Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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


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

    Clasus1453 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Fail to see how this user is a networth to this site. All their edits have been reverted (mostly by me) and for good reason; they're unsourced and revisionism. Their talk page is also full of warnings (mostly by me).

    They have never written a edit summary once, let alone written in a talk page. Back in January they created the revisionistic Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars, adding it to conflicts between the Ottomans and Aq Qoyunlu [1] [2] [3], referring the latter as "Azerbaijani", despite the ethnonym first emerging in 1918 and the Aq Qoyunlu article literally stating that they're Turkoman, not Azeri. After reverting them, I tried to explain this to them at their talk page [4], but it was clearly ignored, as they went on a second time to create Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars after it was speedily deleted for being empty, and after being reverted for that´too, they started edit warring [5] [6] and then created a even more revisionistic category, Category:Azerbaijani-Uzbek wars, this time not only calling the Turkoman Aq Qoyunlu (and Turkoman Qara Qoyunlu) for "Azerbaijani", but now also calling the Turco-Mongol Timurid Empire for "Uzbek" [7] [8] [9].

    Bonus; altering sourced information [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    User:Clasus1453 made their last edit at 05:22 on 26 February. If they resume editing without responding to this complaint, please let me know. A block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Will do, thanks EdJohnston! HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @EdJohnston: They have resumed editing by doing more edit warring [11] [12]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have partial-blocked them from article space until such time as they agree to communicate and discuss their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated and unexplained insertion of dubious content[edit]

    I have recently noticed that Nwaiotbaw (talk · contribs) has inserted a lot of unusable content into articles about railways in Hong Kong and mainland China, including obvious factual errors such as the reversal of a railway service's driving direction (even though it is obvious and indicated by the cited source that it runs on the left), changes to cardinal directions that are clearly wrong just from looking at a map or comparing the coordinates shown on the respective pages, and unsourced and overly detailed prose. Others have previously warned this user for inserting speculative information from their imagination (so this seems to have been going on for some time) and never writing edit summaries. I should note that I think it is possible that some of their edits are constructive.

    I am at a loss for what to do in this situation, as the user has apparently never communicated with other editors in any way in talk pages or other forums, and has never responded on their talk page. Nowadays there don't seem to be many active editors in this space to keep track of dubious edits. I haven't edited much in recent years, so I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention this or if this issue would be considered not severe enough for this forum. Jc86035 (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    We do sometimes block users for complete failure to communicate. I've left an admin warning at User talk:Nwaiotbaw. They have never responded to any of the issues raised by others on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If they continue to edit without discussing things (their most recent contribution was several hours before this thread was opened) then the first step is probably a partial block from the article (and maybe template) namespace. They don't seem to be using a mobile device so this doesn't seem to be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @EdJohnston: It appears they have continued to edit without acknowledging the concerns. Jc86035 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've blocked from the article, draft and template namespaces until they communicate either here or on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


    I posted to this editor's talk page earlier today, raising concerns about their JWB-powered mass-removal of {{talk header}}, as well of the removal of the |living= parameter from WikiProject banners, on talk pages of redirects (permalink). As I was going to continue this discussion on their talk page, I noticed that - since I posted there (and they responded) - they continued making these changes via JWB (at a fast pace); which I believe was in violation of AWB rule 3 (which states that it should not be used to make controversial edits, and that [i]f challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale). I then re-posted to their talk page asking them to stop making these JWB edits for this reason, to which they responded OK, I will do it manually (diff).

    I'd like to discuss my objections to these changes in the normal manner, but that's made difficult when they're being mass-made before such a discussion has occurred (and after NmWTfs85lXusaybq's been made aware of my objection to them). Since my request that they halted the JWB edits, they have continued to make the same edits in a WP:MEATBOT-like fashion (but without using JWB); which I'm finding hard to see as something other than a 'workaround' to my request that they stop these JWB edits, in addition to continued mass-editing without consensus.

    If there are any queries, please let me know. I apologise if anything is worded poorly. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 05:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I will keep an eye on this thread. So, please leave comments here if there's any further concern from other editors. Thanks, NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Primefac: I noticed that you removed their AWB perms - thank you for doing that. However, NmWTfs85lXusaybq has continued to make these problematic mass-changes without consensus - only, doing it manually now, rather than using a semi-automated tool. Please can an admin ask them to stop? (On a side note, I'm happy to expand on my reasons for objecting to these changes; I just haven't yet, as I didn't know if it would be appropriate/helpful to do so in a discussion about editor conduct.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 07:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    information Note: The task has already been completed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NmWTfs85lXusaybq, this is what, the second time you've been at ANI in addition to WP:BOTN for this sort of mass editing? You say that this task is done, but what about the next time? Will you simply ignore any complaints and just power through until it's done, and then say "well, you can't complain any more, as I am done"? In other words, I am looking for a reason not to block or partially block you for continually refusing to acknowledge others. Primefac (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    None of my edits have ever been reverted regarding these threads. I haven't received any objection from editors other than a smart kitten. And I haven't got any response from them after I replied to all their concerns. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn't reply further on your talk, because you continued making the edits (without giving me time to respond) after I objected twice; leading to me starting this ANI thread. As I said above, I would have liked to discuss my objections to these changes in the normal manner. That I started this thread rather than responding further at your talk doesn't mean that my concerns were alleviated - the contrary is true. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You haven't reverted any edit of these tasks and you only asked me not to use those tools to make edits. I did exactly what you asked. You can't just claim to object all my edits because I just don't like it. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Mass rollback proposal[edit]

    I would like to propose that the (around 1,300) mass-edits by NmWTfs85lXusaybq that (a) removed {{talk header}} from redirect talk pages, and (b) removed the |living= WikiProject banner parameter from redirect talk pages, be rolled back; due to being mass-made without obtaining consensus (and after receiving an objection), and for the following reasons:

    • Regarding the edits removing |living=yes from WikiProject banners - NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated at their talk page that they believe the {{BLP}} banner obviously doesn't apply to redirects (diff). I disagree with this - redirects (as with all pages) are subject to WP:BLP; and redirects can still have BLP implications (e.g. a redirect from a living person's name could be validly added to categories within the scope of WP:BLPCAT).
      Furthermore, even if {{BLP}} didn't apply to redirects, that would (in my opinion) be an issue better brought up at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell and/or Template talk:WikiProject Biography; where the banner could be set to not display on talk pages of redirects, if that's what the consensus was for - rather than the living parameter being unilateraly removed en masse to achieve this outcome.
    • Regarding the edits removing {{talkheader}} - NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated that they believe it to be helpless conflict with {{tpr}} on redirect talk pages (diff). I can't see why it's helpless, and - if it's contradictory to {{tpr}} - that's more of an argument to modify {{talkheader}} so that it isn't, rather than mass-remove it from redirect talk pages.
      Furthermore, on redirect talk pages with archives, these edits also removed what may well have been the only link to said archives from the talk page itself - e.g., after Special:Diff/1210736966, there's no link from Talk:Autism to that page's archives. In response to this concern, NmWTfs85lXusaybq stated that {{Archives}} can be added to those pages - however, my point is that it shouldn't be necessary for a third editor to perform this sort of manual 'clean-up' after the mass-removal of a template that (in my opinion) doesn't even need to be removed. (I, for one, don't feel up to going through all of the edits removing this banner to check which talk pages have archives and which ones don't.)

