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

This is the first time I've ever started a discussion here, so please bear with me here. I'm bringing this issue to ANI at the suggestion of User:Nathannah, who brought it to my attention. User:Keizers has over the past several years engaged in disruptive editing regarding the inclusion of a list of Saks Fifth Avenue locations within the encyclopedia. Starting in 2020, Keizers added a list of locations to the main Saks Fifth Avenue article in [[25]]. The list was removed by User:Galatz noting WP:NOTDIR in [[26]], but was reverted by Keizers in [[27]]. Galatz again removed the offending content in [[28]], but once again Keizers reverted the deletion of the content in [[29]].

In 2021, User:JayJay removed the list of stores in [[30]] citing WP:NOTDIR. This time, Keizers chose to create the article List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations without linking to the parent Saks Fifth Avenue to avoid detection from those patrolling Saks Fifth Avenue. This article was subsequently deleted without opposition at AfD in[[31]]. Instead of respecting consensus, Keizers once again created a list of Saks Fifth Avenue stores, this time under the alternative title List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations, and again failing to link it to the parent article to try and avoid detection. I've brought the current list to AfD at [[32]], but considering the numerous times this user has continued to ignore WP:NOTDIR in an effort to include this information I think a wider discussion is warranted regarding their behavior. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed some internal links here. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the page under G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. No comment currently as to whether additional actions are indicated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've salted List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations, Timeline of Saks Fifth Avenue branches, and List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations. I really would like to hear from Keizers why (a) they believe this is important enough to need to be recreated multiple times (b) after having been deleted at AfD before (c) and in such a way as to look very much as if they were attempting to evade detection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keizers has been editing here for 18 years and has over 26,000 edits so the extended confirmed protection on these pages won't faze them. That's why it's important to engage and talk to them so they understand that the recreation of this article shouldn't be occurring. I'll invite them to come and talk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I didn't realise the default salting was ECR now - been awhile since I did that. Will up to full sysop protect, thanks Liz for catching that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Liz I accidentally replied to the notice on my talk page and not here. My answer was:

Thanks for reaching out. There are a lot of editors out there on the lookout for these lists and automatically conclude they’re directory like. I should have gone to discussion when they deleted them, yes I am guilty. I’ve been stubborn in the past, you can check my whole Israel/Palestine history, and I’ve repented and furthermore am

not active now as I have to work so much on my small business.

Now, why does the list belong in Wikipedia?

1) The list contains a lot of more detailed information about various key locations which is encyclopedic, albeit highly specialized, but not out of place.

2) the chronological information of store openings supports the detailed history in the main article, highly relevant to follow the history of the geographical presence early on, and later the expansion to major cities nationwide, which is relatively rare for department stores.

Don’t take the following as arrogance but as a simple fact.. I’m drowning in work right now and don’t have the time or mental and emotional energy to defend the article’s presence in Wikipedia.

It is such a shame that things that appear to be only directories are sort of hunted down and it’s very hard to defend them. But you know what, pick your battles, right?

thanks again for inquiring, all the best and thanks for your work and time!

Oh and the detailed information on certain location like architect expansion and remodel is arguably encyclopedic, but obviously in a micro level. These are sometimes listed as historic buildings at a local level, and things like their expansion reflect the growth of the community and of the company. Even milestones in the history of US department store retailing. Architecture and square footage ídem. This is not unusual information in Wikipedia; it’s commonly found in articles about individual buildings or companies with one major location be it a store or HQ.

I trust you'll make the right decisions. I have absolutely no intention of being an active editor in the next six months minimum, but if you think I haven't learned and recognized that I should have gone to discussion, it's perfectly fine to suspend my edit privileges, preferably for a certain topic range. Thank you! Keizers (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the place to make the argument that this type of article is suitable for inclusion, though. Rather, it is important that you recognize the relevant policies WP:NOTPRICE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY and that they specifically mention these types of lists as not being allowed on wikipedia. Let'srun (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting here that I have sent Category:Lists of department store branches by company, which was created by Keizers, to CfD. Despite the category's name, most of the articles in that category are actual articles on department stores with lists of locations, with Keizers being the main contributor for at least a good chunk of those lists (many, but not all, of the articles, were created by him as well). While many of those articles are for defunct chains (which may or may not be a gray area with regard to NOTPRICE issues, but I may be way off base there), Beymen, El Palacio de Hierro, and Suburbia (department store) are not. (For what it's worth, the one currently-extant category entry that actually is a list article after List of Saks Fifth Avenue store locations was G4'd, List of Printemps store locations, was not only created by someone else but has never even been edited by Keizers.) I note this for completeness; while not as seemingly persistent as with Saks Fifth Avenue, he has not limited his inclusion of store lists to Saks Fifth Avenue. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to report persistent harassment from User:PradaSaetiew. This user has been engaging in disruptive behavior towards me, including:

Edit warring/Reverts

• [Diff link 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Restaurant_War_Thailand&action=history ]
• [Diff link 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porapat_Srikajorndecha&action=history]
• [Diff link 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanpiya_Oamsinnoppakul&action=history]
• [Diff link 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pariit_Thimthong&action=history]

I request administrator review and intervention to stop this disruptive pattern of editing.

Thank you. Tomarzig (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomarzig you need to notify them on their talk page that there is an ANI discussion about them. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PradaSaetiew deleted his talk page including the welcome wiki message. Is there any other way you can suggest? Personally, I think that even if you go to the talk page, nothing will change. Tomarzig (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified them now. Tomarzig, the series of edits here in PradaSaetiew's talk page history is problematic; please have a look at WP:UP#CMT and don't restore messages against the will of users who have removed them from their own talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a user talk page message is considered an acknowledgement of receipt so there’s nothing you need to worry here. Northern Moonlight 15:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PradaSaetiew, you seem to have followed Tomarzig around to revert their edits; is this correct and why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it's just separating out an automatic undo edit summary from their actual commentary. Responding to a comment that was deleted instead of stricken. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t want to followed to undo his edits, I just edit on pages that I’m interested in, and some page that I see some details without source, every edits i give a reason, so it’s him that try to followed to undo my edits on English page The Face Thailand season 6 because he’s angry me that edited on this page he was built and then followed me to undo my other edits on The Face Thailand, and then followed to undo my other edits on Thai articles for The Face Thailand and The Face Thailand season 6, Then he didn’t stop and try to harassment me on my own talk page by undo messages that i was deleted, you can check. PradaSaetiew (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tomarzig, regarding the first diff ([33]), if someone removes content as "unsourced", the burden is on you to provide a citation that directly supports the material, and such removals are not "spam", which has an entirely different meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomarzig it’s not harassment, every edit i give the reason, so you try to spam the colors on The Face Thailand, The Face Thailand season 6 and other seasons both in Thai and English pages many times. And you followed to undo my edits many times on both Thai and English pages too.

And on 01:20, 27 July 2025 in your edit on The Face Thailand contributions page you was said really bad words to me in Thai “สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง” it was full of Profanities and really Harassment and Bullying me and Against Wikipedia Rules, but just no one on English pages understand it because you wrote Profanities words in Thai on English pages. English Admins can ask Thai Admins what it’s means.

And you try to harassment me 3 times on my personal talk page by try to undo some of massage that I was deleted long time ago, and act like try to asked me as why I deleted it. So it’s my personal talk page and i can delete it if i want, it’s not your page or I didn’t delete messages on your talk page. I don’t have to tell you the reason or explain it to you before i delete if i want to delete any messages on my talk page, and you can’t undo messages on my own talk page by your behavior. Anyway Thai admin ever told that in personal talk page the owner can delete it if they want.

• for The Restaurant War Thailand I deleted the end date of the season because it’s Unsourced and it’s future situation not finish now yet, so if it’s finished can add the date soon with source.

• for Porapat Srikajorndecha, Wanpiya Oamsinnoppakul and Pariit Thimthong I rewrite it as “Television series” to “Television” because it’s Thai Drama on TV. not series, and i saw every Thai Actor or Actress’s English pages we use “Television” not “Television series”, so this editor trying to edit and change it to “Television series“ for some of Thai actor/actress pages. we can check other famous Thai Actor/Actress in English pages, on their pages we use “Television” for their “Drama on TV”. because it’s “Drama on TV.” not “Series on TV.”

• And for Wanpiya Oamsinnoppakul I deleted her high detail because it’s Unsourced about her high too, I still believe that good articles on Wikipedia should have reference and sources.

