing [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PharaohCrab|this case]] which has absolutely no supporting evidence). [[User:Astaire|Astaire]] ([[User talk:Astaire|talk]]) 11:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC) *::Seems like the TA's focus has now shifted to {{u|M.Bitton}} and {{u|Skitash}} as those two have been in dispute with the suspected sock/meatpuppets (including the now blocked sock, Ryuudou) listed in the Ethiopian Epic SPI case (see the revision history of [[Talk:North Africa]]). [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 14:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC) *:::There are no edits by TAs to Talk:North Africa today not least because the page was semi-protected yesterday morning. Do you have any diffs from today? [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 18:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC) == Requesting an Unblock on my Topic Ban == {{archive top|Appeal unsuccessful. Yamla's suggestion of a ban on further appeals wasn't discussed sufficiently to come to a consensus so is not formally imposed, but it's still good advice. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 20:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)}} I am requesting the removal of my topic ban concerning [[Michael Jackson]]. Approximately 8 years ago I engaged in disruptive edits/edit wars with another user. This behavior justifiably led to my block, and shortly thereafter, I continued to create new accounts. Although I stopped making disruptive edits in terms of the content itself, I was still violating Wikipedia's terms of service by circumventing my block through the creation of new accounts, which was inappropriate. Since that time, I have made efforts to improve myself and adhere to proper conduct. 2 years ago I was unblocked from Wikipedia, and now I am seeking to have my topic ban lifted. I deeply regret my past actions and hope to be granted a second chance, as it now feels like forever since all that went down. [[User:Alessiorom13|Alessiorom13]] ([[User talk:Alessiorom13|talk]]) 10:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :Two things, one even if it ended with little comment you really should have mentioned and linked your previous appeal [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive372#Requesting an Unblock on my Topic Ban]]. Two while I'm not going to oppose this request even before I found your previous appeal I had similar thoughts to last time, while a lot of time may have passed since you got into trouble, your edit count is still very low. The point of being able to edit while being topic banned is to demonstrate you can do so constructively including handling disputes in other areas. And your topic ban is so narrow virtually the entire encyclopaedia is open to you but it seems you're only really interested in editing MJ related articles. As demonstrated by another dispute with different editors above [[#Michael Jackson--yes, we're still doing it]], there is still a lot of controversy surrounding MJ, so it's easy for problems to arise. And while technically there's nothing wrong with an editor only really having an interest in articles related to Michael Jackson even by itself it generates concern. And when you've already gotten into problems there I think many editors are going to be deeply concerned about letting you back in with so little to suggest you'll stay out of trouble other than time. Perhaps we should just let you back in under some [[WP:LASTCHANCE]] and sink or swim scenario but do understand if that happens there is likely to be little tolerance for problems from you no matter if others have similar problems and there's a chance if you get into trouble again we might just block or site ban you rather than reimpose the topic ban. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::BTW the comment you made here about your socking likely isn't doing you any favours either, what you said when appeal your block was better. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :'''Oppose''' as too soon. You've made nine edits to mainspace since your last appeal on 24 June, with 36 in total since being unblocked (almost all are small edits to update box office figures). That's just not enough editing history to fairly judge whether it's a good time to remove your topic ban, so I'm unable to support it. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 11:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :'''Oppose''' and I propose Alessiorom13 is prohibited from further topic ban appeals until at least one year has passed and they've made at least 500 non-trivial edits to Article space. This user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlessiorom13&diff=1260729542&oldid=1260665543 previously promised] "I will for sure wait months and after a significant amount of edits before I even consider trying to appeal my topic ban." This has not happened and I think we should hold them to account for it. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :The timing is not a good look. The topic ban was for disruptive editing related to Michael Jackson sexual assault allegations. There were new allegations last week and now there's suddenly a request for the topic ban to be lifted. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 04:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC) {{archive bottom}} == Moving help == {{atop | status = Clean up on aisle 5 | result = Mess mopped up. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 18:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC) }} Hi, I tried to move the page [[User:Shashidharkumar]] to [[Draft:Shashi Dhar Kumar]]. When doing this, I unintentionally moved the user talk page as well. Afterwards, I tried to move it back to [[User talk:Shashidharkumar]], but unintentionally moved it to [[User talk:Shashi Dhar Kumar]]. Now, I tried to move it to the correct location, but it says that {{tq|A redirect already exists at User talk:Shashidharkumar, and it cannot be deleted automatically.}} Apologies for the mishap, could this please be moved? Thanks! <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace">[[User:TheTechie|<b><span style="color:Orchid">TheTechie</span></b>]]<sup>[she/they]</sup> | [[User talk:TheTechie|<span style="color:DeepSkyBlue">talk?</span>]]</span> 14:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :Done. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 15:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC) {{abot}} == Self-requested block == {{atop|reason=nvm got a script now '''[[User:.nhals8|<span style="color:#fff; background:#A41720">n.h.huit, 化けの花</span>]]''' 04:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)}} I recently received a brain surgery near the [[frontal lobe]], and as a result, the performing surgeon did inform me that the surgery will cause temporary behavioral changes, alongside some episodes of dissociation. They did say that my brain will return to normal in '''20 days''', but in [[WP:AGF|good faith]], I have some concerns that these episodes can cause me to impulsively/unpredictably vandalize here or send insults to people, as noted by a previous disorder that I had. Until then, it would be greatly appreciated that I be blocked within that recovery duration. Thank you. '''[[User:.nhals8|<span style="color:#fff; background:#A41720">n.h.huit, 化けの花</span>]]''' 04:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :You may also wish to look into this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak_Enforcer [[User:Bluethricecreamman]] <span style="font-size: 85%;">([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Bluethricecreamman|Contribs]])</span> 04:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC) {{abot}} == Zard Patton Ka Bunn == *{{articlelinks|Zard Patton Ka Bunn}} Hello! I am a new editor trying to create a draft for the Pakistani drama series ''Zard Patton Ka Bunn'' via the Article Wizard. However, I am receiving an error that the title is blacklisted. This is a notable television series produced by Momina Duraid and the Kashf Foundation starring Sajal Aly. Could an administrator please create the draft page for me or tell me how to proceed? Thank you! [[User:Zenjiya|Zenjiya]] ([[User talk:Zenjiya|talk]]) 04:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :It's not blacklisted, it's protected due to sockpuppets repeatedly recreating the article. Pinging {{ping|Ivanvector}} as the protector of [[Zard Patton Ka Bunn]] and the note on said protection. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :: Why do you think it's not blacklisted? It's in the title blacklist as "{{tq|.*zard.*patton.*}}". I'm not familiar enough with the case to feel comfortable unilaterally removing a title blacklist entry, so I'd suggest that Zenjiya use [[User:Zenjiya/sandbox]] to create a draft. That would give us an idea of whether the article would fit our policies. Or Zenjiya could wait for someone like Ivanvector, who seems more familiar with the issue than me, to decide whether it's time to remove this title from the blacklist. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 13:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::: I would be astonished if Zenjiya isn't a sockpuppet of the SPI that was at the time of the protection called [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StayCalmOnTress]] but is now called [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Stereotypical Name]]. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::: Doesn't look like it to me, but I'm not especially familiar with StayCalmOnTress. I think I blocked a sock puppet or two, but that's not really enough for me to get a feel for someone. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 15:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Why? Isn't writing articles on notable topics what we're ''supposed'' to do? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 14:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :::{{ping|NinjaRobotPirate}} Ah, my bad - I simply saw it was admin-locked and presumed that was what the OP meant. Remind me to have more coffee when posting at that time of night! - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC) ::: The subject is definitely notable, it's just that it's never been created by a user that wasn't a sock. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC) =="User:Henrydat" and "199.7.158.234"== {{hat|1=Globally locked LTA. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)}} {{atop|1=[[User:JeanFousrou52|JeanFousrou52]] has been globally locked for long term abuse and we can all move on. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 22:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)}} *'''199.7.158.234''' This appears to be another persona of '''user:Henrydat'''. This account has been used to defame others and even make false reports claiming someone is ''C, DDC or Nguyentrongphu, Trieu Thuan Son''... ([[User:JeanFousrou52|JeanFousrou52]] ([[User talk:JeanFousrou52|talk]]) 18:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)) **Proof: "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.7.158.234 Bố thằng điên lảm nhảm lắm thế 199.7.158.234 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)]" | From Vietnameses: F* you! Why do you babble so much? ([[User:JeanFousrou52|JeanFousrou52]] ([[User talk:JeanFousrou52|talk]]) 18:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)) **:199.7.158.234 last edited in September of last year. That IP posting "That crazy guy's dad is rambling too much."<sup>[per Google Translate]</sup> on [[User talk:Worvandae]] is so far from being proof of anything as to be hard to understand what word you actually meant. **:What are you hoping administrators will do at this point? • [[User talk:A Frantic Turtle|'''a frantic turtle''']] 🐢 18:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC) **::In any case, that account and user:Henrydat needs to have its IP address blocked and all further activity banned. Now, if I accuse you of being some kind of puppet and hurl insults at you, would you laugh? [[User:JeanFousrou52|JeanFousrou52]] ([[User talk:JeanFousrou52|talk]]) 20:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC) {{abot}} {{hab}} == User: Win Kyaw and disruptive editing, edit warring, personal attacks. == *{{userlinks|Win Kyaw}} [[User: Win Kyaw]] is currently engaged in [[WP:EW|edit warring]], [[WP:NPA|personal atttacks]], and [[WP:AGF|assuming bad faith.]] I pride myself on trying(key word, trying) to stamp out vandalism, and NPOV editing (as with now blocked user {{userlinks|Icewhiz}}.) 