Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Are you in the right place?

• This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here for the Administrators' Noticeboard on the regular English Wikipedia.
• Use Vandalism in progress to report serious and urgent vandalism from other users to administrators.
• Use Requests for permissions to request administrators to give you tools that can help you do things faster on Wikipedia, such as rollback.
• Use Simple talk to ask general questions about Wikipedia and how to use it.
• See meta:Steward requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name.
• See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
• See WP:OS for oversight.

Hollowww - edit intentions

Hollowww (talk · contribs) has made 804 edits since starting to edit here on June 4. Of those 805 edits, 800 are to their user space, 2 to their user talk, 1 to Wikipedia space, 1 to the template space, and 1 to a main space article. They have made 36 subpages of articles that are unlikely to pass Simple English standards for language and construction.

They are currently blocked on English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. I asked about their edit intentions on their user talk page and they said "I only want to make and use sandbox there, I don't intend to create articles at the moment" and, when asked what they're writing the drafts/what they intend to do with them, "Just for fun I'd say, I like writing." I see WP:NOTHERE intentions with this account; they don't intend to contribute to the project, just to write their own things for their own "entertainment." Can an admin please review if further discussion or any action is needed with the user? CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I can assure you that I never meant to actually publish any articles on the Simple Wikipedia, and that I have been using my sandbox area for personal practice and to learn formatting and editing suitable for Wikipedia. I understand how my edits could have appeared suspicious to you and other editors, and I apologize for creating any misunderstanding that I did. I'm glad to restrict my sandbox activities or follow any recommendations or advice to avoid that this all happens again. -- Hollowww (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I note that since you responded to this post, you have made one main space edit and approximately 200 to your user space pages. CountryANDWestern (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Steven1991 and targeted harassment

Hi, Steven1991 was blocked from EN.Wiki for harassment, and has taken it upon himself to try to drag my name through the mud in edits such as this https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10174808, and taking it off wiki https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestinian_Violence/comments/1hgveqf/yeah_sure_the_juice_poisoned_the_wells_username/. I have also reported this to trust and safety. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_on_Wikipedia#WTF for more. Polygnotus (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns and have removed the image myself as well. I think that the whole Online_antisemitism#English_Wikipedia needs to be closely examined, particularly its use of images. What is in the article is labeling particular users as antisemites, even if names are obscured. This raises WP:NPA concerns. I don't know the history at English Wikipedia that led to the block of Steven1991, but if there was a harassment campaign of this particular user that contributed to that block, continuing here by adding that image to the article reeks of continuing the harassment and may need the consideration of a WP:ONESTRIKE block. CountryANDWestern (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@CountryANDWestern Would you be so kind to remove File:Serial_erasure_of_content_in_a_Jewish_history_article_by_a_user_engaging_in_tendentious_editing.jpg from Wikipedia:Vandalism? I am not autoconfirmed here. And yes, they should be indeffed. This kinda behaviour is incompatible with a collaborative environment. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I have removed some of the trash, but someone should really take a critical look at those sections. Polygnotus (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I have some concerns over their pages as well. Some of them seem to have OR, complex, and based on studies/sources that represent one side of things. However, I have had some involvement with them on an RFA so I am not the best person to handle this situation but I have seen more than enough for WP:ONESTRIKE.-- BRP ^ever 02:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The edit on Antisemitism alone is sufficient for a WP:ONESTRIKE block. The original research is another reason. Blocked. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 09:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's a fun one. Whenever Steven and I have had conflict, I get repeated password requests from an IP either in Scotland or on the border of Scotland. I can't prove it's them, but it seems highly suspicious, given that Steven has said on his EN.Wiki talk page that he is from the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Lucy Letby - article protection

Please consider semi-protection of Lucy Letby due to continued IP disruption there. CountryANDWestern (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done MathXplore (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

User:CountryANDWestern

A dispute has arisen between myself and this editor (C&W) who has apparently decided that I'm not fit to deal with rogue micro-stubs in the cricket sphere. I took issue with C&W over this edit which I reverted, posting my reasons on the article's talk page. With no regard for w:WP:BRD, C&W abruptly restored the edit and refuses to comply with BRD. C&W has subsequently set about restoring other micro-stubs which I had redirected, obviously to make a w:WP:POINT.