I know that you’re angry me that i was edited on The Face Thailand season 6 you was build, because i’m a fan of this TV. show, so it’s true that you build some of English pages but every editors on Wikipedia can edit the page that your build by yourself, not only you who can edit it and English pages that your build is not your personal page.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone interested, Diff/1302696870: the edit summary "สแปมพ่อมึงสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึงเป็นไรห่าอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง", according to Google Translate and QuillBot Translate, roughly translates to "Spam your father! You use the same tone for everything. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you just self-centered?" — DVRTed (Talk) 16:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DVRTed Hi, I think this translation is not 100% correct, because this translated it’s so polite. Maybe should ask Thai Admin who’re good in English because it’s Profanities and really Harassment and Bullying word in Thai and it’s Thai Slang, so Google translate can’t correct it. Something like พ่อมึxงสิ and มึxงเป็นไรห่x. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomarzig Can you translate the words ”พ่อมึxงสิ” and ”มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร” in English for English Admins? Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PradaSaetiew I'm not an admin, but here it is: พ่อมึxงสิ means "Your father!" while มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร' means "What's wrong with you?" in English. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 13:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing the diffs and the context surrounding them, it seems like there's been some back-and-forth testiness and lack of assuming good faith. As far as I can see, the improper accusations of "spam" began with PradaSaetiew (Special:Diff/1302498373, although they've also made similar edit summaries in response to other editors in the past, e.g. Special:Diff/1300110885, so it's not strictly limited to this personalized dispute). Beyond the sub-par edit summaries, however, I'm not sure I see anything that adds up to harassment or hounding: the main crux of the dispute here seems to be a content dispute across multiple closely related articles that both editors seem to have good-faith interest in. I can't read Thai, but based on context I can certainly understand that the Thai comments were some form of personal attack, which in this context means that Tomarzig cedes the moral high ground that they otherwise may have held here. I'm not seeing a cause for immediate sanctions against either editor provided that both sides stop misusing accusations of spam and other personal attacks, and would recommend that they take steps to resolve the content disputes (largely over color-scheme and heading wording as far as I can see) either among themselves or with recourse to a WP:DR process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabvill Hi, the correct meaning of this sentence it’s not same that you’re translated. I was said already that Google Translate or an online translate can’t correct for Thai Profanity and Insult slang words.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PradaSaetiew, DVRTed was right. The correct translation for the words พ่อมึxงสิ and มึxงเป็นไรห่x according to Google Translate, Quillbot, and other translators are Your father! and What's wrong with you?. As a result, these two are generally not considered as Thai profanity and Thai insult slang words. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill He started to followed me to undo my edits after i was edited on page The Face Thailand season 6 that he built it, he was so angry that i edited on English pages that he built. And then he always followed to undo my edits on The Face Thailand and The Face Thailand season 6 both in Thai and English Wikipedia, and then he try to undo old messages on my personal talk page that i was deleted it long time ago, 3 times.

For The Face Thailand season 6, 5 and 4 page’s TV. Infobox I was deleted the color to original Infobox’s color because every season of The Face Thailand we use original Infobox’s color, didn’t decorated the Infobox with other color for the articles.

And for Praveenar Singh I deleted the result to TBA because the 2025 competition it’s not finished yet, just started yesterday, but her fan edited the result for her as the winner. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomarzig Can you translate the words ”พ่อมึxงสิ” and ”มึxงเป็นไรห่xไร” in English for English Admins please? And all Thai sentence that you said to me please, Because you’re Thai and I see you’re fluent in English, but I’m just not good in English, so I can’t explain for the real correct meaning from Thai to English.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To English Admins, I would like to explain about real correct meaning of this Thai sentence "สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง" with sources from Thai’s English teachers channels, that’s it doesn’t means “Your Father, Your Dad” and not “What wrong with you”. Because I’m just not good in English. But I can’t reply my explanation here because after I publish my reply with sources and real meaning in English here the system said that I can’t publish them.

Maybe because my reply it’s full of English Profanity, Insult and Hate speech words from the meaning, and I added some of Link from the sources that Thai English teachers who’re teaching and explain this Thai sentence, Profanity and Insult words to English from their Fackbook, Instagram, Tiktok and YouTube channels. How I can explain with Links from the Sources here. Thank you.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin, สแปมพ่xมึxสิ ใช้โทนเดียวกันหมด มึxเป็นไรห่xอะไรมากไหมเอาแต่ตัวเอง means Spam, you're all using the same color scheme. What's wrong with you? You're just being selfish. in English according to Google Translate. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: If you don't know the real meaning of these Thai words/sentences, just use Google Translate and Quillbot instead. This will help understand the speaker to avoid prior confusion. Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabvill All your translated are wrong meaning, you translated Profanity, Insults and Hate speech sentence to polite sentence. I ever explained to you and other editors already that Google Translate or Quillbot can’t translate Thai Profanity and Insult Slang words correctly, why you don’t understand.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is an important tangent. I've already acknowledged that Tomarzig's comments in Thai amount to a personal attack. In English we have a very similar construction, Your mom. And I can easily imagine that what's been translated as What's wrong with you was probably more like What the fuck is wrong with you. To be honest, as a community we care less about profanity than we care about general civility, and the comment is already uncivil even if we don't consider it to include profanity. I already pointed out in my comment above that both of you need to disengage from the accusations of spam, other insults, and reverts, and proceed to resolve the content disputes through discussion on a talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your mom??? Where did you learn your snappy comebacks -- from Leave It to Beaver? EEng 20:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it was Shakespeare. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I think the only thing I can say to you here is (Redacted) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just thought of something -- we're always redacting things, but what about dacting them? Doesn't anyone do any dacting around here? EEng 03:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user has a long block log which includes an indefinite block. I do not remember all the details, but I am sure one of the reasons was that they were removing Russian names from the articles on Russian-speaking or formerly Russian-speaking localities in Ukraine. This is one of the warnings I gave to them before their indefinite block, which they reacted on defensively, and at the end of the day it contributed to the block. Recently, they resumed the disruption [34] and went on a mass-removal spray. I gave them a warning, they reacted defensively, I explained, they did not react on my explanation but stopped removals [35]. Today, they resumed the removals (from the very same articles as they did before, [36]). Courtesy ping @Mellk:. On the same day, they disruptively edited the articles on football players (see e.g. this nice edit summary), demonstrating they do not really care about WP:V. as a result, they were warned by @Anwegmann:. Courtesy ping @GiantSnowman:. My conclusion is that they user is net negative in at least two subject areas, and restoring the block would probably be the best solution. Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Russian names of Ukrainian localities is a CT topic (Eastern Europe) and also a WP:RUSUKR topic, but the football players, as far as I see, is not. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long history of disruption, and edits like this are really concerning. Given the history and their attitude, I suggest an indef. GiantSnowman 20:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given in their unblock request they promised not to repeat those mistakes, it is clear they did not follow through with this. Mellk (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have interacted with the user in question in the past and can provide some background. He tends to be brash and not particularly polite, he has a nationalistic bent (I believe one of the blocks or warnings he got in the past was for having a "list of traitors to Ukraine" made up of sportsmen born in the territory of modern Ukraine but who had represented Russia – from what I can see he still keeps the list, but under a different name) and a tendency to get into edit wars. He also resorted to socking after being blocked for calling a Moldovan editor retarded, IIRC, during one such edit war.