3 days ago I noticed an IP ({{noping|72.45.163.130}}) making disruptive and NPOV edits to many articles about Rohingya people and Arakan/Rakhine. I then noticed that {{User|Win Kyaw}} editing nearly every article the IP did (24 out of 27) and editing similarly. I started an SPI because I noticed what I thought was a pattern of POV editing. I misunderstood [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin]], an SPI, and figured they were socks of Tuwintowin, which I assumed was a master sock that was blocked. It is clear now that the account Tutwintuwin was appealed and has since been renamed twice, first to Imwin567, now Win Kyaw -- though those confirmed socks of the user are still banned, and they showed a lot of problematic edits, edit warring, and disruptive editing. I apologized to the user and stated I wished to withdraw the case and '''ceased editing'' articles they are involved with, but their actions since have renewed my concerns about their history of disruptive editing, blanking, and unexplained edits to articles pertaining to Rakhine/Arakan, the Rohingya and Rohingya genocide. (I had also realised the IP and Win Kyaw were not the same.) Some of these edits seem to ''imply'' whether intentional or not, the Myanmar government's commonly seen as racist talking point that "Rohingya are non-native Bengalis from [[South Asia]] that need to be removed" that [[Rohingya_people#Denial_of_the_"Rohingya"_term|they use to justify the genocide]], which has been debunked. ([https://time.com/4322396/burma-myanmar-rohingya-us-embassy-suu-kyi/ see this Time Magazine article,] for instance.) Some further instances of behavior are: *'''Edit warring 1:''' After I apologized, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sittwe&diff=prev&oldid=1343086373 the user edit warred with me and undid my removal of unsourced content at Battle of Sittwe and re-added it.] *'''Personal attacks:''' They attacked me personally by asking "are you blind?" in the edit summary. *'''Edit warring 2, disruptive editing:''' Out of many other examples seen in their contributions history accross all of their sock accounts as well as this main accoung -- just now they engaged in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Asia&diff=1343086209&oldid=1343034504 edit warring with me and removed nearly the entire section on the Rohingya genocide] in the [[Racism in Asia]] article, claiming that including the reason for Rohingya leaving is "undue weight," despite that content being sourced with 8 sources and being there largely since 2017. The content was changed from :"Since 2015, over 900,000 Rohingya refugees have fled to southeastern Bangladesh alone, and more have fled to other surrounding countries, and major Muslim nations. More than 100,000 Rohingyas in Myanmar are confined in camps for internally displaced persons. Shortly before a Rohingya rebel attack that killed 12 security forces, August 25, 2017, the Myanmar military had launched "clearance operations" against the Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state that left over 3,000 dead, many more injured, tortured or raped, villages burned. Over 603,000 Rohingya from Myanmar, fled to Bangladesh alone, and more have fled to other countries. According to the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission, about 624,000 Rohingyas entered Bangladesh until November 7." :to :"By 2025, over 1 million Rohingya from Myanmar fled to Bangladesh alone, and more have fled to other countries. According to the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission, about 624,000 Rohingyas entered Bangladesh until November 7, 2017." :This section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=949033446#Myanmar once had 14 sources], now it only has 4. *'''Disruptive editing 2 :''' Another example is they unilaterally moved the [[Bengali Hindus in Myanmar]] article to [[Bengalis in Myanmar]] and changed the entire structure of the article to add a section called "[[Bengali Muslims]]," in which they added content about the Rohingya, seeming to imply they are sharing the Myanmar government's genocidal claims that Rohingya are actually Bengali Muslims and non-indigenous. :Of the seven sources they added: :1 ("Aye Chan 2005") appears to link to Wikipedia itself and is cited 3 times. :1 is a source that does not work and also parrots the government's talking points on Rohingyas by calling Rohingyas "Bengali." When i found the archived version [https://web.archive.org/web/20160323001137/ttps://www.netipr.org/policy/node/39], I noticed it used very inflammatory claims like "Rohingya campaigners," and claiming at the end that "Rohingya/Bengali community we've seen today had already shaping up as of 1942." :1 is used 2 times and has no information ([https://www.chittagong.gov.bd/en/site/page/qPgv-%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%87%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B8 ]) *'''Assuming bad faith 1 / personal attack / edit warring 3 :''' In [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Min_Saw_Mon&diff=prev&oldid=1343256630 this edit]] at Min Saw Mon, they assume bad faith and accuse me of editing "based on solely user's identity as per evidence from user's spi." and revert my edit, seemingly implying that I am racist. *'''Assuming bad faith 2 / personal attack / edit warring 4:''' Here they reverted my undoing of an unsourced edit from an IP with an even more problematic editing history, and claimed it was due to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minpunsa&diff=prev&oldid=1343258799 speculation & assumptions of user's identity]" *'''Assuming bad faith 3 / personal attack :''' On their talk page they removed most of the correspondence I have had with them, including many warnings, and state that I did it [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Win_Kyaw&diff=prev&oldid=1343258584 "based on speculations and assumptions on my identity and a failed attempt of making an user blocked based for 5 legitimate hours."]], whilst also citing WP:NPA. There are other examples of disruptive editing, and the above, all in their edit history. They had also accused me of being a paid editor at the SPI, and I feel like they implied numerous times that I was stalking them. I am concerned, and I could be wrong, but I do not want to risk being a one person army and am trying to back off so as to not appear I am harassing the editor. They have numerous warnings that they have removed from their talk page detailing problematic editing patterns throughout the past couple years, including on their confirmed sock accounts, and it shows in their contributions history. I am bringing this here and not responding to any messages from [[User:Win Kyaw]] as to de-escalate and hoping for assistance. I also will not respond to anything unless folks are asking for a direct response. Thanks much.- [[User:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'>''R9tgokunks''</span>]] [[User talk:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>⭕</span>]] 04:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :this user is [[WP:HOUNDING]]. :there is no edit warring. Edit warring refers to [[WP:3RR]]. This user wants me to take permission from him for all edits I make. I have never been in any edit warring rather than this guy because mainly he is [[WP:HOUNDING]]. You are accused of [[WP:PERSONALATTACK]] (point 1, 2 and 3) in the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin]] (admins please do read his texts here). This guy would also placed random edit warnings in my talk page just to make me get blocked (it's his aim).. :There is nothing wrong with my edits for over an year, I have received no warnings or reverts for a very long time. Additionally telling ur blind is not personal attack, it might fall into sarcasm area. This user also adds I'm vandalizing while theres zero history about it. One admin has already warned this guy on his talk page because his behaviour is clearly disruptive. Thank u! [[User:Win Kyaw|<span style="background-color: blue; color: white">WinKyaw</span>]] ([[User talk:Win Kyaw|talk]]) 05:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC) ::'''Adding''': his reason to revert my edits are based on my ethnicity. His logic is similar to Jewish people's edits on Palestinians topics must be taken as fishy and NPOV because their government is. Similarly he keeps reverting my edits just because of my ethnicity and identity (see his accusations on [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin]]). His only excuse of my edits being NPOV is that I'm burmese [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Win_Kyaw&diff=prev&oldid=1343035412 notice what he said here] = ''I have noticed that you are clearly Burmese and that a lot of your edits'' ~ my edits are removing [[WP:UNDUE]] weight, but he terms it as NPOV out of no reason based on my nationality. I mean, literally, if you find it problematic, revert it with a source and reason, but he would not, he would find ways to fill SPI, give "final warnings" on talk page and further threats very openly. He spent 5-6 hours on finding blatant speculations only to make my account blocked (failed attempted). ::Notice how he also said "''I pride myself on trying(key word, trying) to stamp out vandalism, and NPOV editing (as with now blocked user [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]]''" at the first line in this case, this concludes to he would try to do anything to make his targeted account blocked out of no reason and by spreading false allegations. He has done [[WP:WIAPA|WP:PERSONALATTACK (passing all of the first 3 points)]] based on ethnicity, identity and even age in the SPI ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tuwintuwin&diff=prev&oldid=1343072857 look at this revision] (He said ''I was checking page reversions on their profile and found out they [are 17 years old''). This guy went around my whole Wikipedia history, then would note my age, research about my ethnicity, name and say more further stuff as if me being 17 or belonging to particular nation makes me ineligible to edit Wikipedia). He just wouldn’t stop until I get blocked as hes clearly on a mission with [[WP:HOUNDING]]. [[User:Win Kyaw|<span style="background-color: blue; color: white">WinKyaw</span>]] ([[User talk:Win Kyaw|talk]]) 05:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC) ::If you think edit warring requires breaking the bright line 3 revert rule, you're seriously mistaken and for an account with as much history as yours it's very concerning you still haven't learnt such basics of editing here particularly when you edit areas prone to disputes. Whatever else, you need to seriously pay more attention to our policies and guidelines and what editors are telling you if you want to continue to edit. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 07:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :R9tgokunks can you explain why you thought it was relevant that the Win Kyaw may be Burmese in the comment you made here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Win_Kyaw&diff=prev&oldid=1343035412]? If WinKyaw is inappropriate removing sourced content as you stated, then that's a problem but Win Kyaw's ethnicity or nationality is irrelevant to that. 12:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC) == Susan Albuhawa == {{atop|I'm just going to go ahead and close this before it gets into a full blown discussion on the merits, which do NOT belong here. Take it to the talk page of the article. If there is an existing consensus, it needs to be respected until a new consensus is formed. At this point, there isn't anything an admin needs to do. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 10:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)}} Regarding activist Susan Abulhawa controversies regarding statements on the Ukraine war and criticism from Ukrainian activists, @[[User:Raskolnikov.Rev|Raskolnikov.Rev]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Abulhawa&diff=prev&oldid=1313456524 repeatedly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Abulhawa&diff=prev&oldid=1313846513 removed] any mention of this controversy from the page on the basis that there was no "sustained coverage". Despite being presented with evidence that it was mentioned in news stories over the next few years, the editor did not budge. It was also suggested by another editor that her remarks on the [[Talk:Susan Abulhawa#Discuss her antisemitism and hate speech|2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting]] had been removed without sensible reason. Does it make any sense that a highly covered story bear no mention on a biography page whatsoever, not even when one edit I added regarding the controversy was just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Abulhawa&diff=prev&oldid=1323367285 2 sentences long]? [[User:JPHC2003|JPHC2003]] ([[User talk:JPHC2003|talk]]) 07:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :Those two links are from September 2025, over 5 months ago. I see there was discussion at [[Talk:Susan Abulhawa#Ukraine controversy]] but the last comment there was December 2025. Is there anything newer than that? [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (#1 deranged), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 08:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC) *As {{u|CambridgeBayWeather}} points out, there was a discussion, and you can always start a new one on the talk page to seek consensus. There isn't anything here in the report that indicates admins need to get involved, as they don't determine content. Unless you show edit warring or some other behavioral issue that actually breaches policy, it isn't ripe for discussion here. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 08:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :@[[User:JPHC2003|JPHC2003]] is misrepresenting the edits in question and the challenge of it by myself and other editors, and the fact that I am the only one being addressed here when other editors agreed with me is odd. He is also not adhering to the standard consensus-building process by seeking to obtain consensus for his edit through discussion and, if that fails, an RfC, instead making what appears to be a frivolous case here over what is a standard content dispute. Furthermore, he is resurrecting an issue from over 5 months ago, making it also likely stale. :: :As [[Talk:Susan Abulhawa#c-Raskolnikov.Rev-20250928123100-JPHC2003-20250926175200|I noted in the discussion]] which for some reason JPHC did not link, the content JPHC sought to include in my view fails [[WP:RECENTISM]], [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:NOTABILITY]] and [[WP:NOTNEWS]] standards. I cite from the relevant policies in my response. Another editor [[Talk:Susan Abulhawa#c-JFHJr-20251124055700-JPHC2003-20251123041900|agreed with me]]. Furthermore, [[Talk:Susan Abulhawa#c-Raskolnikov.Rev-20251124110500-JPHC2003-20251124083200|I noted]] that the specific edit in question fails [[WP:NPOV]] by only including the critical POV of the subject of the BLP, despite the source he himself cited for it including a response. :: :Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Abulhawa&diff=prev&oldid=1308397320 the other edit] I challenged, this is also misrepresented. I invite editors to look at [[Talk:Susan Abulhawa#Discuss her antisemitism and hate speech|the rationale that was presented for it]] by that editor [[Talk:Susan Abulhawa#c-Raskolnikov.Rev-20250829082500-DaringDonna-20250829071300|and my challenge of it]] noting that it not only fails the same aforementioned BLP criteria, but also [[WP:NOR]] as it stated in wikivoice what was not in the cited source but drawn from the editor's view of social media posts. This also violates [[WP:V]]. They in my view did not address these substantive objections, instead [[Talk:Susan Abulhawa#c-DaringDonna-20250830195700-Raskolnikov.Rev-20250829082500|mass-linking]] critical pieces about the subject of the BLP, including many deprecated sources, without any serious attempt to show why the inclusion meets BLP, RS and V standards, or suggesting an alternative phrasing that does. Another editor [[Talk:Susan Abulhawa#c-EvansHallBear-20250904175200-DaringDonna-20250830195700|agreed that my objection was legitimate]]. [[User:Raskolnikov.Rev|Raskolnikov.Rev]] ([[User talk:Raskolnikov.Rev|talk]]) 09:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC) {{abottom}} == Repeated disruptive reverts by User:Kwamikagami on “Dagbanli language” article == {{atop|status=Closing this before boomerangs start flying|1=As a reminder, Wikipedia is not a place to [[WP:RGW|right great wrongs]], and exceeding [[WP:3RR]] while doing so is not a good look. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 23:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)}} I would like to request administrative attention regarding the editing behavior of [[User:Kwamikagami]] on the article currently titled “Dagbanli language” (formerly “Dagbani language”). Over the past several edits, the user has repeatedly (and you can see similar patterns on other African lanaguge articles of which he is clearly not a speaker of any but wrestles control over): * reverted good‑faith corrections to the article title and content * restored the colonial exonym “Dagbani” despite multiple explanations that the endonym used by native speakers is Dagbanli * refused to engage in substantive discussion on the talk page * dismissed local linguistic expertise and imposed their own preferred colonial terminology * engaged in ownership‑like behavior, reverting immediately without consensus * ignored requests to discuss the matter in depth before making further reverts I am a native speaker of the language and have provided context, sources, and explanations for the correct endonym. This is passionate discussion in the Dagbanli community where we're trying our best to correct these colonial legacies on the internet starting from the Wiki projects where we can directly participate. The user has not provided counter reasonging beside saying "this is English", and instead continues to revert without meaningful dialogue. ; Broader context It is worth noting that Wikimedia has a long history of updating language names to reflect accurate endonyms, and many communities (including European ones) have successfully transitioned away from outdated or colonial exonyms. In this context, the repeated reversion of endonym‑based corrections, without discussion or engagement, has the effect of undermining African editors, whose languages have historically been written and described by outsiders like Kwamikagami. For those of us who are finally able to participate and correct long‑standing inaccuracies, this pattern of unilateral reverts by non‑speakers is discouraging and risks pushing out the very contributors who can provide accurate, community‑based knowledge. I am requesting admin intervention to: * Ask the user to stop reverting without discussion * Encourage them to participate in talk‑page consensus‑building I am happy to provide diffs of the repeated reverts and attempts at discussion if needed. Thank you for your attention. -[[User:Masssly|-Masssly]] ([[User talk:Masssly|talk]]) 14:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :As I've noted at [[Talk:Dagbani_language#Title_change?]], neither editor here has engaged on the talk page, and it falls to Masssly at this time to make their case for their changes on the talk page. Other than Masssly's own [[WP:CUTPASTE]], which I've reverted and I expect should not be an issue going forward, this is a content dispute. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 14:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC) ::Masssly is now edit warring, so a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] may be appropriate if they don't change course. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 14:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :::{{yo|Rosguill }} maybe partial block both from the article? <small>{{ping|Bishonen}} says I'm less patient than I used to be.</small> [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- the former admin Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 18:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC) ::::The status quo has been restored by another editor, so I'm hoping that maybe everyone involved can make their way to the talk page rather than edit warring, without requiring blocks. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 19:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC) {{ping|Masssly}} We have an article on [[German language]], not on "Deutsch"; likewise for "French", not "français", "Russian", not "russki", Chinese, not "Zhōngwén", "Welsh", not "Cymru", and so on and so on... Unless there are specific reasons for doing otherwise, Wikipedia's naming system uses the name most commonly used and understood in English. Neither for languages, for religions, for businesses, nor for anything else does Wikipedia give priority to how insiders prefer their subject to be presented to how it is usually presented by outsiders. You are, of course, perfectly free to propose changes to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, to require naming of articles to promote the preferences of involved people such as nationalists, but unless and until such changes are made, you should accept those policies and guidelines ''as they are'', not as you would like them to be. I also note that you have criticised {{u|Kwamikagami}} for "unilaterally" changing relevant content of the article. You changed the name of the language without, as far as I can see, consultation or discussion, and subsequently you have repeated the change several times, despite being reverted by three different editors, and as far as I can see without being supported by anyone else. If you disapprove of unilateral changes of titles then I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) 20:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC) If there is a campaign to change the English name of the language, and it is picked up on by reliable sources (especially secondary sources such as other encyclopedias, ISO, Glottolog etc.), then Wikipedia will generally follow suite. You can even lead that campaign yourself, and if you're successful, we'll move the article accordingly. But we follow [[WP:COMMONNAME]], not [[WP:TRUTH]]. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 22:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :{{tq|follow suite}} [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/follow%20suit] [[Special:Contributions/~2026-92659-0|~2026-92659-0]] ([[User talk:~2026-92659-0|talk]]) 22:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC) {{abot}} == [[Talk:Child_sexuality#Sexualisation]] == Could some other admins please come take a look at [[Talk:Child_sexuality#Sexualisation]] and the discussion there? The short version is that {{user|TedEdwards}} removed an image with the claim that by adding it to the article it sexualizes the child and is thus illegal. {{user|Drew McNish}} reverted that removal and disagrees with TedEdwards. I believe that TedEdwards' interpretation is incorrect and veering into [[WP:NLT|legal threat]] territory. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :Can I refute the idea I am veering towards legal threats? I have not made any indication I want to start legal proceedings against any editor or Wikipedia as a whole. I am not a lawyer, so my legal reasoning could well be wrong but it is not threatening. My comments on U.S. law are that suggesting a non-sexual image of a naked child depicts sexualization of a child could be legally problematic (again in hypothetical proceedings I am not going to start or be involved in). While I'll leave most of this for the relevant talk page, my argument around using that image is not solely based on the law. --[[User:TedEdwards|<span style="color:green">T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed</small></span>]][[User talk:TedEdwards#top|<span style="color:orange">E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards</small></span>]] 23:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :If I can say, I am not saying the image should stay or be removed either way. What I am saying is that if it is it should not be on false grounds as I think is the case, or that there may be other remedies. Also the legal threat matter doesn't concern me as I made no such accusations. [[User:Drew McNish|Drew McNish]] ([[User talk:Drew McNish|talk]]) 23:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :I do also want to make clear that I have made two points pushing for the removal of the image; only one was mentioned by EvergreenFir. The other one I'll summarise as, given the photo of the naked child is not sexual, it is not relevant to a section about the Sexualization of children when no further context for the image was given. --[[User:TedEdwards|<span style="color:green">T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed</small></span>]][[User talk:TedEdwards#top|<span style="color:orange">E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards</small></span>]] 00:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC) == Ahri Boy == Last week, [[User talk:Kurzon#March 2026|Kurzon was indeffed]] for "long-term edit warring issues, battleground editing, and personal attacks". This was noticed by {{user1|Ahri Boy}}, who started to engage on Kurzon's talk page in a way that I think was intended to get them to accept the block and take the standard offer, but ended up prolonging the discussion unnecessarily; at one point, Ahri Boy [[User talk:Kurzon#c-Ahri Boy-20260311111400-Blue-Sonnet-20260311074200|told them to appeal on UTRS]] despite there being no reason the request couldn't be public. I'm bringing this here because this isn't the first time Ahri Boy has engaged in a user-conduct discussion in good faith but ultimately unhelpfully, mostly at AN and ANI. * Ahri Boy's first comments in discussions often show that they've missed some fundamental details about the thread: ** Ahri Boy has a tendency to leap right to supporting harsh sanctions without reading the evidence, including cases where the diffs [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#c-Phil Bridger-20241123200000-Tercer-20241123135700|don't hold up]] (Nov. 2024), [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1209#c-Ahri Boy-20251209150400-Tankishguy-20251209140400|don't relate to this project]] (Dec. 2025), or [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#c-Ahri Boy-20250420030500-Chicdat-20250419221400|haven't even been supplied]] (Apr. 2025). ** Jul. 2025: Ahri Boy tried to get an AN filer to back off of their claims by saying the reported edits were verified by reliable sources, which – [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive372#c-CoffeeCrumbs-20250714145200-Ahri Boy-20250714142900|as CoffeeCrumbs pointed out]] – would have been impossible to conclude from looking at the first diff, which inserted a near-pure statement of opinion on Zionism into mainspace. ** Dec. 2024: In one thread about a group of editors' poor copyediting, Ahri Boy chimed in to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#c-Ahri