    Per WP:FAITACCOMPLI, the fact that these edits have already been made should not be a reason to justify them. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    All my edits of these tasks are made on the talk pages of redirects only when there's a {{tpr}} banner on them.
    • Regarding the removal of {{BLP}} and {{BLPO}} on the talk pages of redirects, it has been stated clearly in their template documentation that This template is intended for article talk pages.
    • Regarding the removal of {{talkheader}} on the talk pages of redirects, it has also been stated clearly in its template documentation on when it should be added to the talk page. Besides, {{tpr}} is already the banner for talk pages of redirects and its introduction that Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at xxx completely contradicts the introduction on {{talkheader}} that This is the talk page for discussing improvements to xxx and Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If there's any need to show archive links, add this feature directly to {{tpr}} instead.
    NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reserving judgement for now. Oppose mass rollback, support other sanction given WP:IDHT, wikilawyering, or WP:CIR below. @NmWTfs85lXusaybq Do you have a link to where you got consensus for these changes? The reasons you gave would be a good way of establishing consensus, but my understanding is that mass changes need approval prior to implementing them. That goes double when there has been an objection voiced. @A smart kitten While Fait Accompli does state that "it's already done" is a poor justification to keep edits, perhaps we should develop consensus for or against these edits before rolling them back. After all, if it's decided they're good, there's no point in duplicating work. However, even if they're good, I agree that the reported editor should NOT have continued in the face of objections, and if they don't acknowledge this, their access to semi-automated tools may need to be restricted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Although there's no consensus about how to deal with these talk pages of redirects, I made these edits based on previous discussions. The conditions of misuse of {{talkheader}} have been stated in its documentation, which is based on consensus. In addition, a TfD for merging {{Auto archiving notice}} into {{Talk header}} suggests the replacement by {{archives}} for this-is-only-for-archives functionality. As a convenient way, there's an alternative option to bring the functionality of archive box directly into the {{tpr}} banner. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That might be true, but nothing you have linked shows a consensus for this change. After all, WP:MEATBOT is also based in consensus, and WP:ASSISTED (which may apply more cleanly) also makes it clear: get consensus for your proposed changes first. If you did, I think it'd be useful to link to that specific discussion; hand-waving at templates is not convincing. Again, your edits do seem to me to be good, so I'd like to hear that you understand why this was a bad way to go about it, so I can just say "I trust you", be reassured that this problem won't recur, and let you get back to editing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck: Apologies if you're already aware of this, but this is at least the second time a problem like this has occurred - see WP:BOTN § Fully automated edits without BRFA - Request for assistance for further context. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was not, though I should've been; I missed Primefac's link to it above. Thank you for directing me to it! That link shows that it is even more important that NmWTfs85lXusaybq shows their understanding here, and pledges to get consensus (ideally via seeking WP:BOTAPPROVAL) before undertaking mass changes. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck: I'm relieved that my edits seem good to you. And I clearly understand I won't use automatic tool or semi-automatic tool to do a task without consensus. But WP:MEATBOT also states it clearly that For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. As long as I'm not editing against a consensus or causing errors, I can do it manually. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The very next sentence in the passage you quoted is No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. I think I've stopped reserving judgement. That policy says the opposite of your conclusion that you can do it manually. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck: And the very next sentence after the one you quoted is However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive. Additionally,
    as you stated above, my edits do seem good to you. If that's still disruptive to you, then disruptive editing looks good to you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're not "merely quickly editing" though, you're making bot-like rapid fire edits. Trying to wikilawyer around this is a bad look. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support mass rollback proposal. Doing so is in line with WP:BRD. Additionally, the loss of archives on redirect talk pages is an issue. Instead of obliging someone else to go through the mass of edits to find which pages have lost archive links and clean things up, a rollback is appropriate. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Behavioral Sanctions[edit]

    I believe NmWTfs85lXusaybq needs to be restricted from making mass edits to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia.

    • They have used semi-automated tools and operated in a bot-like manner without approval.
    • When objections were raised, they refused to stop the mass editing.
    • As pointed out above, this is at least the second time this has happened.
    • When confronted, they first pointed to template instructions on their use, as if that overrode policies and guidelines.
    • When the P&G were referenced, they then cherrypicked passages, misrepresenting them to justify their actions.
    • This shows they either didn't actually read the policies, couldn't understand them, or are deliberately misinterpreting them.
    • Therefore, I propose that NmWTfs85lXusaybq is prohibited from mass editing indefinitely. Until such a time that they show they understand and will abide by policies, in the judgement of any administrator, they should be prevented from further disruption.