I know this is not a promising resume for an editor. However, if I you'll allow me to play devil's advocate, I will dispute his characterisation of the user as a net negative in Eastern European sports, particularly football. He is knowledgeable in the area (he is in fact correct about Yurii Tlumak's team), perhaps too knowledgeable – he has created articles about obscure players from the Ukrainian lower leagues that likely are not deserving of encyclopaedic coverage, but he borderline single-handedly keeps a lot of articles about Ukrainian and Ukraine-based footballers up-to-date. This certainly does not excuse being a dick to fellow editors, but I think that this very niche topic area would suffer a big loss if the user were to be blocked. Given his repeat offender status I would not oppose such an action if there is general support for it, but I would like to recommend instead a TBan from towns and cities (an area that I believe needs less combativity, given that we have more than enough with IPs and throwaway SPAs) and some sort of 1RR restriction overall. I would be happy to try to talk to Andriyrussu in that case, to try and let him know what is expected of him. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May be this could work. Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I have seen surrounding this editor's original ban, he was already under an effective 1RR restriction—if not de jure then certainly de facto. So I'm not sure how placing him under a more "official" one now would help change his actions if it clearly hasn't already. I understand your point about his work ethic related to Ukrainian footballers. The problem is not his knowledge or his dedication. It's that he rarely sources his changes. Indeed, with the Yurii Tlumak example, the concern isn't with the possibility of him being wrong. It's with the fact that he didn't provide a source for the edit and then reverted my correction of that fact asserting that if I want to find a source, I have to find it myself. That kind of attitude, which was part of his initial ban, has shown through many times—as the discussion above has noted. It's frustrating that someone who has done so much for a specific corner of Wikipedia has repeatedly shown themselves to be prone to edit-warring, personal attacks, aggression, not citing sources, and other fundamentally problematic practices universally discouraged across Wikipedia. As much as I want to buy into your argument here, I just don't see how any of this is ever going to change. It hasn't now for years, even after a previous indef ban. He hasn't changed his ways or his approach to editing, which he promised to do when he was unbanned. I don't see how leniency here will do anything but prolong a years-long problem. Sorry for the wall of words, by the way. There's a lot to unpack with this. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of attitude, which was part of his initial ban, has shown through many times—as the discussion above has noted. It's frustrating that someone who has done so much for a specific corner of Wikipedia has repeatedly shown themselves to be prone to edit-warring, personal attacks, aggression, not citing sources, and other fundamentally problematic practices universally discouraged across Wikipedia. This! It's a real pity. @Andriyrussu: Do you think you can change? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration and, again, being right does not justify him being an ass to fellow users. I repeat that I would not be opposed to stronger sanctions if there is generalised support for it, but I would still prefer it if something could be worked out. At any rate, I have reverted one of his, so to speak, controversial edits and left a summary inviting him to come here. Hopefully he will understand that his behaviour is well below par and we can see if we can work something out from there. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will depend on whether they decide to respond here or not. Mellk (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for what I did, but considering my contributions (for free by the way) to Wikipedia, you shouldn't focus on just this occasion. I hope you praise the contributors, who sacrifice their free time for Wikipedia, in the same you persecute them for any minor mistake. Andriyrussu (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I only put dog poop in one brownie. You should be thanking me for all the rest of the brownies I made for you" is how this comes across. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t tell me that’s actually a commonly-used English phrase. Seriously though, a wrongdoing can automatically overwrite some of the good things you’ve done; contributors with over 1 million edits have been blocked before. ^EF⁵ 01:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is exactly zero contrition in this "apology," which shows that there is no hope for a change in behavior and makes rather clear that the promises this editor made in his unblock request were not honest either. Anwegmann (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, at least I don't think so, but it's paraphrasing something my mom often said, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your mum put dog poop on brownies? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the language of the settlement name, I don't see the creator putting any source to the Russian name of it when he created the page, so he also edit-warred with me. Without providing any Wikipedia policy he is following, he is following his logic that if Russian is the second most spoken language in Ukraine, all settlements pages should have the Russian name version of it. Is there any consensus on this?

Regarding the lack of source when i updated the player's match stats, why should i put source to every match he plays? The stats are already available in the UAF external link, so it has source always. If a player plays 1000 matches during their career, should the page have 1000 sources?

I respect the role admins play in protecting Wikipedia, and I'm proud of the many positive contributions I've made to the project over time. Everyone makes mistakes - that's how people learn and improve. Comparing one honest mistake to "putting dog poop in a brownie" is unfair and disproportionate, especially given my consistent track record. If mistakes were grounds for bans, many long-term editors would be gone by now. I'm here to build, not break, and I'm committed to following Wikipedia's rules moving forward. I ask for fair treatment that acknowledges both my contributions and my willingness to correct errors - not a permanent ban that discards all of that. Wikipedia thrives on collaboration and second chances. Let's keep it that way. Andriyrussu (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this response puts me back to my opinion that the user is not capable of editing constructively and needs an indef block or a community ban. Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You edit-warred with me, so I don't think you can make a decision here. Your opinion is biased. Andriyrussu (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The decision will be taken by an uninvolved administrator, we are all giving our opinions. Mine can be found above. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy, as you can see from the comments above and below this recent message of yours, your replies here do not fill people with optimism. I believe that I have, both here and on your TP, given you credit for your contributions and attempted to stop you from getting blocked, but you are making this very difficult. Rather than show even a modicum of self-criticism, you are trying to justify what is, in practice, clearly sub-par behaviour.
While I can agree that you should not have to provide a source in the article for every mino change to a player’s career, on being challenged by a fellow editor you could simply post a link, in your edit summary, to the page you are using to update the statistics. I would assume that after the second such instance you will not be bothered again (by the same editor, at any rate).
Regarding towns, however, your argument is off the mark. You claim that Ymblanter is following his logic that if Russian is the second most spoken language in Ukraine, all settlements pages should have the Russian name version of it. First of all, this is not his logic, but our Manual of Style recommendations. From MOS:PLACE, [a]t the start of an article, provide notable equivalent names from other languages, including transcriptions where necessary. Secondly, the notability or relevance of these equivalent names is not up to the whims of an editor, and in the case of Ukrainian towns this is not due to Russian being the second most spoken language in Ukraine. Wikipedia guidelines consider a relevant name to be one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. Many settlements in Ukraine are likely to fall under one or both of these categories, given that such territories were inhabited, controlled, or even founded by Russians, and that many of them are, for this reason, also best known in English by their Russian transliteration. Some minor places in Western Ukraine probably have weaker links to Russia and can do without the Russian version of the name (bigger cities probably should keep it, however), but for towns in Eastern Ukraine it is entirely reasonable to have the Russian name as well. Bear in mind that this logic also applies to other languages: in your userpage you indicate Tarasivtsi as the birthplace of your FM alter ego, and you will find that, for historical reasons, the Romanian version Tărăsăuți is also provided in the article. You will also find that this logic applies to Russia as well: Vyborg, near St. Petersburg, also has the alternative names Viipuri (Finnish) and Viborg (Swedish), despite the city having been a part of Russia or the USSR for 290 of the last 315 years.
These things are what I mean when I said that you are a bit of a hothead and nationalist sentiment gets the better of you. With some luck it will now be clear that those changes introduced by other users were not arbitrary, nor do they apply to Ukraine alone. An apology to your fellow editors, as well as an acknowledgement that you were mistaken, will likely go a long way in keeping you around and sparing you an indefinite block. I hope you choose to do so and can stick around to continue your work. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For the record, I created probably several dozen pages on locations in Western Ukraine; I never add Russian names to those. (Polish and Romanian names can apply sometimes though). Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srich32977 is modifying ISBN formats again, despite years of requests not to do so. The editor was asked to stop yet again, responded with the same "consistency" justification, and then immediately went to another article to make the objectionable changes. The editor has been asked to desist from undesirable ISBN editing behavior in:

• December 2016
• March 2019
• January 2020
• November 2020
• November 2022
• June 2023
• November 2024

Those were just the ones that I could find. I expect that there are more. I hate going to ANI for resolution, but this editor keeps returning to the same objectionable behavior, despite warnings, blocks, and requests. I apologize to the administrators who will have to deal with this, but I don't know where else to turn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's compare:

A WP article has some references posted. Some of them are styled as ISBN 9780691122946, some have ISBN 978-0691122946, and some have ISBN 978-0-691-12294-6. Also, the article has these ISBNs: ISBN 0-691-12294-6 and ISBN 0691122946. (For sake of argument please assume these go to different sources. My example is about the mix of styles.) Please note that all of these ISBNs connect to WP:Book Sources and Book Sources then allows us to check different data bases for the books. More importantly, Book Sources says "Spaces and hyphens in the ISBN do not matter." So I ask you, if we are posting these 5 different layouts in our article are we being consistent with our copyediting? I don't think so. H:ISBN tells us what the ISBNs do (and that they don't need hyphens). Also it says we can put in spaces -- which could expand my example considerably. What have I been doing? I see articles that have a mix of ISBN layout styles. It is easier to remove unnecessary hyphens rather than guess or calculate what the "standard" format should be. So removal is the preferred COA. As for the list of dates posted, two were related to "fat-finger" typos, and one or two others were simply discussion -- not admonishments. In all I'd have to say Jonesey is the only editor who is content with in-consistent ISBN layouts. – S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you have been asked multiple times, over a period of years, by multiple editors (not just Jonesey), to stop doing this (see especially this one), and you continue to do it, that's disruptive editing at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is about behavioral problems. The issue here is you are going ahead with mass edits despite having received 8+ warnings on your talk page. See #4 and #5. Northern Moonlight 02:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: I highly recommend you to pause your ISBN editing now while this thread is ongoing. You made 15 more ISBN edits after the ANI started. Northern Moonlight 04:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it doesn’t seem you care about what other editors think at all. Northern Moonlight 06:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I considered using stronger language in my earlier post here, typing out "do you need a final warning or will you stop on your own?", but decided not to in hope that this might be taken on board without it. Apparently I should have posted it, given that while they have started posting on talk pages seeking consensus for ISBN changes, even as they do this they've also continued plowing right on ahead making these edits (seven times, by my count) despite the multiple concerns and the ANI. Accordingly, I've pblocked Srich32977 from articlespace until they acutally engage here and heed the community's concerns. Anyone can lift the block once they do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the unblock request. It didn't address the concerns. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with other editors, please stop when you are asked to. This appears to be a behavioral pattern of yours, ignoring other editor's concerns raised on your talk page, and just continuing on full steam ahead, knowing that objections have been raised in relation to your edits. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if we are posting these 5 different layouts in our article are we being consistent with our copyediting? The answer to your question is “no, but who cares?” As your previous sentence notes, it doesn’t matter. You’re annoying people about an utterly unimportant formalism; go find something for which this kind of gnoming *makes a difference* and no one will mind. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that Jonesey95 and Rich have a look at Template:Format ISBN and see if they can reach a mutual agreement to use it. Preferably that discussion should occur on an article or either user's talk page rather than here. 208.105.244.131 (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a potentially useful template, but it's not just ISBNs for this editor. They make other changes, some of which are helpful and some of which are detrimental. Have a look back through their User talk archives and you will see dozens of posts from editors objecting to all sorts of changes, mostly to citation formatting. The editor usually claims "consistency" as a justification for all of their edits, even ones that have objectionable changes in them. The editor sometimes agrees to change their behavior, but they consistently backslide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many wikignomes find it absurd that their edits could be seen as disruptive. After all, they're only making small edits that fix Wikipedia! However, a small subset of wikignomes are not fixing things that are broken. They are instead imposing order on a disordered world, which brings them peace. People who want to impose order on the world don't care whether the world wants or appreciates this – they're doing it for themselves, not for you. This is why there are several wikignome sock puppeteers that I've had to range block. If they could stop, they would have. Since they can't, they just keep creating more and more accounts to disrupt Wikipedia in the name of consistency, enraging other editors who want them to stop doing this. @Srich32977: I hope that you'll go down a different road. Next time someone asks you stop fixing things that aren't broken, stop doing it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inherent contradiction here. In my case I see inconsistency in a citation and I seek to "fix" the citation. Ah, but, if a citation was "not broken" to begin with, does it remain "not broken" after the fix? – S. Rich (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the contradiction? If I make 200 edits to a page to add and remove spaces, leaving it ultimately the same, nothing is broken as a result but the behavior is obviously disruptive! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your comment is not quite on-point. There is concern (much talk page discussion) about hyphens in ISBNs, and hyphens always render to the reader. I contend that giving the reader a mix of hyphenated ISBN-styles is not helpful. That is, if the reader sees hyphenated, partially-hyphenated, and non-hyphenated ISBNs, they are seeing inconsistent information. (E.g., information in inconsistent styles.) The ISBNs might all work (link to Book Sources), but do we have an established style? – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of us certainly is having trouble staying on-point, but it’s not me. There is no contradiction in NRP’s post, and turning things from one non-broken state to another non-broken state can be disruptive, and instead of plugging your ears up with unimportant questions like “do we have an established style?” you should consider the key introspective question “why haven’t I stopped doing this even though it bothers many other people?” 173.79.19.248 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if you're actually entirely right. What matters is that concerns have been raised about your edits by multiple editors over a period of nearly ten years, and yet you have continued to make them while brushing off those concerns for one reason or another. That is, at best, a case of IDHT - including right here, in this post above. Your response isn't "sorry, I won't do this", but is instead "but actually (Wikilawyering)". I'm going to be blunt here - your 'fixes' are not desired by the community, in large part because of your attitude torwards them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is right that this is not about content, but since people are in fact weighing in on the content: I support S. Rich's edits that change articles from having an inconsistent ISBN style to having a consistent one. I wish we had a more gnome-friendly or gnome-neutral culture here. In the meantime, S. Rich, I think the move here is to say "I'll stop making ISBN-related edits. I won't start until there's clear consensus that these edits are supported." I would appreciate a ping to any such discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the edits themselves aren't a problem, per se. I'm pretty sure I've made similar edits myself in the past on occasion. The problem is the response to community concerns about them, because WP:BRIE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: Now I'm even more confused! You say "the edits themselves aren't a problem ... ." But it seems that my interaction with a small number of editors is getting me into hot water. And to reach the boiling point we have the list of 8 notifications over 8 years. (Egad! The fact that I'm asking for an un-block might be construed as a negative interaction!) Well, I've figured out how to find the "thank you" notes that editors have sent me. Since June 3, 2013, they total 1,337. See [37] for the end of the list. Now I can't parse what thanks are related to what articles or what specific edits edits, but I do think the number of thanks offsets the complaints that Jonesey95 has posted. Please consider and then unblock me. I've got more gnomish tasks to work on. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to stop making ISBN-related edits, since multiple editors have asked you not to. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think his answer is no. Northern Moonlight 15:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the link Bushranger posted would alleviate that confusion.

Being right isn't enough MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say "the edits themselves aren't a problem ... ." But it seems that my interaction with a small number of editors is getting me into hot water. There is no contradiction between these two things: a behavior can be harmless until the moment when it annoys other people, at which point the failure to stop becomes problematic. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading Rich's responses on his talk page and elsewhere and they are not encouraging to me. He's constantly pointing to his barnstars and thanks despite those being meaningless in the grand scheme of things and them having no effect on editorial/behavioral policy decisions. His initial post on RL0919's talk page here saying "If you (as an Administrator) can straighten them out I will recommend that you get an upgrade to WP:Bureaucrat.)" sounds like a bribe to me which isn't on. I could be misunderstanding this post but it sounds like the classic scratch my back and I'll scratch yours bribe to me which is really concerning. Overall there's a undercurrent of WP:IDHT throughout Rich's posts which isn't helping his chances of getting unblocked. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the whole discussion, to provide context and RL0919s reply and then Srich32977s response to that reply. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JCW555. I'm sorry, I was trying to be funny. A promotion to Bureaucrat is a complex process and editors get throughly vetted. I'm sure RL0919 knows that! I think I'll go back and delete or strikeout my poor attempt at humor. – S. Rich (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their talk page post-block, I don't see any indication from Srich that they understand why they were pblocked - indeed they have repeatedly stated their intentions to return to ISBN editing immediately upon being "let loose". Thus I hereby propose a formal topic-ban from edits that alter ISBN format in any way for Srich32977. Note that this does not prevent Srich32977 from adding ISBNs - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly involved here, so take this with a grain of salt. This editor has received many messages (yes, many are from me) on their talk page regarding a variety of incorrect citation changes over the years. I believe that if this editor gets unblocked, and if a topic ban is limited to ISBNs only, this editor will be back at ANI sometime in the next year or two due to undesirable non-ISBN citation changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Having complained about this behaviour for several years and raised an inconclusive ANI thread on the topic two years ago, I support this proposal. The "in any way" is necessary, given the history of stretching interpretations, especially of "consistency". Jonesey95 may be right about the potential for non-ISBN issues, but Srich has (albeit too slowly) come around on MOS:INITIALS and MOS:NUMRANGE. Kanguole 06:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "has come around on MOS:INITIALS": Unfortunately, not all the way. I don't have the time or emotional energy to look at every one of this editor's edits, but in this recent edit they changed "E. O." to "E.O." in a first-name parameter, which goes against MOS and which they have been asked to stop multiple times. I haven't seen undesirable edits to page numbering recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake. I thought I remembered him agreeing to both of these years ago, but then there's this disregard for NUMRANGE last November. Kanguole 07:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is both an over- and an under-reaction. S. Rich has two problems:

1. He's made many disruptive ISBN edits. They're disruptive because we insist that mass editing be paused when objections are raised and not resumed until consensus is reached. S. Rich's offer to restrict his edits to FA-quality articles is not the "I'll stop all ISBN edits" that many of us were hoping for, but it does address this issue. There is existing consensus (enshrined in the FA criteria), that FA citations should be consistently formatted, so mass edits to conform FA-article ISBNs would not be disruptive.
2. He has not yet shown an understanding of what he's done wrong. Even if S. Rich stopped all ISBN edits, he'd still likely resume mass editing, and he hasn't picked up on how he should respond when an objection is raised. For this problem, an ISBN TBAN would not suffice. The current article-space pblock is working, but a more narrowly tailored sanction could instead be a ban from mass editing. I would support such a ban, though I'd much rather just see S. Rich explain that he now understands how to act if someone objects to a set of mass edits.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – as this is the only way to get them to stop. This has been going on entirely too long to overlook anymore, and then to continue ISBN editing when you're brought to ANI over this exact problematic behavior is a reliable indicator they have no intention on listening to their fellow editors when we are telling S. Rich – we don't want you doing this. I also share Jonesey95's concerns about other undesirable non-ISBN citation changes if they are unblocked, but at least we can stop this particular behavioral issue right now. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  After getting blocked from article space, Srich32977 decided it’s a good idea to mass start editing ISBN in draft, template and Wikipedia namespace today (#1, #2, #3). Can we extend the indef to all namespaces except talk and Wikipedia? Northern Moonlight 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is so frustrating. Half of their ISBN edits are good: correcting an incorrect ISBN. Others are annoying and useless. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Their self-imposed wikibreak didn't last but a hot minute, before returning to the same behavior being discussed in this report. This might be blunt, but I don't know that I've ever seen someone so determined to dig the hole even deeper. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just confirm that it is only a ban on "fixing" ISBN and not on adding references that contain one? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that alter means “modifying or removing an existing ISBN field” and hence would exclude “adding”. Northern Moonlight 16:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presently I'm looking for the best template to announce my Wikibreak. Post-break I'd like to improve the ISBN-formatting in Wikipedia again. I will focus on the ISBN-error/checksum list category. I will put in all, I mean ALL, the hyphens I can find in OCLC, ASIN, Amazon, etc. Why do I have this mania about ISBNs? In my pre-US Army days I was a book sorter and shelver at the local public library. Library patrons would drop their returned book down the slot to the basement book sorting room. I'd help in checking the books back in, put them on the carts, and push the carts back to where we could re-shelf them according to the Dewey Decimal System number. Sometimes I could actually sit down and read the books! It was a great job. So bye-bye for now. It is time to start my brake. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-break I'd like to improve the ISBN-formatting in Wikipedia again

This has to be the most blatant WP:IDHT I have ever seen. Northern Moonlight 17:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this ban proposal goes through you can't alter currently added ISBNs. You would be able to add comments to the talk page using something like {{Edit COI}} CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I read it as well. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was my intent, yes. Fine to add, not fine to alter or remove. I've tweaked the wording accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the 6 to 8 complaints listed by Jonesey95 I think the major criticism was that my edits were improper when I took out hyphens from the ISBNs. And yes I failed to explain my edits properly. (And double-yes, one of my WP mentors has pointed out how effectively I shot myself in the foot with my responses!) Well, I'm signed up with OCLC which displays publication data, plus much more. And OCLC will display the various ISBNs for different editions of books. At this moment I looking at a book published by Sage and OCLC is displaying a non-hyphenated version of the ISBN. (See OCLC 750831024 and ISBN 9781412965804 or 978-1-4129-6580-4.) In our discussions about my block editors have suggested using Template:Format ISBN. This template displays the ISBN with full hyphenation. (Also, it displays a red checksum note if the ISBN is invalid.) I suggest that I be allowed to modify ISBNs so they display the hyphenated version of the ISBN. (My first goal is to go through the categories that list articles with ISBN errors so they can be cleaned up.) And Market socialism is also one of my "targets" for ISBN fixing – it is an interesting topic and both Jonesey95 and I have recently edited the article. (It still has some gnomish errors.) There is no rush on my request. I'm on WikiBreak at present. But I do want to boost my edit count a bit more. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn’t really the main objection at this point.

As at least a dozen people have told you, the objection is that when lots of people tell you that your edits are contentious and need to be discussed, you appear to be 100% unable to hear them. You also appear to be unable to hear what anyone in this report is saying to you.

I believe that you’re editing in good faith, but whatever stops you from being able to hear what other people say is causing a big problem for you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support = I am not sure that this is the best possible sanction, but at this point, with at least 7 incidents over 8.5 years, some sanction is in order, and is better than nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Jonesey95 did say their list was incomplete. Here are some more:

  • December 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • January 2019
  • May 2022
  • October 2022
  • April 2023

  and that's just ISBN formatting. As Jonesey95 points out, there are similarly persistent issues with other aspects of citations. Kanguole 07:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the ANI report from 2023, which arose out of the April 2023 discussion linked in the list above. A formal warning was suggested in that report, but unsure if the warning was ever acted upon. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also noting that - I've received "Thanks" and Barnstars - was a defense offered for their objectionable behavior in that report as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also note that they have moved to making the exact same edits as before in draftspace: [38], [39] and in projectspace: [40]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of those edits are good: fixing bad ISBNs. I still believe a block is in order and will block from the affected non-talk spaces until this discussion on what to do long-term is concluded. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Not all of their edits are bad - in fact, very few of them are. The problem is the absolute WP:IDHT in response to concerns about them, and the continued plowing right on ahead with the edits, including here with a pblock and pending tban as a result of that IDHT. Being right isn't enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Any admin can modify/remove the pblock changes I made without prior consultation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose S. Rich isn't doing anything that violates PAGs. The RfC last held on this topic (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 188#RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it)) concluded with no consensus as to whether ISBN formats should be standardized in articles, which in my view means that S. Rich's edits are permissible. We should not sanction an editor just because other editors don't like what someone is doing. If you want to prohibit this behavior, get consensus for it. Otherwise, leave S. Rich alone. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I'm obviously in support of unblocking S. Rich as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read this whole thread and look at the diffs and links to previous talk page threads for this editor? Have you seen that they are continuing these objectionable edits in non-article namespaces? Also, this discussion ended in consensus for hyphenated ISBNs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There would have been zero support in that RfC for S. Rich's position, which is to retain the first hyphen in 13-digit ISBN numbers and remove all hyphens from 10-digit numbers. Incidentally, he didn't participate in that RfC, but his behavior was brought up by one user as a negative example. Mackensen (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Whether the ISBN edits are technically permissible is irrelevant. The real issue here is the continuous editing despite a long history of opposition and failure to build a consensus (WP:DE). Northern Moonlight 03:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How can one build consensus when the main RfC on the topic ended with no consensus? Why is it fair to ban someone based on opposition to their editing when that opposition isn't shared by the community? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is not their edits. Their edits are, technically, correct. The problem isn't even the fact they have community pushback. The problem is that they blithely utterly ignored that pushback, to the point of making spurious claims about that pushback being more limited than it actually was (note early in this thread that they were implying, if not outright claiming, that only one editor had raised concerns), and that, even with knowing that there are community concerns about it and having been pblocked for the IDHT, they still do not get that their behavior was in any way problematic, and their suggested remedies on their talk page carry a strong sense that they would be automatically accepted and they could roar right back into editing ISBNs left right and center, a recipe for - by omission, or otherwise - just bringing the same issues up yet again. Technically, their edits are entirely in the right. But being right isn't enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being right is not enough, but we shouldn't be gaslighting people by telling them their editing is fine but then faulting them for not stopping when people complain about it. IDHT applies to ignoring community consensus, not a group of editors who are annoyed with you and who lack consensus for their position. S. Rich has no obligation to stop standardizing ISBNs on articles, so I'm not sure why it's an issue that he wants to continue doing so. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In this edit seen here, from just a couple of days ago, they wrote in their edit summary - minor edit to achieve consistency in ISBN presentation. Looking at the article prior to their edit, only 3 of the ISBNs had one hyphen, while 13 had multiple hyphens, so the dominant style was multiple hyphens, so if anything, they should have changed the 3 to match the other 13. And even after their edit, there still wasn't any consistency, as some ISBNs had just 1 hyphen, while others had no hyphens.

  In addition, Help:Citation Style 1 says Use the ISBN actually printed on or in the book. I spot checked five of the books, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the citations were actually using the ISBN printed in the book. Doesn't make sense to me. Looks like to me they were just forcing their preferred version of ISBNs on the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There is long-standing consensus that mass cosmetic changes aren't okay if people object. People have objected. Repeatedly. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Willform has a mixed record; good and bad edits. If you flip through their contribution history, probably like a third of their edits have been undone in recent history. I've yet to see them use sources in their edits. I found this apparent joke edit to be concerning.

My main problem is that they never respond to feedback. If you scroll through their talk page, they've been receiving warning after warning over the last 5 years and have engaged with none of it. They haven't really seem to have learned from any of it either; still make problematic edits despite having been on the site for much longer than me.

I think they have potential to be a helpful editor if they just listened to feedback. At present they're clearly willfully ignoring it; I would not buy any excuses that they haven't seen it; it's been 5 years and they're not a new editor.

Proposal: block from mainspace until they show willingness to engage with feedback. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would support this. Has been registered for 5 years and never made a comment on his own talk page--FMSky (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the massive wall of concerns on their talk page with nary a peep in response, and no alteration of behavior, I've pblocked from articlespace until communication improves. Anyone can unblock once it does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armandlee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be an WP:SPA (they were tagged as such by @Some1). Their entire contributions history has been to the Sydney Sweeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) talk page or article. They've exhibited a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, insisting content they appear to want to include be added, accusing editors who think otherwise of forcing your own opinions on this article, and claims that what you have showed is a bias. You have shut others up and threatened those have a different opinion if this article (@TNstingray is the editor who allegedly threatened Armandlee). Accuses the same editor again that they have a clear bias that wants to withhold information on a public figure. In an interaction with @DocLG they stated You did not explain yourself. I haven't said anything that would not be of good faith. You just don't want to explain yourself. Accused me of editorializing simply for bringing the matter to the attention of WP:BLPN.