I should make clear that I don't object to anyone restoring a redirect if they are going to expand the article citing reliable sources—I do that myself. It may be argued that this is all C&W is doing. But, is C&W interested in cricket, or is C&W asserting that C&W is right and there is nothing to discuss? Does C&W really believe that we should store a huge pile of useless micro-stubs that were created indiscriminately by bad editors with questionable motives—for example, the Auckland IP, Nikolai Kurbatov, or Spec150?

I have another concern about C&W. I noticed that they first edited Simple on 15 May, only three days after I started here, and so I looked at their first edits to see what brought them here. I was a bit surprised that C&W's first edit used a warning template. A few minutes later, C&W was loading the monobook.js and the twinkleoptions.js. So, I assumed they must have, like myself, come over from enwiki having had years of experience there.

I then looked at C&W's Xtools to see the extent of their experience. This shows that C&W had never used Wikipedia before 15 May. They have made a small number of edits at each of enwiki, wikidata, and commoms since then. I think this needs to be investigated, because no one can know so much about Wikipedia processes and procedures without long experience. This person is plainly not a "newbie". It is interesting to read C&W saying You haven't been around long enough to know on 1 June, only a fortnight after joining.

I suppose C&W might claim to have been a long-term IP editor, or they might put forward the old "fresh start" chestnut. If they were an IP, we should really be asking for evidence of past editing. If it is a "fresh start", what was/were the former account(s), and why has a fresh start been necessary?

Please ping me if you need to ask me anything. Thanks. Jack (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Is that now about edit warring somewhere (which is one problem that need to be looked at) or is that about a person possibly doing a clean start, assuming good faith in that point? -Barras talk 14:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m also curious since this was broad to AN: what administrative action is being sought? CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Uh the whole point of a fresh start is that you don’t reveal the previous account so you’re not connected. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting.--(Fresh start? Well, user:C&W is now 'largely claiming that c. none of the Norwegian mayors (of municipalities), are notable to on a List of Norwegian mayors (2023-2027). If not a frivilous claim, then it seems close.--Here is the article, where user C&W is part of a '2-1 lead', in regard to "votes".--Now, if user:C&W is in fact, edit-warring (as the original poster, seems to claim): Would it not be enough to give one or more warnings, and following that, one steps up sanctions, to say a one-week block.--Thoughts? 2001:2020:359:B9D1:8915:4255:47BD:6A40 (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

C&W is a fresh start account so that explains his editing experience. He has no requirement to explain who he was or explain the circumstances of why they did a fresh start. This is not the first time this has been brought up and we have expressed support for C&Ws fresh start. He has not caused problems on simplewiki (apart from nominating about 7000 articles for RfD :) fr33kman 14:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Gadget request

Hello! I'd like to request the creation of a new local gadget called WizardCat, which I have written and tested. It is a semi-automated tool that helps add categories to the pages that are currently in Category:Category needed.

When in effect, it loads the uncategorized pages and suggests categories using the Wikidata P910 links and the categories on enwiki's version of the article. It allows the user to click to automatically (using MediaWiki's API) add the selected category and (if present) remove the {{uncategorized}} template (HotCat rarely removes these templates). CSRF is also used here. Categories from enwiki will only show up if our Wikipedia has them.

Would an admin kindly move the script to "MediaWiki:Gadget-WizardCat.js" and add WizardCat[ResourceLoader]|WizardCat.js to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, please?

I would very much like feedback on this if something doesn't seem right. Thank you for your time! ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 19:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee: I'm quite impressed with what I've seen so far, although I just have a couple of comments to make:

• For Ain't I a Woman? I was presented with a category to add from enwiki, with a tick, but the article already had the category on. Does this tick mean the category is already added? Also, should it have loaded if the page was no longer uncategorised by the time I looked at it?
• As a procedural note, I'm not sure how we go about adding new gadgets, as we rarely get them. Should we have a discussion first before adding them, have a slight testing phase first, etc? Not certain on this end of things, so I'll defer to another bureaucrat or admin.

--Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 20:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien The ticks were supposed to be for suggestions, but I changed them to lightbulbs to show they are suggestions. Categories that are already added to the article are not displayed.

No, WizardCat does not load. After the next button is pressed, the article is seen as categorized and is not seen again.