    Reviewing their talk page has also shown that they seem to have trouble collaborating with others. To quote User:Chris troutman to NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that when a variety of Wikipedians address problems with your editing, you either ignore their issue, explain away as if it was not your fault, or change the subject. N.b.: This message was responded to by removing it with the edit summary: "Harassment or Personal attack". I'd also like to propose a 31 h block for disruptive editing, with the understanding that continuing to edit disruptively and failing to respond to other editors will lead to increasing blocks. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    information Note: Chris troutman have made personal attacks on me in Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? and leave a comment to a thread on my user page which he has never got involved in. I have to call this WP:Harassment. And pinging an editor who is clearly against me could also be WP:Canvassing. You should have also pinged all the other participants who have got involved that thread, including @Liz and Formyparty:. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Chris Troutman made a comment about your behaviour, not a personal attack. Calling that harassment and canvassing is at least not helpful. The Banner talk 13:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see no difference between Chris Troutman's comment in Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? and Arminden's comment in Talk:Horon#Horon_is_a_term_with_many_meanings_in_several_cultures about the behavioural issue. And Amakuru's comment in the latter thread may be helpful: If you have specific behavioural issues with that editor that you want to discuss then you can continue to post those at the WP:AN/I thread, but they don't belong here. And WP:harassment is about Chris Troutman's comment in a thread on my talk page they didn't participate, but WP:canvassing is about EducatedRedneck's behaviour as they only pinged the one who is clearly against me in that thread. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While this to me feels like a WP:BATTLEGROUND-style Tu quoque, upon reflection I can see how my actions fit the bill for canvassing. My thinking was that it's only polite to ping the person I quoted, so if I misunderstood or misrepresented them, they could set the record straight. Given the context, however, I agree that it was for all practical purposes canvassing. I apologize for that, and thank you for pinging a broader base of editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As for the second proposal, I have to cite WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE for you. And if you haven't realized what personal attack I have experienced, Arminden's comment in Talk:Horon#Horon_is_a_term_with_many_meanings_in_several_cultures is such a case and is similar to Talk:Trenkwalder#advertising? I cited before. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My feeling is that, even in this very thread, you remain unresponsive to other editor's concern. As such, the block would indeed be preventative, not punitive. If other editors disagree on one or both proposals, that's also okay. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • As the original filer, Support editing restriction (with the caveat that - as a community-imposed restriction - the community, not a single administrator, should be the body with the power to remove it). I would also be supportive of a block for disruptive editing, but I wouldn't want to dictate the length of such a block to an admin that decides to place it. Block or no block, though, I believe that such an editing restriction is clearly necessary; given (among other things) the disruptive mass-editing without consensus, the refusal to stop following objection, and the apparent wikilawyering both during this thread and on their talk page.
      To be clear, I still support my rollback proposal above, per WP:BRD if nothing else: short of mass-rollback, I don't know how I'm supposed to undo these edits that I strongly disagree with; and I don't believe that ANI is the ideal forum to be deciding whether or not the edits were an improvement from a content perspective. However, whether or not the rollback proposal is passed, I believe the proposed restriction is also needed.
      All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 04:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      No objection to stricter sanctions. My thinking was that it's better to have it be an agile editing restriction, so it can be removed easily if no longer needed, and can easily be strengthened if circumstances merit. Similarly, I was thinking of starting with a short block. However, if others believe the weaker sanction would waste community time, I have no objection to a stronger one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Support both. On reading the evidence presented, and seeing NmWTfs85lXusaybq's ongoing WP:IDHT behavior, the mass editing restriction is warranted, and the block would be preventative. I also agree with a smark kitten that if this editing restriction is community-imposed, it falls to the community to be the body to determine its removal. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • information Administrator note This user has apparently retired. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • They have also changed names and are deleting their pages. I'm not sure that complete deletion of talk pages is allowed when other editors have left any comments. This should not be allowed. They can blank it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I deleted the page earlier today and I only noticed this discussion now. I will not be available for most of the day today, but if consensus is that the deletion was not appropriate (which it might very well be, I have not even read this thread fully) every administrator is welcome to restore. I will check later in the (European) evening. Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Oh, I see, it has already been restored. Perfectly fine with me, and my apologies, I apparently did not check the history of the page well enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose block as moot, but Support an editing restriction against mass edits, whether automated or manual. The above comments demonstrate a complete disregard for the concerns of other editors, and no indication that they understand why people were upset about a mass-edit without consensus.
    The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Both The editor in question has almost certainly already created a CLEANSTART account or will do so soon. I want it on the record that the community does not allow these heedless mass edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Renamer note: Vanishing is not a means to evade scrutiny or sanctions. It does not offer a fresh start or guarantee anonymity. If the user returns with a new account, the “vanishing” will likely be fully reversed, linking the old and new accounts, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Question regarding a user with prior restrictions for bludgeoning and edit warring[edit]