Boy-20241207110400-GiantSnowman-20241207100000|ask if that group had been warned repeatedly]]; reading the title of the thread would have shown that it was a follow-up to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#New seemingly-related group of good-faith but deleterious West African copyeditors|another thread on the same page]], where they were, in fact, warned repeatedly. ** Aug. 2024: In a thread asking for someone to be blocked as an impersonator of a retired user, Ahri Boy [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#c-Ahri Boy-20240831092200-Cordless Larry-20240831075100|responded to say that the retired user was retired]], which had already been said. ** Ahri Boy was [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#c-Phil Bridger-20241123200000-Tercer-20241123135700|warned]] (Nov. 2024) by [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] and [[meta:User_talk:Ahri_Boy#c-SHB2000-20250202212100-Blocked|blocked on metawiki]] (Feb. 2025) for this exact behavior. * Ahri Boy's advice to sanctioned users ranges from "not quite on point" to "actively harmful if followed", including heavy emphasis on the standard offer even when it it's questionable (as seen with Kurzon): ** Jul. 2025: When a user posted appallingly racist rhetoric, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1194#c-Ahri Boy-20250710025900-Yagiv-20250710023500|Ahri told them to come back in six months]]. Ahri then told them to not come back ... when Ahri found out they were mentally ill, which <em>isn't</em> blockable. ** Dec. 2025: When [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1208#c-Ahri Boy-20251208223500-Saifyalakmar|Ahri Boy reported a user]] for repeated declined unblock requests on sock accounts, their solution was again the standard offer. ([[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] reminded them that unblock requests don't need to be forwarded to ANI automatically.) ** Oct. 2024: When another editor said that they'd been blocked on a very old prior acct and wanted to appeal, Ahri Boy [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366#c-Ahri Boy-20241026010700-Alpha3031-20241026005800|told them to just keep editing]]; another editor reminded Ahri that this would be socking. ** [[User:Liz|Liz]] and [[User:Star Mississippi|Star Mississippi]] both [[User talk:Ahri Boy/Archive 1#WP:AN|warned Ahri Boy]] (Dec. 2025 – Jan. 2026) for their engagement with unblock requests and oversharing, which they have also had a history of. (More examples of questionable engagement with unblocks can be found through that link.) * Even aside from those, Ahri Boy makes poor calls pretty frequently in projectspace: ** Dec. 2025: Ahri Boy [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1209#c-Ahri Boy-20251214174000-~2025-40667-20-20251214162700|implied that we should be looser on one subject's BLP protections]] because "her LA home has a lot of safeguards". ** Oct. 2025: Ahri Boy [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses (2nd nomination)|filed an MfD on that Larry Sanger essay]] just <em>hours</em> after the first one was closed with consensus to keep. ** Dec. 2024: In response to the question "how much of a Nazi does one need to be before [[WP:NONAZIS]] applies?", Ahri Boy replied "[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#c-Ahri Boy-20241208132300-HappyBeachDreams-20241208034300|enough to be indeffed]]", which feels pretty tautological. I hope it's clear that these aren't mild, isolated incidents, and that I'm not dropping this on someone out of nowhere. As much as Ahri Boy is clearly here in good faith and that should be recognize, they've also been warned by several admins on two projects for several pretty appalling instances of engaging without understanding the issues at play or how to resolve them. I haven't even gotten into [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Qwerfjkl+%28bot%29&page=User+talk%3AAhri+Boy&server=enwiki&max= their frequent CS1 errors], their questionable redirects ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=0&newOnly=1&start=&tagfilter=&target=Ahri+Boy&offset=&limit=500 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ADeletedContributions&target=Ahri_Boy&namespace=0&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50 2] [[Special:Diff/1329807303|3]]), or their record with images ([[Special:Diff/1329997843|4]] [[Special:Diff/1328461393|5]] [[Special:Diff/1322849715|6]] [[Special:Diff/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Explicit#c-Ahri Boy-20251231042600-File:Pikabu Screenshot.png|7]] [[Special:Diff/1329021342|8]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3ABritish+passport+%28Series+C%29+biographical+data+%282020%29.png×tamp=20251204120011&diff=prev 9]). They do seem to do pretty okay at AIV and mainspace as mentioned above, so maybe there's some narrowing that can be done, but the projectspace participation has been like this for a while and the warnings don't seem to have worked. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 23:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :<s>In some cases, I'd consider taking a full break after a months of translation, and cleanup.</s> As for alt text revisions, it was useful for those who have visual impairments reading on mobile. I made some mistakes before and I distanced from them slowly. <s>If I would decide to return from a break, I could continue making articles as long as the areas I am working on aren't contentious enough.</s>{{pb}}P.S.: Taking these as a lesson not to cross boundaries too much. I could have been [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and not to be [[WP:CIR|incompetent]] when dealing with issues I am not directly involved.{{pb}}As someone who has [[autism-spectrum disorder]], it's not really easy to [[wikipedia:Apology|apologize]] for what I've made before, and such mistakes may accidentally happen again at anytime. I would best be careful when finding a solution to disputes. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 00:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :I have encountered Ahri Boy once before at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToadetteEdit&diff=prev&oldid=1327698459 ToadetteEdit's talk page], and found their response there to be tautological and also somewhat bizarre, since an admin had already told Toadette to wait a significant amount of time to appeal their CBAN. While I haven't done an in-depth look at all of the diffs yet, I do have concerns about Ahri Boy's contributions to areas related to user conduct, and warnings generally seem to be insufficient at discouraging this behavior. In retrospect, I probably should have asked Ahri Boy to remove their own comment and come to their talk page regarding my concerns. They are clearly here in good faith, but I still find problems with their editing that haven't been adequately resolved. [[User:Fathoms Below|<span style="color:light blue;"><span style="font-size:110%">''Fathoms Below''</span></span>]] [[User talk:Fathoms Below|<span style="color:brown;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(talk)</span></span>]] 00:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC) ::I should also have not written the advice at that time. But you made the call by removing it in good faith. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahri_Boy/Archive_1&oldid=1343523651#more_clear_warning two diffs] at [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] were made when I am stressed out that time. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 01:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :At times I think they're a young editor who is in over their head when it comes to project space. At [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2025_December_12#c-Ahri_Boy-20251217215000-Carrite-20251217202400 others] I think they're badly trolling. It would probably be easiest for all involved if @[[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] stays out of project space and admin adjacent areas and just focused on content, but I'm not sure they're willing to do so. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC) ::@[[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] I think you inadvertently prolonged/exacerbated the situation on Kurzon's Talk page - comments like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKurzon&diff=1343518039&oldid=1343515584 this one] were rather antagonistic & weren't really helpful to an editor who was upset over being blocked and losing access to an account they had for two decades. Asking a direct question then telling them to stop editing in the very next sentence wasn't helpful and almost guaranteed to cause some sort of emotional response. ::Blocks are especially tricky, since you're dealing with someone who's already broken P&G's and often isn't in a positive frame of mind; they're already in a bad situation, so if you say or do the wrong thing then you could accidentally make things a lot worse for them. ::I know it's often much harder to understand social cues when you're neurodivergent - on Wikipedia it's even more difficult because you've only got written text to go off. We're already at a bit of a disadvantage, so it's really important to understand where our weaknesses and limits are. ::Would you agree to stick to basic article editing and refrain from projects/admin areas like Star suggested, at least until you get more experience? [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 03:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :::Alright. I spent a month on translating articles from vi.wp, and stopped short for a while. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 05:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Came across this discussion from somewhere unrelated. @Blue Sonnet came to mind as somebody who contributes to unblock requests in an extremely professional and respectful manner. @Ahri Boy, some of your comments, like the one on @TE's talk page about a "jianghu", are definitely not helpful. Probably best to stick to article space for the time being, rather than administrative areas of the project. Maybe take a look through @Blue Sonnet's edit history to get a feel of what advice is appropriate to give in specific scenarios. Best of luck to you either way! [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 17:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :::::{{non-admin comment}} Came across this discussion while searching for an unrelated past discussion I was involved in. @[[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]], your edits are clearly in good faith, some evidence of which can be seen at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1213#Concern%20regarding%20Iruka13], but I still think that based on the above it may be best for you to refrain from participating in administrative areas for the time being. Of course, if you have any questions you can always ask an admin on their talk page. That'll be all from me in this discussion. Best of luck to you! <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Gommeh|<span style="color:white;">talk!</span>]] [[User:Gommeh/Guestbook|<span style="color:white;">sign!</span>]])</sup></span> 18:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::As someone on the Spectrum, I feel like if your disorder makes you incapable of not disrupting Wikipedia, then perhaps you should find some other hobby or curtail your activities on Wikipedia to those you can undertake without disrupting Wikipedia. [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- the former admin Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 20:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::Agree wit {{ping|theleekycauldron }} concerning curtailment. [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- the former admin Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 20:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :I've seen Ahri Boy around a bit, and noticed that he does many "me too" edits, that he then does not explain. This was the basis of the question I asked him which was noted by the OP. Ahri Boy, if you can't contribute some original thought to a discussion then it's best to stay silent. I know I'm not the world's best role model, but I read many more discussions than I contribute to. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC) P.S. You are far from alone in having autism-spectrum disorder. I sometimes think that I'm the only neurotypical one here! ::<small>"(DITTO: Use it! The mental process involved is exactly analogous to the bandwidth-saving technique employed for your phone. If you’ve seen the scene you’ve seen the scene, and there’s too much new information for you to waste time looking it over more than once. Use “ditto”. ''Use'' it!—The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan)" --<i> [[Stand on Zanzibar]]</i>. [[John Brunner]].