I think testing the code and consensus would work in this case. This can be between administrators here or posted on the Simple talk to gather other users' thoughts. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 00:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think a period of time would be a good idea to let people play with it and that there should be a gathering of consensus; although I'm sure people will like it. It should only require a short period of trial. It should be done on STfr33kman 00:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

My comments:

• If simple and enwiki both have a category, but the name is different (for example, if ours uses simpler words), does the gadget recognize this and suggest our category? Or does it only suggest if the names are the same?
• It can be a problem if a page is incompletely categorized. For example, with a biographical article, if the only categories added are for birth and death years, that is not enough, but the page leaves Category:Category needed and we lose the indicator that more categories are still needed. I see this often when people do the categorization, and I suspect it would be the same with a tool. I think it is less of a problem for the page to stay as it is than to be incompletely categorized.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the script only suggest the ones with the same name as I had gone through quite a few with no suggestions. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 03:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there an edit summary for the script, so that more users know about this and that people know the user is using the script? Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 03:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme The tool does have an automated edit summary. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 00:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee why does it add/suggest non-existent cats? Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 10:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asteralee I have a suggestion. Can it be called CatWizard instead? A powerful feline wizard. Polygnotus (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi, Could someone delete all of the empty talkpages 217.161.67.210 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has created please, I'm guessing the IP is an LTA so wouldn't object to them being blocked either, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Done and done fr33kman 15:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Freekman much appreciated :), Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

List of countries

You know how List of countries by area is semi-protected indefinitely? Well List of countries should be protected for the same reason. People have recently been adding entries such as:

• West Korea
• Queen
• North Switzerland
• Mykolaiv Oblast

Yeah, it really needs to be protected. And some criteria should be established for the list. Should it be sovereign states, or does it include territories and dependencies. 204.195.97.109 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I see that all of the vandalism today is from the same IP. It would probably help to block them as a first start. I have reported them to WP:VIP. Ternera (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much going to say  Not done on that request. I also think we should consider removing the other protection. Not sure this is still needed. -Barras talk 19:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Create protection

this per user request Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 10:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done -Barras talk 22:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

User:AjirikMitau is reverting my deletion requests

Please make him stop doing it Trade (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I placed a warning on their talk page since that had not been done yet. Ternera (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked by MathXplore Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 10:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

314 Action Editing war

There are documents cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/314_Action that are for 314 Action Fund. I sent the user the two seperate entity registrations with the Federal Election Comission and he said that it was the same. User also attempted to add zionism in the United States as a category, but that wouldn't apply to this group. Additionally the article referenced spending so it was critical to include the spending attributed to the correct organization.

Here are the links cited in the article that belong to another organization

https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00633248/1785300/sa/ALL/3

https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00633248/1785300/

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/314-action-fund/C00633248/pac-to-pac/2024

He says the website has a paid for by 314 AF - but couldn't it be a shared brand?

Here are the two legal entities paperwork with the FEC https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00633248/?tab=about-committee

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C90017781/?tab=about-committee

Please help remove the edits attributed to the wrong organization and protect 314 Action Jc124!1 (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That editwar is on the English Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/314_Action Also read https://theintercept.com/2024/05/03/portland-aipac-susheela-jayapal-maxine-dexter/ it looks like you misunderstand. Polygnotus (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes the article was incorrectly citing the wrong entity Jc124!1 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Polygnotus

I have recently been in discussions with @Polygnotus about changes. I would like to report misconduct. The user has constantly harassed me as I have explained here and later revised here. The disagreement over conduct concluded with his apology, and that's where it ended. However, Today I noticed he removed the definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page, which is quite a weird thing to do. In accordance to his edit summary, I searched for controversy but could only find controversy relating to them defining anti-Zionism as anti-semitic, yet in what he removed (from the main page), there was nothing about antisemitism nor antizionism. As such, I concluded the edit constituted vandalism (factoring in my previous interactions with him) and have posted a warning on his talk (which he proceeded to delete immediately and ask me about it in my talk page). We proceeded to debate the validity of his edits. He has failed to source his claims despite claiming to do so (spicing it with ). At another instance, he rewrote the definition of Hitler's term Big lie, deviating from traditional definition and seemingly inventing his own, uncited definition (WP:OR), rather than relying on academic sources and primary sources (enwiki, which he invoked as a source, is not a source, and in fact, it disagrees with him as well). In our discussion he was not attacking my point, but a separate one, which I have never brought up. He was talking as if I have said removing the antisemitism definition is the vandalism, when in fact I very clearly stated that it was the holocaust denial definition that he removed which I found to be vandalism. Still, to this moment, he tells me the entire thing should be removed because of a controversy with a few other clauses of the definition. The old definition of antisemitism that included the specific holocaust-denial related definitions I concluded were vandalism to remove did not have any controversy around them, making his claims of controversy especially invalid, since not only does no one today say it is controversial, but actually there was nothing controversial about the organization and definition as a whole before they added the anti-Zionism is antisemitism clauses. Essentially, he has removed a great chunk of information that included the holocaust denial definition, which was the one I paid attention to, with a bit in the notes that was justified in removing. This constitutes en:WP:GAMING