They appear to be stretching the limits of WP:CIV and when editors don't agree with them, they WP:BLUDGEON them expecting it's every editor who must WP:SATISFY them. Their talk page has three different warnings, two of them written seemingly by the editors leaving them in a genuine interest in helping them slow down, but this has been going on for four days. Bringing the matter here in the hopes of either attracting more attention or perhaps looking at a WP:NOTHERE block. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(just realized I posted this at AN instead of AN/I, as I've already left the notifications pointing here I leave it to an admin to decide if this should be moved to AN/I with a pointer or left here) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno how I missed this one, Clearly you are not actually reading the sources provided and jump to a conclusion that fits your viewpoint. As others have pointed out I can't help but think you are part of her team in some way. She's about to kick off her Oscar campaign and I'm thinking some of the wikiusers are here to cover for her. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole, I think this should be moved to ANI as it really doesn't involve the admin community. There is a specific template to do this but perhaps you could just cut and paste since only I have responded to it so far. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, would be happy to be part of the discussion. I have not broken the rules of WP:CIV. Any discussion of a public nature will involve push back but I've been open and honest about why I believe I should push back. User Lock Cole has been harassing me non stop/ Armandlee (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Armandlee, Some1, TNstingray, DocLG, and Liz: post-move pings, will re-notify Armandlee. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been following that section of the article talk page since it began. It's a testament to the other participants' dedication to WP:AGF that it's taken this long to escape the bounds of Talk:Sydney Sweeney. Pick any random contribution of Armandlee to the article's talk page for an example of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality; taken in toto it's something akin to WP:BLUDGEONING incarnate. TurboSuper+ left excellent advice on Armandlee's talk page, which was totally ignored for a day but finally responded to after the AN discussion opened, followed by a declaration a few minutes ago of Cool, if there is no fairness. I can do what I want. We are unable to help someone who refuses to hear us. tony 04:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "I can do what I want" definitely makes me think that there's no way to not avoid a page block at this point. While I totally agree with Liz philosophically about this being a new editor, this is a failure of basic human interaction, not someone falling afoul of a tricky Wikipedia process, and presumably this editor has more than five days of being a human who has to communicate with others who disagree with them. Also, it's a page block, not a wider topic ban or an indef. If the discussion being here isn't a speed bump, then something else has to be. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The solution would be an indefinite partial block for editing the Sydney Sweeney article and talk page. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but they can appeal later once they've demonstrated the ability to play nice. If they drag the issue to other articles, then an indef block sitewide. The partial block will give them the ability to demonstrate they are not a single issue editor (ie: WP:NOTHERE). I'm almost of a mind to just unilaterally impose it, but I'm not around often enough to deal with it afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What draws my attention here is that Armandlee has been editing Wikipedia for 4 days. Locke Cole, you've had your account for 20 years now! You could not be more polar opposites on the ends of the editing experience spectrum. It's not an even playing field here and we can't expect an editor in their first week of edititng to be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and practices. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This might be a new account, but I'm not convinced they've never edited enwp before. I would bet on it, so they don't get a pass for being new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And in those 4 days, they have been like the proverbial bull in a china closet on the talk page, bludgeoning the discussion, and frequently responding to other editors with snark and snide remarks. I'm not necessarily advocating for a pblock (yet), but they do need to understand that civility is policy, and if they don't want to get on board with being civil, then their editing career here is likely going to be short-lived. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course a newbie isn't going to be familiar with our thicket of rules and regulations, but I agree with Isaidnoway: it's not remotely a stretch to expect anyone, however new, to interact with civility. The immediate response of any newcomer to being pointed to WP:CIVIL should be "Alright, I'll do that going forward." Ravenswing 09:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not surprised to see Armandlee popping up here considering they seem to think anybody who disagrees with them even partially is part of a concerted effort to conceal The Truth. I am, however, very receptive to them being a very new editor and, as such I think we should avoid WP:BITE in this case and give them a warning that their comportment at article talk has been overly personal and insufficiently collegial. They're new and may not understand Wikipedia expectations. So let's try explaining those expectations before blocking them. If that doesn't work and they continue responding with unnecessary hostility after these expectations have been explained then we could always revisit other preventative measures. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes me think they aren't so new is the lack of formatting errors and other newbie mistakes from the get go. Normally I don't like to spell it out so plainly, and I'm not saying they are a sock of anyone, but again, I'm betting they aren't really as new as their account shows. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As one of the editors involved with this situation, I contemplated coming here early on when it became clear that this user was NOT HERE for the right reasons, but I held off in the hopes that they would familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy and reach an understanding (despite their accusations of me threatening them... I explained that a warning of potential administrative involvement is not a threat). I see they have only persisted in their problematic behavior. I'm in agreement with some of the other commenters that a partial block on Sydney Sweeney will hopefully be sufficient, and we can widen the block later if necessary. TNstingray (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for the archives but Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armandlee was created as there was an account created shortly after this AN/I was opened that acted similarly. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record it was resolved as unrelated. Armandlee was not socking. They also seem to have stopped participating in WP after being brought to AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also also for the record, it's still open, and there is no resolution. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases, specifically, Note: CheckUser is just one way to find evidence; it is not  magic pixie dust or a  crystal ball. Even if CheckUser shows "unrelated" or "inconclusive", it means that the CheckUser tool did not reveal any connection or is inconclusive. In some cases it may be clear or likely on behavioral grounds and an adverse finding could be justified by the evidence taken as a whole. In short, don't take IP addresses at face value. The similarities were enough for a clerk to endorse the technical check. However, as neither account is continuing to edit, we may never know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Locke Cole • t • c 17:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said a word in four days. This is my only account. Armandlee (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article block on Sydney Sweeney with ability to appeal after showing productive editing elsewhere over a period of time - After reviewing @Armandlee's conduct on Talk:Sydney Sweeney, there are some serious issues of not only civility, but a clear unwillingness to listen to the advice and direction of more experienced editors. [41][42][43][44] are just a few examples. When (appropriately) advised of their conduct on their UTP, instead of listening, they turned things into a victim complex (Others have belittled, threatened and gaslight me[45]). Their response of if there is no fairness. I can do what I want[46] is particularly troublesome. Right now, I don't necessarily see them as a SPA, but rather a new/inexperienced user unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines and, more importantly, culture. That doesn't excuse not listening, but it does give me pause on sanctions. If they're not here to build an encyclepedia, that will become evident in time. @Armandlee: Regardless of the outcome of this ANI report, my strong advice is that you review the civility policy as well as learn to assume good faith of other users. There was a significant amount of advice given to you that you completely disregarded as an attack. We have a specific definition of what amounts to personal attacks and nothing that was said to you (that I see) meets that definition. If you're going to continue here, you're going to need to learn the difference. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenio Sena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was going through the delsort on the football AfDs and this one seems very odd, HypothesisNull is a new account created, edits the article first to PROD and then sends it to AfD, there is a new account Robertogiulio1988 created to specifically goto this AfD to take part?? Are these two accounts one person?? Maybe an admin can review? I don't know if a check-user is needed. I have no qualms against the article being deleted, it's just the process here, they way it's been done! Regards, Govvy (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there's sockpuppetry afoot, WP:SPI is thataway. → - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HypothesisNull wants the article to be deleted, and Robertogiulio1988 is arguing for the article to be kept. They're SPAs, sure, but I don't see them being sockpuppets unless I'm missing something here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely than you'd think, alas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Govvy,

Let me clarify: I came across one article that struck me as clearly non-encyclopedic in nature. I usually am just a lurker on Wikipedia (and a passionate one, at that), but I decided to seize this opportunity and so I opened an account, initiated a discussion and carefully reviewed each cited source, referencing relevant Wikipedia policies. I learned a bit on how Wikipedia works and I would happily continue contributing to it, in the future.

As for my sole contribution up to now, I would like to think that my comments were detailed and policy-based, aimed at reaching neutrality. Shortly after I proposed the article for deletion - a motion that received support from several other users - a newly created account began opposing the deletion in a markedly emotional and subjective manner. This user described the subject, whose most notable managerial role is with a team currently in the lower ranks of Georgia’s second division, as “one of the most talented and young Italian coaches” and suggested that dissenting opinions stem from a lack of football knowledge.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time the page has shown signs of being closely monitored. In the past, there were attempts to insert highly adulatory content, further suggesting a pattern of self-promotion.