</small> [[User:Deepfriedokra|-- the former admin Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 21:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC) == Minor changes on the interface of Special:Block == Hi, this will be part of Tech News but since it'll go live before the tech news for the change is published, here is a heads up. We made two tiny changes on the interface of [[Special:Block]] ([[phab:T401823]]) that will go live on [[WP:THURSDAY|Thursday]] this week. 1- Now indefinite as a duration have a dedicated radio button so you don't need to find it on the preset duration drop down 2- If an indef duration has been picked, a new set of common block reasons will be shown. You can modify that in [[MediaWiki:Ipbreason-indef-dropdown]] (as opposed to [[MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown]]). That way you can have basically two set of common block reasons: One for indef blocks and one for non-indef ones which would reduce the size of that massive drop down. Hope that'd be useful for you. [[user:Ladsgroup|Ladsgroup]]<sup>[[User talk:Ladsgroup|overleg]]</sup> 12:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :Thanks a lot! Will existing reasons from [[MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown]] also be available in the new dropdown for some time, or only the ones we configure at [[MediaWiki:Ipbreason-indef-dropdown]]? If the latter, I might try to get it ready before Thursday. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 12:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC) ::Looking at it more closely, I don't think any of the applicable reasons at [[MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown]] could not also apply to an indefinite block in case of repeated abuse. If anything, I believe the main benefit would be pruning the "default" list from things like username blocks or LTA blocks, while the indef list will stay the full size. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 12:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :::I think something that is a common reason for non-indef block could be an uncommon reason for indef ones. The text field will stay there and admins could always use that for indef blocks of repeated violations but I think for example <nowiki>[[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]]</nowiki> could be removed from indef ones since <nowiki>[[WP:Vandalism-only account|Vandalism-only account]]</nowiki> exists there (and if an admin wants to ban someone fully for "Vandalism", they can use the text field). That being said, I'm not an admin and this is your wiki's decision of how to approach it. [[user:Ladsgroup|Ladsgroup]]<sup>[[User talk:Ladsgroup|overleg]]</sup> 12:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC) ::::That is actually a very good point, thanks a lot! I approached it with the mindset of "which ones would be plausible reasons for a block", but the fact that some of them might be too uncommon absolutely has to be taken into consideration. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 12:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC) == Close review at [[Talk:Yeison Jiménez#Merge proposal]] == {{atopg|status=Endorsed|1=Consensus is that the closure should not be overturned. Further comments to be posted on [[WP:ANI#@Shiningr3ds: Article talk page bludgeoning and uncivil communication|the ANI thread]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)}} There's a non-admin close review being discussed at [[Talk:Yeison Jiménez]]. I'm notifying this board since people often look here for close reviews. All of the involved participants have been pinged, but this would presumably benefit from uninvolved input. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 16:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :I request a review of the closure of the merge discussion for "[[2026 Paipa Piper PA-31 crash]]". :1. The closing statement claims that merge supporters "argued convincingly", yet a review of the discussion shows '''no such thing'''. Their arguments consisted entirely of repeating "routine aviation accident", copy-pasting "[[WP:NOTINHERITED]]", and insisting there was "no secondary coverage" while '''systematically ignoring the sources I provided'''. Meanwhile, the keep side presented independent Colombian media sources ([https://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/otras-ciudades/las-imagenes-ineditas-del-accidente-de-avioneta-de-yeison-jimenez-que-revelo-nuevo-informe-preliminar-de-la-aerocivil-danos-sustanciales-3528034 El Tiempo], [https://www.portafolio.co/economia/regiones/revelan-informe-preliminar-del-accidente-en-el-que-fallecio-yeison-jimenez-y-su-equipo-de-trabajo-487188 Portafolio]) '''that analyzed the crash itself — not just Jiménez's biography''' — documented [[WP:LASTING|lasting effects]] including riots and a tribute with 14,000 attendees, and directly addressed why [[WP:NOTINHERITED]] does not apply when the crash and the death are the same event. The closer simply counted votes and called it consensus, '''which violates [[WP:CONSENSUS]]'''. :2. The closing statement asserts that there is "general agreement" the crash itself is not notable. This ignores that the crash is inseparable from Jiménez's death — '''it is the event that killed him'''. The same "logic" would require merging the [[1999 Martha's Vineyard plane crash]] into [[John F. Kennedy Jr.]]'s article, yet that article has stood for decades because the event involving a notable figure is itself notable. The cultural impact — nationwide mourning, police intervention at a tribute, official statements at the presidential level — demonstrates [[WP:LASTING]] effects that belong to the crash, not just to Jiménez's biography. :3. The decision was made prematurely. The discussion repeatedly featured claims that there would be "no in-depth coverage" and that the preliminary report would not generate sustained interest. Yet sources published weeks before the closure — including [https://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/otras-ciudades/las-imagenes-ineditas-del-accidente-de-avioneta-de-yeison-jimenez-que-revelo-nuevo-informe-preliminar-de-la-aerocivil-danos-sustanciales-3528034 El Tiempo's detailed analysis of the preliminary report], [https://www.infobae.com/colombia/2026/01/29/experto-en-aviacion-analizo-el-informe-sobre-el-siniestro-en-el-que-murio-yeison-jimenez-las-alas-se-destrozan/ expert commentary in Infobae], and coverage in [https://www.bluradio.com/sociedad/nuevo-informe-descarta-principales-hipotesis-de-la-causa-del-accidente-donde-murio-yeison-jimenez-rs15 Blu Radio] and [https://www.noticiascaracol.com/colombia/revelan-informe-preliminar-de-aerocivil-sobre-accidente-de-yeison-jimenez-en-paipa-nuevos-hallazgos-rg10 Noticias Caracol] — '''already proved otherwise'''. These sources demonstrate that the crash received the very type of continued, analytical coverage that merge supporters insisted would never appear. The article was not a permastub but a developing page with guaranteed future content. :4. The closer ignored my detailed analysis of [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yeison_Jim%C3%A9nez#c-Shiningr3ds-20260113135800-Rosbif73-20260113125300 see my comment from 13 January 2026, 13:58 UTC]), which demonstrated that a standalone article better serves reader understanding, that merging risks violating the "space availability" principle, that the biography provides no needed context for the aviation details, and that the article has clear expansion potential. The closer did not address any of these points, simply asserting that merge supporters "argued convincingly" without engaging with the counterarguments. This is not a proper closure. :Since opening this review, none of the merge supporters have provided a substantive explanation for why the sources I provided (El Tiempo, Infobae, Blu Radio, Noticias Caracol) are insufficient. @[[User:11WB|11WB]], who initially claimed there was "no evidence of [[WP:SIGCOV]]", eventually admitted that El Tiempo counts as significant coverage, then dismissed the others with "too short" — a criterion that does not exist in policy. @[[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] have simply repeated earlier arguments without engaging with the sources. This only confirms that the original discussion was closed without proper consideration of the available evidence. :I request that the closure be reviewed. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 21:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC) ===Closer (ScrubbedFalcon)=== :I'm a little frustrated that Shiningr3ds didn't give me a chance to respond to their objections to the close before initiating a formal close review per [[WP:MERGEREVIEW]], but I guess that's alright, their objections seem to stem from their view that the close didn't reasonably summarize and weigh their arguments, but I'm not seeing anything new that I didn't see in the merge discussion itself so its unlikely I would have reversed the close on those grounds. I do want to reiterate that the close was based on all of the arguments made to policy in the discussion and I did not in fact just count the votes. I did seek input from [[Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Input on merge close|discussions for discussion]] before closing which helped improve the summary, I am sorry that Shiningr3ds still feels that their arguments weren't well reflected in it, but I can assure them that I did weigh their input.{{pb}}I'd be happy to answer any questions admins might have for me about the close. [[User:ScrubbedFalcon|ScrubbedFalcon]] ([[User talk:ScrubbedFalcon|talk]]) 00:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::Noting that @[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] came to my talk page to ask me to respond to questions they posed in the discussion. See [[User talk:ScrubbedFalcon#Merge review|[1]]]. I am concerned that they have repeatedly not assumed good faith in discussions on this topic and that their engagement amounts to [[WP:BLUDGEONING]]. [[User:ScrubbedFalcon|ScrubbedFalcon]] ([[User talk:ScrubbedFalcon|talk]]) 14:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :::You're literally complaining right now that I asked you to answer the problematic questions — after you explicitly stated you were willing to answer questions. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 14:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ===Participants=== *'''Endorse close''': As per the [[Talk:Yeison Jiménez#Merge review|article talk page discussion]], I endorse the close enacted by @[[User:ScrubbedFalcon|ScrubbedFalcon]]. They assessed all sides and performed a reasonable close based on the consensus that formed. Having already spent much of the day discussing this, I am invoking [[WP:COAL]] upon myself so that I don't enter into an endless discussion that won't resolve. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 21:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Endorse''' this well-explained close, which was a fair and accurate reflection of the discussion. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 07:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Endorse close'''. I have read the closing statement by ScrubbedFalcon and I believe that they did a full analysis of this merge request and that their close is an accurate reading of the discussion. The crux of Shiningr3ds's argument in this merge review appears to be that they believe their arguments citing [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] were ignored, and that these arguments should have been sufficient to negate the points made by those supporting the merge. I don't think that's correct. The arguments made on 13 Jan were answered and countered by Rosbif73 in the discussion, and I think the closer considered the arguments alongside all the other points made. And per my analysis below, I don't think Shiningr3ds's PAGEDECIDE points are at all a "slam dunk" argument against merging anyway. The consensus was in favour of merging in this discussion, and the closer correctly interpreted that. Cheers — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 13:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Endorse''' – Taking [[WP:DRVPURPOSE]] as an exemple, this request falls under criterion #4 which states that a DRV is not there "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion". This merge review request appears to re-litigate the arguments of the discussion which were already discussed. Just to address some arguments: :*I agree that there wasn't much discussion on the sources (I point back to my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yeison_Jiménez#c-Aviationwikiflight-20260212130000-Rosbif73-20260112101000 comment here] in which I addressed the sources which are simply regurgitations of the preliminary report), but I don't think that it played that much of a role in determining the outcome of the discussion. :*[[WP:LASTING]] refers to "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." I fail to see how "riots and a tribute with 14,000 attendees" and "nationwide mourning, police intervention at a tribute [and] official statements at the presidential level" were of lasting significance. :*Regarding the [[1999 Martha's Vineyard plane crash]], there's enough coverage of the plane crash itself for it to be notable (which we needn't argue here). Please see [[WP:OSE]]. :Honestly, I agree with the sentiment that some of the arguments presented could have been better (from both sides) but even considering that, I still think that there was enough of a consensus in favour of merging for the discussion to have been correctly closed. :And a reminder that consensus does not require unanimity (see [[WP:SATISFY]]). In addition, I recommend striking out "systematically ignoring" as it's implied from it that those who voted to merge were doing so in bad faith (which I don't believe you meant to imply). Perhaps, a few months or a few years on, if better coverage arises, I wouldn't mind an article being recreated. [[User:Aviationwikiflight|Aviationwikiflight]] ([[User talk:Aviationwikiflight|talk]]) 14:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ===Non-participants=== *'''Endorse'''. I reviewed the close at [[Wikipedia:Discussions_for_discussion#Input_on_merge_close|discussions for discussion]], found it fine, as did one other reviewer, and find this close reasonable and correct now. [[User:Iseult|<span style="color: #35b794">'''I'''seult</span>]]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>[[Special:Contribs/Iseult|'' Δx '']]</sup>[[User talk:Iseult|talk to me]]</span> 23:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Endorse''' I understand that the explanation of the close might not have been ideal, but it all looks like it's above board and I don't have any concerns. :<s>@[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]], you clearly feel very strongly about the subject, so please take care not to inadvertently [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon]] the discussion - I'm absolutely '''not''' saying you are going to do this, I can just see a few indications that this is a (hopefully unlikely) possibility.