I would like to point out that this behavior may be cross-wiki. Just from this comment alone, when he denied request for comment, baselessly accused me of WP:ATTACK and rudely asserted It is obvious that you are wrong, you can clearly see he is WP:NOTTHERE. Record shows that any time I reverse his changes, a revert by him follows, yet he is the one who accused me of edit warring twice . One time for a wiki article, which turned out to be a misunderstanding and was retracted, and another time for two reverts I've done on his talk page, one a regular revert and one with an addition of information. Record shows I try to reason and walk back on what I say/do when I am wrong, but he will just not en:W:DROPIT when needed.

Here is another example of WP:OR.

Also, I didn't mention it above but he immediately reverted all my reverts of him, violating en:WP:BRD

Another thing I found odd is him trying to remove the record of him accusing me of edit warring, and hiding it in the history by adding text so that it doesn't seem like something was removed. It was especially odd when this repeated today, with him removing my notices on his talk. but that is not a part of the report so take it where you want it

Sorry for the long report, but there was quite a bit to cover. NorthernWinds (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

mentioning @Fr33kman since you concluded neither of us have been rude or dishonest NorthernWinds (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds Record shows I try to reason and walk back on what I say/do when I am wrong Records will show that you keep doubling down when proven wrong, and this post is a great example of that. I'll waste another hour of my life refuting all your claims if necessary, but in an ideal world reading your talkpage should be enough.

he rewrote the definition of Hitler's term Big lie, deviating from traditional definition and seemingly inventing his own Other way around. You restored the incorrect version after I fixed the problem, so then I had to fix it again.

Detailed response follows, so for now I'll say that I am a bit tired of dealing with NorthernWinds personal attacks (claiming constructive edits are vandalism) and his editwarring on my talkpage. It is obvious that NorthernWinds is following me around and posting baseless accusations. Polygnotus (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

And of course they broke 3RR on my talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I have been cleaning up the mess Steven1991 left behind, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Steven1991_and_targeted_harassment. He was not just harassing and attacking users, but he was also pushing his POV on Simple. His tactic was to write some stuff and then to spread it in as many articles as possible, which required a lot of shoehorning irrelevant and duplicated stuff in.

I have been carefully removing the propaganda that was spammed everywhere.

One of his enemies are "western/left-wing academia/academics". I have no clue why he hates em so much but he claims they are indifferent about all kinds of bad stuff, especially antisemitism.

• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holodomor&diff=prev&oldid=10380337
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=10380347
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazar_myth&diff=prev&oldid=10380386
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Combat_Organization&diff=prev&oldid=10380390
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_of_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=10380392
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Policy_of_Iran_towards_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=10380408
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism&diff=prev&oldid=10380413
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naliboki_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=10381290
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10381292
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10381293
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=10381304
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=10381306
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=10381314
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_deportation_of_Greeks&diff=prev&oldid=10381345
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_deportations_from_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina&diff=prev&oldid=10381347
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_deportations_of_Chechens_and_Ingush&diff=prev&oldid=10381350
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guerrilla_war_in_the_Baltic_states&diff=prev&oldid=10381408
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism&diff=prev&oldid=10381410

This list is not complete I missed some and I left some intentionally out that are difficult to spot because the diff is complicated.

Because Steven1991 has an interesting worldview sometimes his articles were just the complete opposite of articles on enwiki.

NorthernWinds is a buddy of Steven1991 who backed him up when he got blocked and appears to share roughly the same worldview. But, I gotta admit, I like NorthernWinds way more because the tactics they use are less bad. What they share is attempts to get others blocked and trying to mislead admins with false allegations.

NorthernWinds is now hounding me and having pointless discussions. It is very possible that there is also a language gap, which makes communication even more difficult.

We butted heads a bit in the Hamas article, where NorthernWinds inserted the claim that Hamas enjoys relative popularity in the Middle East and Western academia...