    A user with tban and anti-bludgeoning restrictions believes that "edits in Article space have nothing to do" with their restrictions. I would appreciate clarification on whether this is accurate because they appear to use edit summaries to make statements and express opinions that cannot be challenged without risking edit wars. It's worth noting that they have not previously edited this BLP before, and as of this writing, they have yet to engage with the BLP Talk even though they been politely asked to. List of User’s edits with summaries. User’s posts in Talk (empty). XMcan (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Looking at that BLP, the clear aversion from every participant to any form of discussion is so noticeable that I hardly think Newimpartial alone can be blamed for it. That said, that comment shows that their battleground tendencies are alive and well... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As someone who voted in favour of NewImpartial's bludgeoning restriction (and has perhaps even been on the receving end of said bludgeon!) I can say I don't think this is a violation of the restriction. I agree with AirshipJungleman29 that all users could do with participating on the talk page more, but that's about it. — Czello (music) 16:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1) well no, bludgeon refers specifically to overinvolvement in discussions and belaboring the process, you really cannot apply that to edits and edit summaries.
    2) speaking of wp:bludgeon tho, one should note that XMcan has been on the same tangent for almost 2 months now at that article talk page but their position has not gained consensus.
    3) XMcan's rationale for their latest edit war is lots of IPs are saying it so they must have a point.
    3) also note that XMcan has been indeffed from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, and the subject matter that the user is involved in at the blp is Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. wp:boomerangs may be in play. ValarianB (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A tban from the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory broadly construed maybe in order. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not okay with how much XMcan has been edit warring at James A. Lindsay, which I agree is an article that is related to Cultural Marxism. Edit warring was part of the disruption that led to their page block from the Cultural Marxism article and its talk page. The opening statement here suggests that some edit summaries "cannot be challenged without risking edit wars", which doesn't make sense, and leads me to think the edit warring will continue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I meant it per WP:REVTALK: Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! Sorry, if I didn't make it clear. XMcan (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The OP seems confused about WP:BLUDGEON, as they demonstrated in this accusation shortly after their block from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Valereee tried to clarify XMcan's understanding of my restriction here, but that doesn't seem to have changed their impression that I must have some done something wrong when our perceptions of a topic differ.
    In the present instance, what I see on Talk:James A. Lindsay is essentially a WP:1AM situation where they are the "1"; I generally agree with the other editors in that discussion (which I have been reading in installments long before editing the page), but I haven't felt compelled to add anything to that conversation - quite the opposite of BLUDGEON, I should think.
    I would also point out that XMCan's convictions animating their participation on the Lindsay page appear to be precisely the same convictions that animated their disruption of the Cultural Marxism page. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    but I haven't felt compelled to add anything to that conversation - quite the opposite of BLUDGEON, I should think. Agree completely. The talk page seems to indicate 1am as you have said, so perhaps some level of WP:BOOMERANG is in order. I'd endorse ActivelyDisinterested's tban suggestion. — Czello (music) 20:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think this attempt by XMcan to make this an issue in an unrelated thread is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, and I would support a topic ban on them as proposed above. Hatman31 (talk) 05:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Since we are cherry picking, we should pick this cherry, too. 🍒 XMcan (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      WP:BATTLEGROUND might also be indicated by XMcan's contributions to an XfD discussion - contributions that include obvious ASPERSIONS about my motives in this vote. Once again, the avowed topic of their behaviour is related (by editing history of the author of the page up for deletion) to the Cultural Marxism topic (and, in this case, to other conspiracy theories as well). Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Editors who read my brief comment to NI in context will notice that the user who initiated that exchange appears determined to have the last word. Such tendency could explain a preference for making dismissive comments in edit summaries rather than participating in Talk. XMcan (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Given that you did cast aspersions in your reply, I don't think this is last-wordism from NewImpartial. If I received such a comment, I'd probably want to reply and say what they said.
      I can't really see any wrongdoing from NI in any of the comments you've linked; I'd suggest it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK because this could boomerang. — Czello (music) 16:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      NI and the author, whose two articles are up for deletion, have a lengthy and contentious history that involves at least a couple of AE cases that I know of. I'm unclear on why NI is introducing the XfDs or involving that author in this discussion. The purpose of this ANI is to seek clarification on whether the existing anti-bludgeoning limits (two comments per discussion per day) extend to edit summaries, not to revisit past disputes involving other parties. I encourage NI to moderate their behavior, but I'm not advocating for their ban or punishment. If it's determined that they've inadvertently violated limits, a simple warning or clarification would be satisfactory from my perspective. If it’s determined that they are an upstanding wiki-citizen and no longer need anti-bludgeoning restrictions, that’s fine with me too. XMcan (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      To be clear, XMcan, I mentioned your XfD interventions (not anyone else's) as "similar fact" evidence (of ASPERSION-casting and IDHT) that might help editors to understand your filing here.
      Namely, you exhibit a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, centered in the topic of Cultural Marxism, and have repeatedly made unsubstantiated assertions about my editing - most recently, that I have a lengthy and contentious history with Sennalen and that I appear determined to have the last word in my MfD participation. Both statements are half-truths at best, and your constant misinterpretations about what my BLUDGEON ban is supposed to address strike me as BATTLEGROUND tactics as well.
      Incidentally, for the record, I am not asking for my BLUDGEON restriction to be lifted at this time; it would be welcome for it to be modified so that my own editor Talk page is excluded, but I understand if the community would like to ask and answer that question through a more formal process than this one. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As others have said, editing articles isn't really bludgeoning. Of course edit summaries aren't the place for details discussions over changes, and if an editor with a bludgeoning restriction moves on from bludgeoning to edit warring to force their version in, without bothering to discuss their changes, they might quickly find themselves blocked for reasons that have nothing to do with bludgeoning but I see no evidence this has happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Topic ban proposal[edit]

    (univnolved non-admin comment) Given the background and previous reports, I propose that User:XMcan be topic banned from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, this would prevent him from bringing it up tangentially in discussions and other pages regarding the issue such as James A. Lindsay etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Support, though I would word it as "broadly construed", as otherwise I believe XMcan will move to other related articles and continue this disruptive, battleground behavior.
    The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Support with broadly construed per continued edit warring since the pblocks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Support and yes, also add the broadly construed verbiage. They appear to be hear to debate this specific topic, nipping that seems the only recourse. Zaathras (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Support with broadly construed. I think that this is the very minimum that can be applied at this point given the extent and duration of the trouble caused and there being no obvious prospect of stopping it in any other way. (Disclosure: I was the filer of one of the previous reports that Lavalizard101 mentions.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

    Lawyer.F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User is not WP:NOTHERE and clearly lacks WP:CIR. After being unblocked for promotional username, they have only caused trouble.

    Despite being told multiple that they have to cite a WP:RS for their additions/changes [13] [14] [15] [16], they still don't get it. In fact, they kept doubling down on the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH rants in their talk page. To make it even worse, they rejected countless WP:RS because it did not fit their views, such as their last comment [17], where they even randomly made assumptions about my place of education...? "I guess, you have been educated in Iran and have never been educated somewhere else". Now, they are adding their newly created and unsourced category "Qizilbash confederacy states" (whatever that means?) to several articles, even edit warring [18] [19].

    To get a better picture of this and how bad it is, I would advise you to read this whole talk page section [20]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked Lawyer.F for disruptive editing, with a notation that competence is required. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Cullen328! HistoryofIran (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I just took a look at the history of Portal:Current events/2024 February 29 and there is an ongoing edit war related with a recent and news event from the Israel–Hamas war. I just tagged the talk page with the CT notice, but administrator notices and/or warning for ARBPIA edit warring is needed.

    אקעגן and Jebiguess are in a full-blown edit war, both with 3 reversions, on an CT, so both at least need formal warnings or a short block for edit warring on a CT topic. While here, I need to alert Mount Patagonia that they too have technically violated the CT 1RR restriction (not in an edit-warring way though) with this and two grammatical edits which were reverted: [22] and [23].

    Basically administrator overwatch on that specific page is needed due to ARBPIA recent controversial news event. ECP has been requested as well for the article, but this does involve EC editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I didn't know that the last two edits would have constituted a violation of the 1RR rule. I was just trying to remove repetitive phrasing, and I assumed the removals was an unfortunate by-product of the constant revisions going on. Mount Patagonia (talkcontributions) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with you on that. I wanted to mention you here more as an informal alert to not revert anything else on the page since you did revert more than once, all for the good non-warring reasons. When the war first broke out, I too learned about that. The restriction is truly 1 reversion of any kind (excluding vandalism reversion) on an article in a 24 hour period. The first of the two grammatical edits might not constitute as a true reversion, however, the 2nd one for sure would. I do not think you need a block or even a formal warning. I was typing this out and noticed it, so I wanted you to be alerted this way. And, since I was requesting administrator overwatch due to the edit war, mentioning you here felt better than you getting a block without realizing it was an edit war/second reversion. But yeah, just don't revert anything further, even if it is grammatical amid the edit war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Valid, I completely forgot this existed. I won't edit that section anymore, but on a side note, I do think the language should be more neutralized to reflect the sources. It's still a rather new event, so not everything is known yet. Jebiguess (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