</s> [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 09:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Endorse'''. While discussions are not a vote, it's not meant to be just about convincing the closer. If nobody is paying any attention to your arguments, that means that you've failed to convince editors with them; it's not the closer's job to rebut them. Nor would it be appropriate for a closer to pluck out an argument few respondents really embraced and say "well ''I'' don't think anyone answered this" and declare it as a consensus - again, discussions are not a vote, but they're also not a ''debate''; you don't get a consensus by having stronger arguments in a vacuum, but by ''convincing the community'' (not the closer!) with those arguments. Closers can disregard arguments that are plainly not grounded in policy, but (as in this case) where the numerical majority is behind a clearly reasonable policy-based argument, a closer can't just go "well this other argument is stronger" or "well I don't feel anyone answered this argument" as OP implicitly requests. It's the ''community'' that decides that, and they clearly made their decision here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC) *:@[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]], you just said: "consensus is not a vote, but if the majority is for it, then that's consensus." That's exactly what [[WP:NOTAVOTE]] warns against. But honestly, I no longer care about the outcome. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 15:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :::No, as I said, there are ''some'' things a closer needs to examine, such that it's not a vote. Arguments that are not grounded in policy at all have to get disregarded, say. But that doesn't extend to just choosing the argument the closer prefers. The simple fact is that everyone in an RFC is going to feel they have stronger arguments (if they didn't, it wouldn't reach the part of requiring an RFC in the first place), so if that alone was enough then no RFC outcome would ever be accepted. Weighing the strength of arguments is the job of the ''community''; the closer's job is to evaluate what the community decided, not to override that decision when it is obvious. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ::::I'm not asking the closer to pick my argument because I like it. If the community truly weighed it and found it unpersuasive, that should be reflected somewhere. It wasn't. That's not "evaluating what the community decided" — that's ignoring what was actually said. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 16:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :::::All I saw was one line summarizing the keep side's position — no breakdown of why my [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] analysis was wrong. PAGEDECIDE says decisions should be based on reader understanding, not because a majority voted a certain way. I'm interested in aviation. I knew nothing about Jiménez before the crash. Readers interested in him can still find the crash covered in his biography. One event, two audiences. That's what PAGEDECIDE is for. :::::Anyway, I've said everything I can. I'm done. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 16:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Endorse''' Not an easy close, but I can't see anything technically wrong with it. Aquillion also makes some very good points. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ===Discussion=== *@[[User:ScrubbedFalcon|ScrubbedFalcon]], a few questions about your close: :1. Was my detailed [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] analysis ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yeison_Jim%C3%A9nez#c-Shiningr3ds-20260113135800-Rosbif73-20260113125300 four specific points, 13 January]) accurate? :2. Was it mentioned anywhere in your closing statement? If not, why was it ignored? :3. Did merge supporters ever engage with the sources I provided (El Tiempo, Portafolio) — or did they just keep repeating "coverage is about Jiménez"? :4. If a topic meets [[WP:GNG]], demonstrates [[WP:LASTING]] effects, has [[WP:SIGCOV]] from multiple independent sources, and a standalone article is supported by [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] — does it deserve its own article, or can it still be merged simply because some editors prefer it? [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 04:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *@[[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]], I'd encourage you to read [[WP:NOTAVOTE]] and [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. The closing statement says merge supporters "argued convincingly" — but looking at the actual discussion, what do we see? I addressed every single argument from the merge side. Policy points, sources, lasting effects — all responded to. Multiple other participants even noted that consensus was unclear. That alone should have been enough for a different outcome. I'll be honest — I came here hoping for a genuine review of my arguments. Instead, I'm seeing "endorse, I don't see any problems" without anyone actually addressing the problems I've pointed out. Ignoring sources — is that not a problem? Dismissing coverage of the crash itself as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yeison_Jiménez#c-11WB-20260211180600-Shiningr3ds-20260211180400 all about Jiménez]" when the sources clearly aren't — is that not a problem? Being outvoted by "per nom" comments and having that called "convincing argumentation" — is that not a problem? Having my [[WP:PAGEDECIDE|PAGEDECIDE]] analysis completely ignored, then seeing the same rule cited to justify the merge — is that not a problem? If none of this matters, then I genuinely don't know what the point of arguments is anymore. I write long posts because short ones don't work. If you want shorter replies, engage with what I'm actually saying instead of brushing it aside. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 11:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :I am breaking COAL to reply to this. @[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]], I am only going to say this once. [[WP:MERGEREVIEW]]: '{{tq|Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.}}' By sending that message, you are actually doing the very thing that @Blue Sonnet warned about. Please let other editors come to their own conclusions now. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 11:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::You're quoting [[WP:MERGEREVIEW]] back at me, so let's use it: a review is for problems with the close itself. I've pointed out four. Those aren't a rehash; they're the reasons this review exists. If you think the close was fine, address them. Otherwise, telling me to stop while refusing to engage is the actual bludgeoning. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 12:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::[[User_talk:Blue-Sonnet#c-11WB-20260317120500-AN|I've advised]] @Blue Sonnet to strike out or remove the mention of bludgeoning. That doesn't mean there should be a repeat of what took place over in the original merge proposal or the discussion that took place yesterday. Everybody can read and understand your points, you don't need to keep repeating them over and over. ''That'' is bludgeoning by definition. You obviously believe you are right, if that is the case, you would follow COAL and stop repeating the same points. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 12:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::I just want a substantive discussion about the specific problems I've pointed out — not more "looks fine" without explanation. I'll stop repeating when someone actually addresses what I wrote. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 12:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::::Review is not the place for substantive discussion of the underlying dispute (that took place during the merge discussion itself). Review is solely about confirming that normal wiki process has been followed and that the close was a reasonable assessment of the consensus. Two uninvolved editors have already endorsed the close; I suggest simply waiting for the review to conclude. Sometimes you just have to accept that your point of view has not prevailed and move on to other things. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 12:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::We're in the "Discussion" section for a reason. If this isn't a review, what is it? And this isn't just my personal opinion — it's based on policy and sources. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 12:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::@[[User:11WB|11WB]] Done. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 12:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::::@[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]], you can't dictate what other editors should or shouldn't say. It is down to the individual editor to summarise their position. They are obviously going to read your extensive statement, but if they don't feel it is necessary to go over each point, they won't and aren't obligated to. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 12:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::That is going to be my final reply, as I am digging a hole myself by replying to you now. Please consider letting this play out, instead of feeling like you have to respond to every individual message. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 12:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::I'm not dictating anything — just following [[WP:READFIRST]]. If they'd read what I wrote, they'd see the problems I pointed out. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 12:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::Please [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|AGF]] and don't make presumptions about what I have and haven't done. I've read through the arguments on the Talk page and the close itself before reaching my decision, as per the page you quoted. :::::::I struck my earlier comments as requested in good faith and kindly ask that you extend that same good faith to those who don't hold the same viewpoint as yourself. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 15:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :I broadly agree with the sentiment above that this is relitigating the RM rather than the close, but since Shiningr3ds is implying that their points were not considered by the closer and should have overridden the !votes saying the pages should be merged, I will attempt to reply to that point here. :*On your first point, "Standalone page best serves reader understanding" you provide a quote from [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] stating that {{xt|"Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page"}}, but you then don't mention the end of that sentence, which goes on to say {{xt|"but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic"}}. This is the entire point of [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] - some topics which otherwise appear to meet [[WP:GNG]] do not actually warrant having their own page, hence it's up to us to "decide" whether there should be one or not. You then went on to say {{xt|"This is exactly such a case"}}, giving your views as to why a separate page was warranted. But that's your view and there were a majority of editors at the discussion who did not believe a separate page was warranted. The PAGEDECIDE guideline does not in itself favour one or other of these viewpoints. :*The second part of your 13 Jan comment states that we shouldn't merge just because of "space availability", but I'm not aware of any contributor in the discussion having made such an argument so it doesn't seem particularly relevant here. :*On your third point, "needed context", you state that readers need {{xt|"The context for the crash is the history of the aircraft, weather and investigation procedures"}}. But those arguing for a merge felt the exact opposite. It was argued by multiple editors that the plane and the crash itself would not have been notable but for the death of a famous person on board; and as such, detailed descriptions of weather and aircraft history that one would typically find in an article on an aircraft disaster aren't required to understand the overall picture and numerous similar accidents that occur go without any such article. If weather or the state of the aircraft are found to have played a specific part in the death of Jimenez then we can mention those in a couple of sentences in the section on his page detailing his death; a full separate article is not required for that, or so the majority of respondents felt. :*And finally, on "What sourcing is available now?" - you suggest there is a lot of sourcing about the crash specifically, but that doesn't seem to be evidenced. The sources you did provide, such as [https://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/otras-ciudades/las-imagenes-ineditas-del-accidente-de-avioneta-de-yeison-jimenez-que-revelo-nuevo-informe-preliminar-de-la-aerocivil-danos-sustanciales-3528034], are clearly about the accident in the context of Jimenez's death itself, the articles aren't focusing on the crash just because it was a crash. The headline makes that clear. Thus that source supports addition of content in [[Yeison Jiménez]], it doesn't provide evidence that a page on the plane crash is warranted. :Anyway, the main point is that all of this was raised and considered during the RM itself; Rosbif73 specifically responded to your 13 January post, and no other participant thought that invoking PAGEDECIDE as you did was in any way a slam dunk argument. Judging by their detailed closing comment, I believe the closer also read the full discussion and also did not see it as an open-and-shut policy point that overrode the comments in favour of merging. You're welcome to respond to my points here if you like, but like 11WB I don't intend to get into a lengthy back-and-forth here. I will be endorsing the close as an involved participant who also supported the merge in the original discussion. Cheers — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 13:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::@[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]], you're missing the point. [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] doesn't just say "merging is sometimes allowed". It says decisions must be based on specific considerations about reader understanding — exactly the ones I provided. You haven't addressed why those considerations are wrong, only that others disagreed. That's not a policy argument, that's just headcount. Regarding the sources, you're judging the source by its headline without reading it. El Tiempo is not "about Jiménez's death" — it's a detailed analysis of the preliminary report, with crash investigation data, photos. The headline mentions Jiménez because that's what made it newsworthy, but the content is about the crash itself. That's exactly what [[WP:SIGCOV]] requires. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 13:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::I'm not missing any points. I have explained to you why your reading of PAGEDECIDE does not automatically mean there's no merge of the articles, and that's it. The majority of participants did not agree with and rebutted your reading of PAGEDECIDE, you did not convince them, and [[WP:CONSENSUS]] was against you. That's how Wikipedia decision-making works, and repeatedly making the same point over and over isn't going to change the outcome. Cheers — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 13:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::[[WP:CONSENSUS]] [[WP:NOTAVOTE|isn't a vote count]]. It's based on the strength of arguments. You say my reading was "rebutted" — but where? Rosbif73 repeated that the crash is "run-of-the-mill". That's not a rebuttal — it's an opinion. No one engaged with my sources or my [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] breakdown. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 13:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::::I have a genuine question @Shiningr3ds. If this review closes as an endorse of the original close, what do you plan to do? Not trying to make assumptions here, but this does come across as a complete refusal to accept that your view may differ from the general consensus. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 14:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::Honestly, I might take a break from Wikipedia — these discussions are exhausting. Or maybe I'll just focus on preparing articles for "Did you know" on Russian Wikipedia (where I'm also active). Either way, the way my arguments have been treated — first denying [[WP:SIGCOV]] entirely (which was your main complaint), then admitting one source actually qualifies, yet still pushing for the merge without addressing the rest — is seriously demotivating. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 15:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::We all understand what you are putting forward, and have engaged with it. Unfortunately, the mindset with which you have approached this review has made the discussion quite contentious. It's either everyone else is wrong and you are right, with no alternative being possible (which is the reality). A break may be a good idea. I agree that these discussions have been exhausting, but they didn't need to be, had the original closure simply been accepted for what it was. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 15:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *@[[User:Aviationwikiflight|Aviationwikiflight]], you admit there "wasn't much discussion on the sources". That's the entire point — they were ignored. If sources aren't discussed, how can a close be based on a fair reading of the discussion? You call the sources "regurgitations of the preliminary report". That's a convenient label, but let's test it. El Tiempo, Infobae include expert commentary, analysis of the investigation, and details about the crash itself. That's not regurgitation — that's secondary coverage. You've used the same dismissal in other discussions ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bimini Piper Pa-32 crash|2010 Bimini Piper Pa-32 crash]], for example), where multiple editors had to explain why a year‑later article with expert interviews was clearly secondary. This is a pattern: when sources contradict your view, you call them "routine" or "regurgitation" without engaging. [[WP:LASTING]] doesn't require a change in international law. Riots, police intervention at a tribute, and 14,000 attendees are documented social effects. If that's not "lasting", what is? The bar you're setting is impossibly high. The Kennedy crash comparison isn't [[WP:OSE]] as a "keep because they have one" argument. It's to show inconsistency: if a crash involving a famous person with significant coverage gets a standalone article, why not this one? That's not policy, but it highlights that the merge wasn't based on consistent application of the guidelines. You say "consensus doesn't require unanimity" — true. But it does require that arguments are weighed, not just counted. The closer ignored my detailed [[WP:PAGEDECIDE]] breakdown and the sources. That's not consensus — that's a headcount. I'm not re-litigating. I'm pointing out that the close didn't reflect what was actually in the discussion. [[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]] ([[User talk:Shiningr3ds|talk]]) 14:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :Please stop bludgeoning. You are repeating the same points you have already made. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 15:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC) <small>[Moved from Closer section above]</small> @[[User:Shiningr3ds|Shiningr3ds]], you don't seem to have understood the essential point that several people have made to you, namely that review is solely about determining whether there are any valid procedural reasons to overturn the close, but does NOT involve re-litigating the discussion{{snd}}which is precisely what your questions are doing. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 14:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC) {{abot}} == A page that remained undeleted after speedy deletion since 2024 because they didn't encode it correctly == {{atop|1=Speedied by Toadspike. <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 09:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)}} Page: [[Module:F1_2021_Results/testcases]] [[Special:Contributions/~2026-16929-85|~2026-16929-85]] ([[User talk:~2026-16929-85|talk]]) 07:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC) {{abot}} == 2026 Iran war == {{archivetop|[[WP:NAC|(non-admin closure)]] Not an issue for administrators [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] [[User talk: EditorShane3456|(talk to me if you want!)]] 13:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)}} requesting to note that Ali Larijani is dead acourding to multiple sources [[Special:Contributions/~2026-16749-16|~2026-16749-16]] ([[User talk:~2026-16749-16|talk]]) 13:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC) {{archivebottom}} == Unblock Request User:DorsetTiger == {{atop|1=(NAC) DorsetTiger has done confirmed recent sock puppetry, and is now 3X banned, so this is redundant. Re-closing per Yamla.<span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]] [[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sub>'''T'''alk</sub>]]</span> 23:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)}} Per [[User talk:DorsetTiger]] - account has been blocked since October 2021 for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. Relevant comments from user: {{tbq|I am requesting the standard offer as I have not edited for a number of years. I was younger and immature previously but wish to be given a second chance to edit more responsibly if possible. The initial block to this account occurred back in 2021 when I was blocked for adding false information to the ‘Boyz' by Jesy Nelson featuring Nicki Minaj article, I was younger and acting silly and immature. I am back on Wikipedia now and have read the terms around correctly sourcing information and am now more grown up, the articles I wish to edit are sports and politics related, as they are my main interests... I was frustrated at being blocked so created new accounts, but have now read the terms around sockpuppetry, I had been confused about what the term sockpuppet had meant but have read both the sockpuppet page and the duck page which talks about accounts editing with the same behaviour.}} User seems to have grown up since then. Has confirmed they have read the relevant policy around editing and citing sources as well as sockpuppetry. Given how long it has been and the user's attitude in the unblock request, I am comfortable with an unblock. Pinging @[[User:Kinu|Kinu]] as the original blocking admin if they have any other input. '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *Since this editor doesn't seem to be banned, couldn't they be unblocked as an individual admin action once a checkuser confirms there hasn't been any recent block evasion? {{tl|checkuser needed}} to confirm no recent block evasion. [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]] [[Special:Contributions/45dogs|(contributions)]]</small> 22:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *:There are 1 confirmed and 1 suspected sock puppets, so they aren't [[WP:3X]] CBAN'ed and can be unblocked by individual admin action, I think. The text of 3X says it requires 2 confirmed cases of sock puppetry, but there is only one confirmed here. It's borderline though, so prehaps community consensus is better. <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 22:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *::Thanks for the info! I'll make sure I just check in with a check user next time to confirm the number of socks before making a decision on whether to take it to AN or not. '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 23:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *<s>'''Tentative support'''</s>: I've had a look and it appears [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyz_(Jesy_Nelson_song)&diff=prev&oldid=1050297394 this] is one of the edits that led to the initial block. They added [[WP:BAREURL|bare URLs]] which isn't the best. The information in question appeared to have little to no relevance to the actual song. I don't think [[Sir Chris Whitty]] is somebody I would expect to be giving commentary on... [[Boyz (Jesy Nelson song)|Boyz]] by [[Jesy Nelson]]. I agree with what @Cullen said [[User_talk:DorsetTiger#c-Cullen328-2021-09-27T03:37:00.000Z-Code_Pending-2021-09-27T02:55:00.000Z|here]]. The subsequent sock puppetry after the block isn't great. This all took place four and a half-ish years ago (despite 2021 still feeling oddly recent!). <s>If this editor has not abused multiple accounts in more recent times, I think they can reasonably be given the chance to try again.