I pointed it out that that claim is of course insane and it looked like we understood eachother a bit more but they wanted to keep the claim that Hamas was popular in the Middle East. I reverted myself so that they could add their source upon request and explained in detail how I think about such claims on the talkpage but received no response there.

That was July 8 and 9. On July 10, the NorthernWinds account became active again but instead of engaging in the discussion about Hamas they reverted me on Holocaust denial and Big lie. I explained on their talkpage that what they believed to be a definition of Holocaust denial was actually a definition of antisemitism mixed in with a definition of holocaust denial.

The Big lie thing was rather strange; they still believe that they were right and I was wrong (and have even listed it above as an example of my alleged misdeeds).

My version is: The big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique[2] where someone tells a huge, outrageous lie repeatedly until people start to believe it. Adolf Hitler described this idea in his 1925 book Mein Kampf, explaining that people are more likely to believe a massive lie than a small one because they can't imagine anyone would dare to lie about something so big.

They version they reverted back to is:

The big lie (German: große Lüge) is a lie of the truth, used as a propaganda technique. The German expression was created by Adolf Hitler, when he wrote his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie so big that no one would believe it.

Of course the a lie of the truth phrasing is weird, but this is completely missing the point of the concept of the big lie. The English Wikipedia explains it correctly:

The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) to describe how people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

I explained all that but NorthernWinds still believe they are somehow right.

Now my reponses to what they wrote:

They seem to not differentiate between criticism of Wikipedia content written by someone else, a book written by someone else or themself.

They say I constantly harassed them, while they were following me around reverting me on various articles, and wasting my time with long discussions that didn't seem to go anywhere.

The disagreement over conduct concluded with his apology Yeah I was polite and decided to AGF, knowing that there was a language barrier.

Today I noticed he removed the definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page No, I removed the definition of holocaust denial that contained in it another definition of antisemitism from the holocaust denial page. So the first items were from the holocaust denial definition and then came the antisemitism definition and then came the last item of the holocaust definitioin. Either a copypaste error or an attempt to pad out the list. And I didn't just remove em, I wrote a new article called International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance where I put both definitions (correctly, not as a jumbled mess).

I explained that these definitions are very controversial and a separate topic, and that we shouldn't favor one potential definition over all others (especially not one that is very very controversial). I wrote a bit on the Holocaust denial article to explain that there are different definitions and linked to this one.

In accordance to his edit summary, I searched for controversy but could only find controversy relating to them defining anti-Zionism as anti-semitic, yet in what he removed (from the main page), there was nothing about antisemitism nor antizionism. I repeatedly explained to NorthernWinds that there was a jumbled mess of 2 definitions that were copypasted one inside the other, but they still repeat this false claim. This is a pattern. If you show that NorthernWinds is wrong about something they ignore it and repeat themselves.

I concluded the edit constituted vandalism I repeatedly asked them to stop calling good edits from a goodfaith user vandalism, and explained that that is a personal attack but he kept doing it (see our talkpages).

posted a warning on his talk (which he proceeded to delete immediately Since we already have difficulty communicating I am not going to have a discussion in 2 places which complicates the discussion even further. Also, if you post a vandalism warning on my talkpage when I am not vandalizing anything it can go to /dev/null.

He has failed to source his claims NorthernWinds links to his own talkpage which contains stuff like this and they replied to it so they must be aware of it.

he rewrote the definition of Hitler's term Big lie, deviating from traditional definition and seemingly inventing his own, uncited definition (WP:OR), rather than relying on academic sources and primary sources Yeah this is the funny bit.

(enwiki, which he invoked as a source, is not a source, and in fact, it disagrees with him as well). I did not use enwiki as a source, I just stated it explains it well, and it supports what I wrote and not what NorthernWinds wrote.

He was talking as if I have said removing the antisemitism definition is the vandalism, when in fact I very clearly stated that it was the holocaust denial definition that he removed which I found to be vandalism. That seems to be a language gap.

Still, to this moment, he tells me the entire thing should be removed because of a controversy with a few other clauses of the definition. That is a strawman argument.

The old definition of antisemitism that included the specific holocaust-denial related definitions They still don't seem to get it. There is no old definition that included holocaust denial related definitions. I seem to be unable to explain it to them, despite linking to the website and writing an entire article.