I believe maintaining Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability is essential, and I hope this comment clarifies what happened. HypothesisNull (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odds and ends, something still smells off, I posted to this venue because I thought maybe an admin might have an insight into this type of behaviour. Still smacks of WP:DUCKS to me. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Govvy,

Could you please clarify what you're suggesting here? As @ChildrenWillListen rightly pointed out, the account you referenced earlier is actually *opposing* the deletion proposal I initiated. *All* the accounts who support it are well established and have been on Wikipedia for quite a while. If I were operating a sockpuppet, I think I would make sure it supports my positions instead of actively opposing them - don't you think?

I’ve tried to keep my contributions focused on policy and sourcing, and I welcome scrutiny of my edits. If there’s something specific that seems off, I’d appreciate it if you could point it out directly so we can address it constructively.

Thanks! HypothesisNull (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use AI tools to communicate. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I were operating a sockpuppet, I think I would make sure it supports my positions instead of actively opposing them - don't you think? Well yes, but actually no, or at least not necessarily. Not saying one way or the other here, but noting that "opposing the other putitive sock" isn't a smoking gun against it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I’m not using "AI tools" to communicate. I simply prefer to take the time to carefully review and refine my comments before posting, rather than doing it impulsively. It’s unfortunate that clear grammar and structured reasoning are now seen as the domain of machines instead of humans.

That said, please feel free to conduct any checks you deem necessary. You have my full permission to verify that the other account is not connected to me in any way.

Let me add something: I would suggest all of you to take a look at the latest comments in the AFD - particularly those posted from an IP address based in Georgia who previously modified the article in question with an extremely enthusiastic and promotional tone and is arguing against its deletion using the same tone, grammar and style as the account "Robertogiulio1988". HypothesisNull (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have accusations of sockpuppetry, go to SPI. Also, LLMs usually have more signs than grammar or 'structured reasoning' such as markdown for one 37.186.46.28 (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your only edits so far all involve deleting Eugenio Sena. It is generally unusual for new editors to want to delete a particular article. If you have a financial stake or a personal conflict of interest in this matter, you must declare it. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is the best way to resolve this situation. In summary, I am filing this ANI report regarding the conduct of User:OrionNimrod across multiple articles and talk pages related to Romanian history, including but not limited to: Battle of Păuliș Talk:Battle of Păuliș Talk:Romania. His conduct includes repeated personal attacks, motive misrepresentation, forum shopping, hounding, and mischaracterisation of my account. 1. Personal Attacks / Aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL). He accused me multiple times of having "nationalist motivations" at the Pǎuliș article without evidence and twisted neutral phrasing ("heroic Romanian achievement"), which wasn't even my wording, into a claim of bias. 2. Hounding Behaviour (WP:HOUND). He followed my contributions across multiple articles and Talk Pages (e.g., Battle of Păuliș, Treaty of Trianon) and escalated a content dispute into repeated personal accusations. 3. Filed a misleading post on WP:WikiProject Military history misrepresenting me—without notifying me about Pǎuliș. Misuse of Policy / Forum Shopping (WP:POINT, WP:DISPUTE, WP:BLUDGEON). Posted walls of historical text to sidestep policy-based discussion and accused me of edit warring after a single revert. Tried to gather outside support after losing the Talk Page discussion. 4. Mischaracterisation of my account, repeatedly referred to me as a "brand new user" to discredit my edits, despite my contributions being sourced and policy-based. This is, I'm sure you can agree misleading, irrelevant, and contributes to a hostile editing environment. Some context... the dispute centers on how to represent the Battle of Păuliș in the infobox. I argued based on multiple sources—that Romanian forces led the decisive phase, with Soviet reinforcements arriving after the outcome was mostly decided. I proposed keeping "Romanian victory" in the infobox and fully acknowledging Soviet participation in the body. This aligns with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Additionally, in the Talk:Treaty of Trianon and Talk:Romania pages, OrionNimrod has consistently attempted to downplay Romanian perspectives and push alternative historical framings, often using similar personal accusations and dismissive tactics. Instead of engaging with content policy, he escalated with personal attacks, misrepresentation, and canvassing behaviour. I ask that admins formally warn or sanction OrionNimrod for: Repeated personal attacks. Hounding behaviour. Misrepresentation of my account. Disruptive editing tactics and forum shopping. I’ve remained calm and policy-based throughout. His conduct is turning a content disagreement into a hostile editing environment.

1. Personal attack — “nationalist motivations” accusation, Pǎuliș page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Păuliș&diff=prev&oldid=1304577420 

2. Misrepresentation on WikiProject Military History (no ping)

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=1304515332 

3. My only revert — no edit war on Pǎuliș talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Păuliș&diff=prev&oldid=1304498758 

4. Treaty of Trianon / Talk:Romania — dismissive tone on Romania talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&diff=prev&oldid=1300146433 

5. Bludgeoning with excessive, off-topic historical wall of text, both Romania and Pǎuliș talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Păuliș&diff=prev&oldid=1304509486 

6. My policy-based initial Talk page comment during out first interaction on Romania's talk page.

→ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&diff=prev&oldid=1299863799 Welcometothejungle007 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] 

It has been my observation that most complaints at WP:ANI are more seriously considered if they are written by a human than by a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I'm afraid I don't use any large language models or artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. Everything I've ever written on this site is my own language, structure and intent. Please can you help me with my query, thanks. Welcometothejungle007 (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I suppose Welcometothejungle007 is an old sockpuppet (Romania/Hungary related articles, I had a lot of conflict with a massive sockpuppetry over many years Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheLastOfTheGiants/Archive, in the report we can see this sockpuppet was very keen to use Hitchins as source, Welcometothejungle007 uses this source again [47]), Welcometothejungle007 has a very minimal edit counts, but he mentions randomly always many Wikipedia rules (even in this ANI report, edit logs, talks) which is really suspicious form a new user. (When I started edit Wikipedia, after 10 edits I did not know any Wiki rules...)

I see Welcometothejungle007 accuse me harassment and that I follow him in more articles, but it seems he started following me and making a personal harassment campaign against me, as I made earlier edits in articles and he attacked them later. It seems he reverts only my edits in many articles by aggressive edit war. I added a country establishment event [48] a little later a new user he started an edit war [49] [50] [51] (but interesting, he was well aware with 3 revert rule, so he did not make 4 reverts). In talk page, at that time just after 10! edits he demonstrated a great knowledge of Wikipedia rules, which is very suspicious from a "brand new" user. Talk:Romania#Establishment event: Treaty of Trianon (in talk I mentioned this is suspicious). Earlier, a blocked user Napoli0079 did exactly the same revert after my edit [52].

I earlier edited another page [53] in response of this edit [54] (this sockpuppet always creates many accounts, maybe this is also his account), of course Welcometothejungle007 started to attack my edit Talk:Voivodeship of Maramureș#Concerns about recent edits to Maramureș section - Neutrality 3? accusing "nationalist-fuelled claim to change the text".

Earlier I restored a removed content [55] by a blocked user [56] User talk:Napoli0079 made a racist attack against me [57] now Welcometothejungle007 started to make an edit war to make the same edit what blocked user Napoli0079 did. [58] + [59] (he said he made only 1 revert, we can see 2)

Welcometothejungle007 said in this ANI report that I followed him to Treaty of Trianon page, I see Welcometothejungle007 did not edit at all that page, I also did not make anything there a long time ago, but also I have a conflict with the mentioned sockpuppet many years ago in that page, which also support my suggestion that Welcometothejungle007 is the same sockpuppet TheLastOfTheGiants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon/Archive_4#A_lot_of_incorrect_info_added

Welcometothejungle007 said in this ANI report that I "lost talk page debate" (I do not know what does it mean and how), this was also the usual claim of TheThorLat (same sockpuppet) [60]

I also recognize he uses ChatGPT for his comments, probably to use a difference communication style than his former sockpuppets.

It seems very suspicious that most of his dispute and edit wars focuses on my edits. And now we can see he reported me here, just because in talk page I provided a reliable modern academic military historian source regarding the battle (Welcometothejungle007 says that is "off-topic") which support the stage of original article before Welcometothejungle007 arbitrary started to remove contents with edit war. For me his sentences an admitted nationalistic personal motivation to remove other combatants, to emphasize the participation of only 1 combatant: Talk:Battle of Păuliș, I asked to follow WP:ATT instead of his personal belief WP:NOR. [61] "Heavily, heavily undue... Romanian forces did all the fighting defending Pǎuliş and most of the fighting pushing back Hungarians, stop trying to diminish Romanian participation" [62] "A Sole and decisive Romanian victory" "This is perhaps the greatest military achievement in the history of the modern Romanian army" [63] "by no means is a Romanian-Soviet victory when Soviet forces had extremely limited involvement in the battle". I think using the ANI after 40! edits also very suspicious. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Welcometothejungle007 - If you aren't using a large language model, don't write like a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoli0079 SPI case opened OrionNimrod (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

毕明明 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user regularly moves pages with no discussion or justification. A level-4 warning was given in May after their second move war on GAC Trumpchi. They have made two more page moves since, [64], and [65], in the latter case despite there having been a discussion on the talk page.