</s> [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 22:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :* Remarkably, the Chris Whitty / Boris Johnson stuff was all true, but as you say wasn't related to the article in question - it would have been fine in Minaj's own article, but of course doesn't appear there because that article, like many of our pop star articles, is a massive exercise in whitewashing written by fans of the artist. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *<s>'''Support''', they deserve a second chance after maturing. Re-blocking is really easy if required, often I support many of these such cases. Of course, this is pending CU confirmation of no recent sock puppetry.</s> Withdrawn per confirmed recent sock puppetry. This is really disappointing. <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS; font-size:125%">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]][[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sup>'''Talk'''</sup>]]</span> 22:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Support''' pending clear CU. Last sock edit was just under 3 years ago so if this needs the community's go-ahead then I'm happy to lend my voice to that. They should take care if they want to edit about politics & consider getting a bit of experience in other subjects first, but that's just a suggestion that I'm making as an aside. [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 22:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *{{cunote}}: I'm disappointed to report that I believe [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Footy updates]] is confirmed. I request a second opinion, probably from [[User:PhilKnight]] as they've been doing the SPI. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 23:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC) *:Oh dear. That is unfortunate. '''[[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]''' [[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]] 23:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::: The technical evidence is as strong as it gets. They are {{confirmed}} to {{np|Footy updates}}. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::::I initially closed this thread, but it looks like I was the original blocking admin. I've reopened it, but suggest someone else come along and close it and decline this user's request, now they are considered [[WP:CBAN|banned by the community]]. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 23:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::Withdrawing support per the sock puppet findings. [[User:11WB|<span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 23:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::I've updated the template on their user page to represent their 3X ban now (and on Footy updates to indicate they aren't the sock master, as DorsetTiger is the older account). <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]] [[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sub>'''T'''alk</sub>]]</span> 23:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC) {{abot}} == [[WP:CR|Close requests]] == [[WP:CR]] could use a little love. I did my part and closed one, but there's a lot to go around. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 17:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC) == [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Pbsouthwood]] closed == An arbitration case regarding [[User:Pbsouthwood]] has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in December of 2025 to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Pbsouthwood requested it within three months. Because Pbsouthwood has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Pbsouthwood#Pbsouthwood: Motion to suspend]]. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 00:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC) : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Pbsouthwood closed}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 00:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> == Arno Tausch spam cleanup == There is a great deal of literature cited to [[Arno Tausch]] on Wikipedia. Most seem to have been added by IPs and socks of [[User:Thomas Bernhard 1945]], particularly under the account of [[Special:Contributions/Austrian political observer]]. I also noticed that an account called [[Special:Contributions/John de Norrona]] has had a propensity to cite Tausch disproportionaltely, which I will flag for SPI. This is a fairly clear case of [[WP:SELFPROMOTION]], and help cleaning this stuff up would be appreciated.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 07:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC) *Pinging {{ping|Randykitty|PhilKnight|Cordless Larry|S0091|Russ Woodroofe|Nomoskedasticity|Xxanthippe|Liz}} as people who've had interests/run-ins with those Tausch-related socks.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 07:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC) *There is exactly 69 articles that need cleaning up, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22Tausch%22+insource%3A%22Arno%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 <span style="color:blue; font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Avenir,Arial,Comic Sans MS">[[User:MolecularPilot|'''M'''olecular'''P'''ilot]] [[User talk:MolecularPilot|<sub>'''T'''alk</sub>]]</span> 07:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC) *:Thanks, I thought I linked the search, but I guess I had it opened on a seperate window. It was 71 earlier, but I/someone else probably cleaned a few already. Note that it's possible some of those are good citations. But most were added by promotional accounts as far as I can tell.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 08:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Eurovision Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Eurovision Wiki:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Pages included on this page:
User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count
(
edit
)
User:Amalthea/RfX/RfB count
(
edit
)
User:MiszaBot/config
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Administrator intervention against vandalism
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Header
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Articles for deletion/Old
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Closure requests
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Files for discussion/Old unclosed discussions
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Miscellany for deletion
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 1
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 10
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 11
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 2
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 3
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 4
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 5
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 7
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt)
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Usernames for administrator attention
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot
(
edit
)
Template:((
(
edit
)
Template:-
(
edit
)
Template:A note
(
edit
)
Template:Abbr
(
edit
)
Template:Abot
(
edit
)
Template:Abottom
(
edit
)
Template:Admin tasks
(
edit
)
Template:Admin tasks/UAA
(
edit
)
Template:Administrators' noticeboard archives
(
edit
)
Template:Archive bottom
(
edit
)
Template:Archive top
(
edit
)
Template:Archive top/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Archive top green
(
edit
)
Template:Archive top green/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Archivebottom
(
edit
)
Template:Archivetop
(
edit
)
Template:Article links
(
edit
)
Template:Articlelinks
(
edit
)
Template:Atop
(
edit
)
Template:Atop green
(
edit
)
Template:Atopg
(
edit
)
Template:Blockquote
(
edit
)
Template:Blockquote/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:CUnote
(
edit
)
Template:Centralized discussion
(
edit
)
Template:Centralized discussion/core
(
edit
)
Template:Centralized discussion/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Clear
(
edit
)
Template:Clickable button
(
edit
)
Template:Confirmed
(
edit
)
Template:Cunote
(
edit
)
Template:Div col
(
edit
)
Template:Div col/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Div col end
(
edit
)
Template:Encodefirst
(
edit
)
Template:Flatlist
(
edit
)
Template:Hab
(
edit
)
Template:Hat
(
edit
)
Template:Hidden archive bottom
(
edit
)
Template:Hidden archive top
(
edit
)
Template:Hidden archive top/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Hlist/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:If mobile
(
edit
)
Template:If mobile/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Ifsubst
(
edit
)
Template:Main other
(
edit
)
Template:Navbar
(
edit
)
Template:No ping
(
edit
)
Template:No redirect
(
edit
)
Template:Non-admin comment
(
edit
)
Template:Non-administrator comment
(
edit
)
Template:Noping
(
edit
)
Template:Noticeboard header
(
edit
)
Template:Noticeboard links
(
edit
)
Template:Np
(
edit
)
Template:Pagetype
(
edit
)
Template:Paragraph break
(
edit
)
Template:Pb
(
edit
)
Template:Ping
(
edit
)
Template:Plainlist/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Pp-move
(
edit
)
Template:Pp-move-indef
(
edit
)
Template:Preview warning
(
edit
)
Template:Reply to
(
edit
)
Template:Respond
(
edit
)
Template:RfA watchlist notice
(
edit
)
Template:SHORTDESC:Notices of interest to administrators
(
edit
)
Template:Section link
(
edit
)
Template:Short description
(
edit
)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck
(
edit
)
Template:Shortcut
(
edit
)
Template:Side box
(
edit
)
Template:Skip to bottom
(
edit
)
Template:Skip to bottom/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Slink
(
edit
)
Template:Snd
(
edit
)
Template:Spaced en dash
(
edit
)
Template:String count
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote block
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote block/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote inline
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote inline/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote inline with quotes
(
edit
)
Template:Tbq
(
edit
)
Template:Template link
(
edit
)
Template:Template link expanded
(
edit
)
Template:Template link with subst
(
edit
)
Template:Tl
(
edit
)
Template:Tls
(
edit
)
Template:Tlx
(
edit
)
Template:Tq
(
edit
)
Template:Tqb
(
edit
)
Template:Tqq
(
edit
)
Template:Trim
(
edit
)
Template:U
(
edit
)
Template:User
(
edit
)
Template:User-multi
(
edit
)
Template:User1
(
edit
)
Template:User link
(
edit
)
Template:Userlinks
(
edit
)
Template:XFD backlog
(
edit
)
Template:XFD backlog/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:XfD backlog
(
edit
)
Template:Xt
(
edit
)
Template:Yesno
(
edit
)
Template:Yo
(
edit
)
Module:Administrators' noticeboard archives
(
edit
)
Module:Administrators' noticeboard archives/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:Archive list
(
edit
)
Module:Arguments
(
edit
)
Module:CallAssert
(
edit
)
Module:Check for unknown parameters
(
edit
)
Module:Clickable button
(
edit
)
Module:Delink
(
edit
)
Module:Effective protection expiry
(
edit
)
Module:Effective protection level
(
edit
)
Module:File link
(
edit
)
Module:List
(
edit
)
Module:MultiReplace
(
edit
)
Module:Navbar
(
edit
)
Module:Navbar/configuration
(
edit
)
Module:Navbar/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:Navbox
(
edit
)
Module:Navbox/configuration
(
edit
)
Module:Navbox/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:No ping
(
edit
)
Module:Page
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype/config
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype/rfd
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect
(
edit
)
Module:Protect
(
edit
)
Module:Protection banner
(
edit
)
Module:Protection banner/config
(
edit
)
Module:Redirect
(
edit
)
Module:Reply to
(
edit
)
Module:Section link
(
edit
)
Module:Shortcut
(
edit
)
Module:Shortcut/config
(
edit
)
Module:Shortcut/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:Side box
(
edit
)
Module:Side box/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:Sidebar/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:String
(
edit
)
Module:TableTools
(
edit
)
Module:Template link general
(
edit
)
Module:Toolbar
(
edit
)
Module:Unsubst
(
edit
)
Module:User
(
edit
)
Module:UserLinks
(
edit
)
Module:UserLinks/config
(
edit
)
Module:UserLinks/shared
(
edit
)
Module:Wikitext Parsing
(
edit
)
Module:XfD old
(
edit
)
Module:XfD old/AfD and MfD
(
edit
)
Module:YMD to ISO
(
edit
)
Module:Yesno
(
edit
)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Project page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit source
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Page information