    IP (talk) made a legal threat on Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland. Never dealt with this before, reverted and looked at Wikipedia:No legal threats which told me to post it here. Greatpopcorn (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    And they repeated their threat on their talk page. I'm not sure what the appropriate block duration is for IP addresses in these circumstances but I gave them a 48 hour block. Admins, feel free to lengthen that if I underestimated the situation. Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The inappropriate content they were complaining about (which was added three weeks ago) has been removed by Caeciliusinhorto, so further disruption is unlikely. --JBL (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Genre warring on Led Zeppelin III[edit]

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

    On February 4, a South Africa-based IP added an unsourced genre to the article for Led Zeppelin III ([24]). After being reverted multiple times, the IP editor added the unsourced genre back ([25][26][27]). On 25 February, I applied for page protection at WP:RPPI ([28]), and Favonian instituted a range block on the IP to prevent further edits to Led Zeppelin III ([29]). A few hours before the block, the IP editor created an account, HighPriestOfSaturn, which the editor has used to continue genre warring ([30][31][32][33][34][35][36]), despite being reverted by myself and Carlinal, and having been warned on his or her talk page by Favonian and FlightTime. Tkbrett (✉) 11:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I improved Led Zeppelin III to GA status, so I'm WP:INVOLVED and won't take any admin action myself. However, this looks like a silly spat over genres in infoboxes. I've dropped a WP:ARBINFOBOX2 contentious topic debate on their talk page and explained why they're wasting their time. So if the disruption continues with snarky edit summaries or comments on the talk page, any uninvolved admin should be free to issue an Arbcom-enforced block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why does the user Tkbrett continue referring to my genres as unsourced? How many times have I mentioned that the Rolling Stone article is my source and how many times have I explained my position? The user Tkbrett continues to call me a genre warrior, and yet he is behaving in precisely the described manner of a genre warrior: "prefer monolithic labels rather than subtlety, e.g. by reducing one band's output to a single genre, e.g. "Metallica = heavy metal". "
    My genre change is not only sourced but is also explained. I have explained that "folk rock" is a large genre, and there is a difference between the straighter varieties of folk such as Bob Dylan, the Mamas and the Papas, Peter Paul and Mary and the spacey, trippy variety of folk such as early David Bowie, Tim Buckley and post-Floyd Syd Barrett.
    The Rolling Stone article describes this album as "trippy" folk. Am I lying or not? If not, then why are my changes being reverted without due explanation? Or do we have a misunderstanding over what "trippy" means? HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While the description of the album as "trippy folk" may pass WP:EXPLICITGENRES (I'm not going to be adding it in, though), I do have to comment on this: "I have explained that 'folk rock' is a large genre, and there is a difference between the straighter varieties of folk such as Bob Dylan, the Mamas and the Papas, Peter Paul and Mary and the spacey, trippy variety of folk such as early David Bowie, Tim Buckley and post-Floyd Syd Barrett." To be clear, this seems like original research to me, and does not have any bearing on consensus regarding genres on any article. I don't want to discount all of your points, but the genres in the infobox must be supported by reliable sources -- if all you have is your own analysis, they will be removed. I just wanted to chime in here to explain this. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Exactly. There is no page for trippy folk, and to say "trippy" means "psychedelic" is original research. The source never uses the word "psychedelic", but it does use "folk rock". As a side note, the editor has [37][38] continued to genre war after this discussion opened. Tkbrett (✉) 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have blocked HighPriestOfSaturn for 24 hours for edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't believe I'm being called an edit warrior when users like @Carlinal are able to revert my changes with no explanation given, then be given a seat on this mock council. And now @Lavalizard101 wants me to be blocked for battleground mentality. I have explained my position, time and time again, using only the facts of the situation. And yet I have had my changes deleted for no reason, I have been banned, I have been told to "let it go", but not a single person has been able to refute my changes in a logical way. So what further avenues are made available to me except to go through all this stuff with all you people? I stand for my changes and I am able to back them up. Unless one of you can provide sound and reasonable counterarguments, I see no reason why my changes should be deleted/reverted. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚, 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙧𝙤𝙬𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙪𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙤-𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙄 𝙖𝙢 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙙, 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩.
    ​There is no page for trippy folk, because psychedelic folk in and of itself is, and I quote,: "a loosely defined form of psychedelia" that "retains the largely acoustic instrumentation of folk, but adds musical elements common to psychedelic music" .
    This same genre is also known as "acid folk" and "freak folk", amongst other names.
    The point of the matter here is that it is NOT straight folk rock, it is literally "trippy" folk, aka spacey folk, aka trip folk, aka freak folk, aka psychedelic folk.
    You come with your lies, again and again and again and again, and you hide behind your mob (which I suspect to have some sockpuppetry going on) but yet you will continue to fall flat because you are a LIAR, Tkbrett.
    The definition of "trippy", according to Merriam-Webster, is: "of, relating to, or suggestive of a trip on psychedelic drugs or the culture associated with such drugs."
    𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐞, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞. 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐍𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥. 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬.
    So by very definition, in clear, conspicuous and concise wording, YOUR article says that Led Zeppelin III is a trippy folk album. This means that it is an album that, according to the cited reviewer, is folky yes, but has elements that are common to psychedelic (trippy) music.