The user's only edits to article talk pages have been page moves and adding project banners, and they have never responded to any concerns with their editing. I'm not familiar enough with Chinese automakers to be entirely sure what's going on, but several of their page moves have been reverted, and the refusal to communicate - especially with something as major as a page move - is decidedly disruptive. --Sable232 (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user has just made two more disruptive page moves, in one case moving it twice ([66], [67]) to make it more difficult to revert. This user needs, at minimum, an indefinite p-block from page moves - that would appear to be the only thing left that will get them to stop. --Sable232 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:毕明明#Warning. Please let me know (ping me from here or on my talk if no response) if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a while now, user Akandkur has been making disruptive edits on a few pages regarding Nickelodeon Movies and some of the films released under the label. The user keeps removing films from the production list or removing the company from the film pages because, despite opening with the NM logo, they feel they don't count because of a few factors and they continue link articles to back up their points. However, for over a year, people have tried explaining to them why they should count. Not just because they open with the logo but other films fit their criteria of what they say shouldn't count but they let them pass anyway simply because they weren't a simultaneous TV/streaming release. We gone through this on several talk pages for film pages, the NM page and even on a few user pages like on theirs, mine and Multiplivision's, with Akandkur even deleting one of their own responses. I even tried to come up with a compromise on more than one occasion but they ignored me and went back to their disruptive editing. No matter how many times we make our point and even back up our arguments, eventually they go right back to removing films once again. Whether or not they think they count as films released under Nickelodeon Movies is up to them but this isn't a personal collection. It's a Wikipedia article. They shouldn't keep picking and choosing and then deciding that their word is gospel.

This is the first time I've made one of these as it's the first time I've come into conflict on this site. I'm hopeful that I did a decent job summarizing this whole affair. I was hoping it didn't have to come to this but I'm very tired of having to deal with this person and after at least a year of other people having to fix their edits or make their case to Akandkur, I don't see any signs of this changing. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that while I provided examples of the talk pages and attempts to talk them down but almost no examples of the disruptive editing other than my own word. So here are examples for Template:Nickelodeon Movies, Dora and the Search for Sol Dorado, Henry Danger: The Movie and most notably, their numerous attempts at removing elements from the List of Nickelodeon Movies productions. The first paragraph of that list's page even mentioning that they include "animated and live-action feature films, shorts, television and internet series, and specials" so their argument that some films shouldn't count because they aired on Nick a few hours after they premiered on streaming is built on shaky ground. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, GatekeeperofCoolness, but you forgot to notify the editor of this discussion. There is a code listed at several places on this page. Please do so on your next edit. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that. I have notified them on their talk page. Thank you for letting me know. I will not make that mistake again. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After I notified them about this, Akandkur left this on my talk page. It seems like the issue has now resolved itself and hopefully, we won't have to worry about this in the future. There's a part of me that's surprised by how fast it was resolved after so long but I choose to believe Akandkur that they will do better from now on. GatekeeperofCoolness (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not familiar with the topic area in question, but I have intersected with Akandkur at KTSF. The edits were of low quality with poor English grammar and no sources and have mostly been plowed over because I rewrote the page. Looking at what's been brought up, the problem is simple. We have to write with the sources available. If the sources say Nickelodeon Movies, then that's what we have to go with. It seems like this sort of tendentious editing on the topic of Nickelodeon films and even some other film genres (Indian cinema) has gone on for quite some time. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block user HistorianAlferedo[68] with VikRagnarr[69] for sockpuppetry who is also active for disruption in Indian caste related articles on this platform.

Who is also blocked on Simple Wikipedia for committing sockpuppetry by CheckUser block-account. 2402:E000:44F:E557:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll notify the user for you. VikRagnarr is unused on this wiki. We don't typically block people for what they do on other wikis (nor does simplewiki). If you have evidence of disruption on this wiki, please provide it. Also just curious, do you have an account? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz

1. He posted Copyrighted content on Dhir Singh Pundir [70][71][72] Kachhwaha, [73][74][75] and Political marriages.[76]
2. Citing poor sources from WordPress.[77] citing non reliable sources of Sikhhero.com and WordPress.com on contentious caste articles. [78]
3. Caste promotion with unreliable travel guide books source that also not mentioned any caste origin.[79]
4. Removed sourced information with invalid edit summary.[80]
5. Removed other caste names[81][82][83] from articles but added rajput caste name on many articles openly pushing rajput caste POV.[84][85][86][87] 2402:E000:4B6:EA6D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account I read and edit independently on both Wikipedias and in native language platform of Wikipedia. 2402:E000:4B6:EA6D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know about this. Yes go please. 2402:E000:450:710B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger You should investigate later or tomorrow. 2402:E000:450:710B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I should not. One, I'm not a CheckUser, and two, you need to file a SPI request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz

sir jee then close this if you don't want to take actions. I give you evidence you people said provide evidence for disruption. Good night. I don't know other task of reporting. I KNOW ANI on Simple Wikipedia and English Wikipedia that's why posted here. On simple Wikipedia they say we don't have responsibility for English Wikipedia. 2402:E000:450:710B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about sockpuppetry, you need to file a report at WP:SPI, which has directions on how to do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take a slightly different perspective to my esteemed colleague above, because I consider the SPI already closed with my initial comment in this thread. I wouldn't want to waste the OP's time. The other stuff doesn't really strike me as ANI material, but I'll defer to others on that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I thought it was this way ←–. 208.105.244.131 (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's ↔ thataway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're both wrong. It's ↓ that way. In hell. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this page already hell? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only the fifth circle. SPI is the eighth. -- asilvering (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mikeydoodles96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mikeydoodles96 has created a couple dozen local pages for commons images, which have {{FeaturedPicture}} tags on them. Problem is, none of these tags appear to be correct. I asked on their user talk page but they've just gone on creating these. What if anything should be done about this? - MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the problems extend far beyond that. Why do we need Draft:2062 in film? Or Draft:2047 in public domain? And there's a lot of that. A substantial number of their edits are reverted, too. This is looking very much WP:NOTHERE, but perhaps Mikeydoodles96 has a solid explanation. --Yamla (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As their file actions are continuing, I've partially blocked them from the File namespace for a couple of weeks. Hopefully that's enough to grab their attention. This is a regular admin action, any admin is free to lift the partial block without consulting me. --Yamla (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for September 26, 2041.. Pure vandalism. I've deleted their Filespace page creations. This looks to me like it should be an indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say if they decide to come to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I just almost did a NOTHERE block after looking at their recent contribs, which have all been reverted, but will leave to a 2nd opinion. Mixing "too early" but not vandalism with redating tags and the like. This person is causing more work for others, and not an asset. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could this be also Wp:CRYSTAL 2A04:7F80:37:24E6:35FA:F7DB:64AA:F70E (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User has came onto wikipedia with the seemingly sole intent of being disruptive, has vandalised Cabra Dominican College and has also decided to come on my talkpage and seemingly made some backhanded threats towards me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabra_Dominican_College&oldid=1304755825

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabra_Dominican_College&oldid=1304755570 NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 02:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NeoJade, this editor has been editing for an hour and has 5 edits. It seems a very quick to open an ANI complaint on them. This is for "urgent" "intractable behavioral problems". Have you tried talking with them? Posting a welcome notice? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As linked above, Chesesenomy made a clear and obvious threat to NeoJade and their family on NeoJade's talk page. I am surprised at the suggestion that the appropriate or expected response would be for NeoJade to post a friendly "Welcome to Wikipedia!" message on Chesesenomy's talk page. --tony 02:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also this. Sorry Liz, your degree of WP:AGF is often a model for the rest of us to aspire to, but this one is clear and obvious. I've indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, think this was closed a little bit too early to not allow a discussion and/or response from myself on Liz's seeming query.

This user clearly never would edit outside of causing harm - personally, I get the suggestion they are a younger person who's just made their account to get around a school IP block.

Plus, they were already on a final warning for vandalising, before making threats towards myself. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 03:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't take these comments as a serious threat. I suggested engaging the editor so I went to go talk with them. If my remarks were insensitive, I apologize. I guess I've seen too many threats that I thought were truly vile that I have become a little jaded over what looked to me to be juvenile trolling. Thanks to other editors who responded more appropriately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]