    In other words, back to the original point, it is a psychedelic-sounding album of the folk music category. Or, in shorter words, psychedelic folk. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again, this constitutes your own original reasearch, which we cannot use to justify edits. In addition, the above screed is full of personal attacks, which will likely result in your editing privileges being revoked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, if you don't want to have a discussion based on policy, I've listened to both sides of LZ3 about a thousand times, and it's extremely obviously distinct from anything else that people call psychedelic folk. Every single song is either classic rock, blues, acoustic folk or Hats Off To Roy Harper. Sure, it has -- as you say -- "elements that are common to" the psychedelic folk genre. The very simple thing you seem to be deliberately refusing to understand throughout this conversation (instead saying that everyone else is lying) is that a thing having elements in common with a second thing does not make it be that second thing. I am a man who owns more than one guitar; Jimmy Page is a man who owns more than one guitar. Do you see how these two facts fail to prove that I am Jimmy Page? jp×g🗯️ 06:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I, on the other hand JPxG, only own one guitar, a slender little C. F. Martin & Company Backpacker, the guitar that has been to the summit of Mount Everest and to outer space. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Tkbrett: This report should have been made at either WP:ANEW or protection filed at WP:RFPP. While it involves a degree of behavioral infraction, it does not constitute urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems (a minor content dispute over the difficult third acoustic album where they went to Wales and smoked too much weed is none of those things). It is purely a content dispute. ——Serial 15:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thanks, Serial Number 54129. I am sorry, I do not know much about how and where to report stuff like this. After the page protection request at WP:RPPI did not stop the issue, I reported it here because that is the only guidance given at WP:GWAR § In case of dispute. Tkbrett (✉) 15:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      No problem at all Tkbrett, the right result was achieved... and was an opportunity to describe the creation of LZ3 from a different perspective  :) ——Serial 15:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Two good results, I guess you could say. 😉 JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Either I'm late to the party or this got resolved fairly quickly (got unrelated bad sleep regardless). I'm glad this got taken care of, and since I'm part of the warring as well I may as well add a few more noteworthy details and thoughts.
    The February edits were not the first from HPOS, with them saying they did similar edits last July (as evidenced) and also was careless about abiding to reliable sources (also here, ignoring WP:MEDIUM). I even reported one of their edits for vandalism thanks to their continuous disruptiveness and stubbornness. I agree with JeffSpaceman's reply completely, in that "trippy folk rock" doesn't mean "psychedelic folk" as it's an adjective to a phrase and not an established label itself, and HPOS's insistent beliefs is original research.
    While the 24 hour blocking is fair, I do not believe this will affect their arguments or prevent similar edits in the long run, so I'm still watching out for Led Zeppelin III as a result. Oh well, it's one of my favorite albums to read about and listen to, anyway. Also, you guys keep a GWAR recency report here?! God damn! I'm sorry for any further nuisance this caused. As per Tkbrett's explanations for reporting here, I think the GWAR essay needs an update so things can go in a better favor next time. All in all, thanks again for killing some of the heat. Sorry for killing a kitten. So this is what it's like to love Led Zeppelin, huh... Carlinal (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed, I have watchlisted the article in case the editor resumes the genre warring once the block is over. Something tells me this won't just go away... JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, the offending editor indicated his or her plans to get right back to reverting once the block expires. Tkbrett (✉) 14:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you ask Google what the definition of "trippy folk rock" is, the very first result is Psychedelic folk, the second result is Psychedelic rock and coming in third is Britannica with psychedelic rock. Isn't that a trip it's equated with psychedelic. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given his response above. I suggest User:HighPriestOfSaturn, be blocked indefinitely for battleground mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed, I really wanted to assume good faith, but it sadly seems that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. An indef is probably the only preventative measure here, unfortunately. I would not be opposed to an unblock if the user agrees to avoid such original research in the future, but as of now, I don't see that happening. Disappointing, but I kind of imagined that this edit warring would resume, given the battleground editing the user has been engaging in. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What original research? Everything I say is cited. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As noted above, trippy folk does not automatically equal psychedelic folk. See WP:EXPLICITGENRES for more information, with particular emphasis on this section: "When classifying music, sources must explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole." Partial attributions and synthesized claims are unacceptable and often skirt the edge of the no original research policy. Please stop edit warring, and discuss your changes on the talk page. Similarly, your battleground attitude is unacceptable and goes against WP:NOT. I think a lot of people (myself included) really want you to succeed as editor, but this kind of disruptive editing will result in a block or sanction of some sort. Please stop and get consensus for your changes. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but WP:EXPLICITGENRES does not work in a genre that is defined as " "a loosely defined form of psychedelia".
    Psychedelic folk is a loosely defined offshoot of folk that goes by multiple names, the two additional (but not only) names listed on the Wiki article are also "acid folk" and "freak folk".
    Trippy is interchangeable with psychedelic, as by definition it describes states induced by or reminiscent of those experienced under psychedelic drugs. This is not original research, or do you want me to link Merriam-Webster?
    I am not edit warring when my changes are sourced. How about those who delete my changes for no reason come and explain here on the talk page? I've reasons, they've not. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not original research Yes it is, as you have been told multiple times, if a source does not explicitly describe an album as "psychedlic folk" we cannot call it that. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's because "psychedelic folk" is a loosely defined genre as per its article. Psychedelic folk goes by many names, but is folk music with psychedelic elements. Heady, trippy, elements. Like how this article describes it. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    HighPriestOfSaturn has gone back to edit-warring on Led Zeppelin III. Can an uninvolved admin (as mentioned above, I'm not) partially block them indefinitely from this article, please? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    •  Done by Widr. Should be indeffed full block. They're only here for one thing, and when that one thing is disruptive, we'll get no profit out of them. It's a good example of how sometimes P-blocks just put off the inevitable. ——Serial 16:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Totally agree on a full indef. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User is now making personal attacks on their talk page, as seen here. Should absolutely be full indef, based on this. WP:NOTHERE. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Crap, I was gonna try and save them by saying that genre-related edits are not taken lightly, and the only way "psychedelic folk" can even begin to be accepted there is if they can provide a (reliable) source proving that "trippy rock" is a common synonym for psychedelic rock and whatnot. Alas, they chose to become the victim of another day.
    Since HPOS previously fought under various IPs and only recently had a username, I fear sockpuppetry could arise. Or maybe I'm getting paranoid. Jesus. Carlinal (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's possible, but I found no evidence so far--and such genre warriors and Crusaders for Truth are often easily recognized anyway. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    HighPriestOfSaturn, time for indef?[edit]

    "And guess what? I will come back to this article and change it to the genre it deserves. Month after month, year after year, decade after decade, until the day I die." .

    It goes downhill from there.. Zaathras (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    User should absolutely be indeffed. Based on this behavior, a partial block is insufficient, and a full block necessary to prevent disruption. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked HighPriestOfSaturn and the person calling themselves that as not here to improve the encyclopedia but rather to vindictively disrupt it. If the person behind the username is reading this, please be aware that Wikipedia administrators will use all of the many tools at our disposal to prevent genre warring at Led Zeppelin III, as well as any other article that you might fixate on. Please find another hobby. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nice but of work, Cullen328, excellent advice elegantly phrased :) ——Serial 12:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple WP:SPA accounts at Leysin American School[edit]

    I'm tired of dealing with this. Help requested, including possible blocks of socks and page protection. IP created a second registered account after I warned them not to make further inappropriate edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    These are a select few of the recent edits that removed sourced content, added unsourced content, added promotional content, and edit warred to restore said unacceptable content. [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]; [45]; [46]; [47]; [48]; [49]; [50]; I especially like this: [51]; [52]; multiple MOS:OL edits like this [53] and [54]; [55]; [56]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    COI and CIR[edit]

    Misleading articles in bad English about a non-notable Wordpress website and its owner, by editor recently banned from Commons for participation in a cross-project promotion about these two entities. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Good morning, my article is about the spread of knowledge, sports, news sites, website owners, company owners, and businessmen. Goodbye, have a nice day.
    (Ahmed brens (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    The abuse report at Commons is at this link (dated 29 February 2024). The editors who worked on this problem at Commons are User:HouseOfChange and User:TheAafi. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Obvious  Looks like a duck to me, given how their contributions transect with each other. Their logs at Commons are pretty much evident of this. There's one more player in this: Maryam AlAkini, whose spam uploads were mostly nuked by Pi.1415926535. Ahmed brens asked for an unblock twice on Commons which was declined. ─ Aafī (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hoaxes going on. I took care of the articles, will let someone else connect dots and issue blocks if needed. Dennis Brown - 06:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    User contributions for take 2[edit]

    Previous report ...back as ....same edit summary style. @HJ Mitchell: previous iadminMoxy- 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Will need help reverting this.Moxy- 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looks like only the first edit has an edit conflict, clicking undo on <these> seems perfectly fine.
    I'm a bit wary of doing it though, lest I accidentally make it more complicated. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:8497:A051:760:1011 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well never mind then, further edits changed the title of one of the sections and removed some brackets, so that revert is not possible anymore. – 2804:F1...0E:888D (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Systematic distortion of historical articles[edit]

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

    Dear All,

    Please check urgently this post on reddit detailing how a few Hungarian editors are systematically rewriting articles on Romanian history. It needs intervention and professional editors to correct the changes. Adam Harangozó (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @Adam Harangozó: There are big mechanical problems with an off-wiki complaint, which I am choosing to address without looking at the actual accusation:
    - How are we supposed to communicate back?
    - How do the accused defend themselves from someone who isn't even around to participate in any discussion?
    - Who is the accuser?
    The reddit poster appears to be currently accusing 2 users of something(doesn't matter to the point I'm making):
    - Do you now need to notify those 2 users per the rules of ANI, since that off-wiki discussion involves them?
    - The argument is theirs, and you're linking it, are their arguments your arguments now?
    The post talks about "network of Hungarian nationalist users" and ends with the poster claiming that "There are many accounts, and I have been doing this for many years."(*edit: talking about finding these accounts) - well, then has the poster of that thread reported them before? The archived ANI thread they linked (which is from 2021), seems to have ended with no action, the person who made it ultimately retracted it....

    Honestly I would advise you against making this post into a thing, because you will have to deal with defending someone else's arguments while also somehow making the accusation with your own independent judgement, while pointing out how exactly they are violating wikipedia's policies (while avoiding WP:MEAT, both from yourself or from others coming from that thread).
    I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has these concerns looking at this. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:2D28:AD06:B149:7F62 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think I'm ought to be discouraged from letting administrators know about a potentially serious issue concerning the reliability of Wikipedia. I also don't think that the potential difficulty of contacting the original poster is a reason for not checking this out. This debate would need editors who are experts on history and can review the edits without national(ist) bias. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Dude, you linked to a Reddit post that in turn links back to a historical ANI post—one that wasn't the least bit convincing to me when I read it for the first time. The administrators have been notified, they can't help but be reminded every time they have to lock an article being warred over. Remsense 14:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The ANI post might be historical but the examples in the Reddit post are from 2023-24. My argument is still for the need for expert review of the concerned topics. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But getting expert attention is more difficult if you remove my notification about this discussion from the WikiProject History talk page. Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It seemed like forum shopping because you noted this post, but did not direct discussion there.
    Casting aspersions of a conspiracy without evidence is not acceptable on Wikipedia. There are, as always, biases with individual editors and in articles which may broadly reflect systemic biases. Your conclusion of a concerted review effort targeting specific editors is unacceptable, given your premise has no basis in any evidence. Remsense 14:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be clear, one of the mechanical issues IP 2804⸻7F62 mentioned involves the fact that your post has the effect of laundering the absurd claims made in the reddit post. You've simply said a few Hungarian editors are systematically rewriting articles on Romanian history, but the post you have linked uncritically makes numerous unevidenced claims and personal attacks that are totally unacceptable here. This is a big reason why we don't do things off-site. Remsense 15:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: I have notified editers mentioned in the Reddit post of this thread, if they wish to comment. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nonsense. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: The original reddit posts cites a historical ANI but otherwise brings many recent examples from 2023-24. My argument is for the need of expert review, to find out if there is indeed a systematic effort to distort history or if this was a false accusation.Adam Harangozó (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Account deletion[edit]

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

    Could you all delete my account Wikirizzler (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Accounts cannot be deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why? Wikirizzler (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Attribution of content. See WP:UNC. Schazjmd (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Wikirizzler: The closest process to account deletion is courtesy vanishing, which will rename your account to something like "Renamed user [random characters]" and delete your user page and subpages. You can then clear your preferences Preferences → User profile → Restore all default preferences (in all sections) and remove your email address Preferences → User profile → Change or remove email address. ~~2NumForIce (speak|edits) 18:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yall gotta approve my courtesy vanish Wikirizzler (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikirizzler, there are people here who can help you achieve what you want, but remember that they are all volunteers, who may not take kindly to being ordered about. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Burma moves[edit]

    MM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Making a mess doing undiscussed moves and renames against consensus, such that Burmese language is currently sitting at Template:Myanmar language because they couldn't delete the redirect. Help! Remsense 17:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I think we can safely assume this is a new account for MmRebot (talk · contribs). However, that account was soft-blocked, so it's not block evasion. I moved the page back to article space under its previous title since there's been an objection here. A requested move seems like the most useful next step if MM still wants to move the page. It looks like the process has been explained on User talk:MM NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you very much. Remsense 18:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    "Ghost train" IP[edit]

    A variety of IP addresses, mostly found within Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:9800:D00:9143:7563:8EF8:15F/64 and most recently (today) User:2001:BB6:9800:D00:8C64:4076:F7CA:F2D8, has been adding nonsensical content about "ghost trains" to various articles, which has had to be reverted for being irrelevant, terribly written, and unsourced every time. I invite you to read Draft:Police train to see their editing capabilities. They've been at it consistently since early February, along with identical edits in January and a few in October 2023. They've accumulated a heap of warnings across the various exact IPs, all of which have been ignored. This editor clearly cannot be reasoned with, and as I cannot see any collateral on this /64, which appears relatively stable, could we block it for at least a month to stop the disruptive edits? I'm coming here rather than AIV as this is persistent behavior across a number of IPs within the /64. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Done, though I chose a slightly longer and more arbitrary block length because I could. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Block evasion using IP[edit]

    Taeisawesome21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2601:14C:8001:ABD0:6063:466F:2423:A6B6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Taeisawesome21 was indefed on Feb 27. The IP began making edits on March 1 to the same pages that Taeisawesome21 favored, and pushing the same previously reverted edits. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    User vandalising other's pages with porn-related userboxes.[edit]

    Squazyzilla added these userboxes to my page, then the same to another user's talk page. Not sure if compromised account or just gone WP:NOTHERE, but not great either way. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Indef'ed by User:Aoidh. I agree it seems out of character from their edit-history, but whatever...blocks are preventative, and all that. DMacks (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given the concern above I ran a check on the account, and there's no indication from the result that the account is compromised. - Aoidh (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm, peculiar. Cheers for handling it. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also had a look. This is probably a sock of Drhunterhamilton21, who seems to have a predilection for US politics, weed, and userpage vandalism. Spicy (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    LTA MakaveliReed 2[edit]

    Yesterday, I noticed an IP editor who was mass replacing non-abbreviated dates (preferred per MOS:DATERANGE and used in dozens FAs I checked) to abbreviated ones in the infoboxes (and in some cases adding unsourced dates). Upon closer inspection, the IP turned out to be an LTA. Already reported here last month by @Binksternet (thank you!), the IP returned right after the week long block and went on an editing spree. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Yes, that is certainly MakaveliReed getting back into the usual disruption. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’ve renewed the /46 rangeblock, this time for two weeks doubling the previous block. I noticed some lengthy /44 blocks in the history, which expired in December but that was for a different matter. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    User:O recomeço and WP:CIR 2: Electric Boogaloo[edit]

    Follow-up from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:O recomeço and WP:CIR, which was closed with (unfortunately) no action taken.

    O recomeço continues to make edits with grammatical errors, such as improper capitalization and spelling mistakes, and has shown no improvement, if any, in their mastery of the English language since the original discussion ended:

    It very much seems like the user in question blatantly ignored Darth Mike's suggestion to only edit versions of Wikipedia where they have a full grasp of the language. I say it's time to end this. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 01:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • CIR block We have many editors fixing typos and grammar errors but if the amount we see comes from one editor and the matter comes to ANI, then its time to cut bait. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose block If they are willing to edit topics about Brazil. Tres Fronteras has been languishing for example. Mathglot and I frequently need help from a Portuguese speaker, which the name indicates they may well be. Maybe they are just not in a welcoming topic area? 2023 Brazilian Congress attack urgently needs help.
      In any event I ask that we not move too fast on a CIR while we discuss a collaboration if he/she is willing such as has been taking place at Regency of Algiers. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose For starters, blocking on the basis of an essay about a guideline seems a stretch. Where are the diffs showing a persistent pattern of vandalism, of adding phony information with real or phony references, endless edit-warring at contentious topics, brow-beating other editors, deleting sourced content, or continually adding their own opinion to articles despite warnings to stop? Let's look at your diffs:
    1. three capitalization errors, and one relative pronoun error; totally comprehensible.
    2. one wrong verb form, one typo; totally comprehensible. (I was going to label Equatoguinean here as some kind of weird demonym error, but turns out they are right, and I was wrong (or ignorant).
    3. one typo, one particle error, one preposition, one cap error; totally comprehensible.
    4. three typos, one def. article problem; totally comprehensible.
    5. two typos; totally comprehensible.
    6. five typos in this paragraph; one cap error; totally comprehensible.
    So you want to block them for capitalization and typos? Really? This editor is doing their best to improve the English Wikipedia in fully comprehensible, if faulty English. So what? Just send them a thank you note, and fix the problems. Tell them that months and demonyms are capitalized in English, like September and Cuban, even though they aren't in most Romance language—that should fix about half the issues. The typos and most grammar issues can be fixed by a grammar checker, or just suggest they use ChatGPT to fix all the problems at once. There are so many editors seeking to damage the encyclopedia in so many ways that are clearly contrary to policy, I find it an utter waste of time to discuss good editors improving the encyclopedia whose English is not up to native level, when the problem is so easily fixed by others with native competence in English or by tools. I hope they ignore suggestions to edit only in their native language, and stay here and continue to improve the encyclopedia. Não desanime; você é muito bem-vindo aqui. Isso vai passar. (canvassed); (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Amplify Ooh if they edit West Africa even more so do we need them. I am willing to help with English cleanup if that's a problem. Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CIR in a nutshell: "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up." The editor in question has created work that other editors have had to clean up, myself included. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 06:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Mmmm sometimes editors have good intentions but fail to leave an edit summary or a section header, and other editors have to redo their ANI notifications for them. To be completely fair to you (which I do not think you are being this user, really) I also expected the ANI notification template to create a.sectipn header the way that the 3RR template does. But still. I went back and fixed mine. Elinruby (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Block until they respond. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone ignores 5 warnings and one ANI notice and pretends nothing has happened. If they showed up here or on their talk page to acknowledge the problem and promise to improve, I’m sure everyone is happy to welcome their contribution. Until then it’s just creating unnecessary works for other editors. NM 04:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am not seeing any notification of this ANI thread. Or any formal warnings for that matter. I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect them to Intuit the existence of this thread. Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Elinruby: You replied(diff) to the notice? Or do you mean something else? – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:B594:C013:3E0E:888D (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nope, was expecting a section header or an edit summary mentioning ANI is all. Since I was fooled I will do ahead and fix that. But if they were looking at the edit summary they could easily have missed it as well. Elinruby (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS in your comment above you should
    • works->work,
    • contribution->contributions,
    • it's->they are
    if you want go discuss the dust in someone's else's eye. I realized as I was typing this that I didn't check the talk page history. Doing that now (later) nope not even... Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Northern Moonlight: You want to "Block until they respond", and that would be based on what part of WP:Blocking policy? As far as responsiveness: they don't edit every day—this thread started 01:26, 4 March and their last edit was three days prior. Also: you are aware, are you not, that once you join the fray here about another editor, your own behavior is subject to scrutiny, right? I wonder if the fact that the sole userbox on your user page states "I do not grant permission for the Wikimedia Foundation to relicense any of my contributions" makes you liable for a block for violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    TPA revocation of blocked user Hegazeebot[edit]

    Please revoke TPA. Making personal attacks (including homophobic ones). —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 03:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    It appears User:Malcolmxl5 took care of it a minute before I posted this. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 03:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Asparagusus. Yes, Untamed1910 dropped a note on my talk page. Keep an eye on the IP too please. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]