The Commons link they use is in relation to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_on_Wikipedia#WTF where I discovered what Steven1991 had done. I should get a medal for how patient I've been.

baselessly accused me of WP:ATTACK Not baselessly.

he is WP:NOTTHERE Yeah that is rather rude. And a weird thing to say considering the difference in our track record. I don't think NorthernWinds is NOTHERE. I think they have a strong POV, but that is allowed, and they could be a productive editor if they understand their limitations and move away from what is the most difficult topic on Wikipedia (I/P). But they should stop harassing and insulting me and leave me alone.

he is the one who accused me of edit warring twice Yeah because you did editwar, see my talkpage.

he will just not en:W:DROPIT when needed. Any accusation is a confession?

Another thing I found odd is him trying to remove the record of him accusing me of edit warring, and hiding it in the history by adding text so that it doesn't seem like something was removed Yeah again I was polite and assumed good faith. Please don't make me regret that.

Sorry for the long report Yeah now you not only wasted my time but also that of others.

I dunno if its CIR or a language problem or whatever, but I would like them to leave me alone and stop wasting my time. I don't think they are ready to edit a topic such as this. Since they have never made an edit that was not related to Israel there is a decent chance that if you topicban them from Israel related stuff they just leave. That is a short summary, I am probably missing some things. If anyone needs clarification let me know. Polygnotus (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I am imposing a topic ban on the both of you. You may not edit articles that deal with anti-semitic topics or articles that deal with the Holocaust at all from this point onwards. Yesterday you told me the issue was solved and now you come up with this mess. As adults I'd expect that you should both be able to coexist with each other. You are further not to have any further interactions with each other. If you edit anti-semitic or holocaust articles or interact with each other from this or point you will both be blocked from editing. Please act your ages! fr33kman 03:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman That makes no sense? How is it my fault? I haven't done anything wrong in relation to either NorthernWinds or this topic. You should be thanking me for fixing the mess on Simple, a Wikipedia I don't normally use. I saw that there are only a few people here and that the problems have not been fixed in months, so I figured I'd help you guys. And instead of a barnstar I get such a flippant response. Polygnotus (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is your fault just that the two of you should be able to sort it out as adults. We don't have so many active admins that we can police problems like this easily. Of the two of you I support your side the most but I have to try and be neutral. You are both guilty of making this mole hill into a mountain. I was told the other day that it was solved what happened to that? Nothing I wrote was flippant but the protection of the project must come before all else and right now this argument is hurting it. Also there is no need to go and ping all the other admins because you don't like what I'm saying. fr33kman 07:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman Yes there is, because you obviously made the wrong decision. How does topicbanning me help? What have I done wrong? The answers are that it does not, and that I have done nothing wrong. And I did a lot of work to help Simple wiki, because I knew you have few editors and people are perhaps not willing to spend a lot of time to undo the damage caused by a determined POV pusher who made tens of thousands of edits. But instead of a barnstar; I get this. Teaches me to not help people anymore. I really think you should think about this.

You are both guilty of making this mole hill into a mountain. What should I have done? Simply revert him without talking to him? That is usually not how we do things. They kept hounding me and posting cryptic messages, and now you are blaming me for trying to explain stuff to them? the two of you should be able to sort it How is it my fault that they post cryptic and often nonsensical messages, and repeat themselves when they've been proven wrong?

Your weird decision to punish those who help Simple and reward those who POV push is hurting the project. It's not like you have (m)any people willing to fill my place, here or on enwiki. Polygnotus (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6, BRPever, Barras, Bsadowski1, Eptalon, Fehufanga, Ferien, FusionSub, Lee Vilenski, M7, MathXplore, TDKR Chicago 101, and Vermont: See above. Polygnotus (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: There is no need to explicitly ping all the admins. We will see this discussion because it is on our noticeboard. -- Auntof6

(talk) 10:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to apologize for misunderstanding the edits and what I was reinstating yesterday in Big lie, I thought I was reinstating something else. I do still I think your wording is incorrect, and should reflect the academic source I sent you, but that is beyond our previous interaction, and with it the things I originally wrote in the initiation comment

NorthernWinds is a buddy of Steven1991 This is a foul move, and a very strong accusation. I do not have any connections with Steven, and have simply responded to him when he pinged me on the basis of, as I said, the limited interaction we had, which mainly involved him reverting the vandalism of a sock puppet who reversed all of my edits. At the time, I did not know the whole story.. this is a far-cry from "a buddy of steven". You have linked an edit of me saying it shows my support to a certain POV which you claimed he does, when in fact, I simply turned a biased article with misinformation into an unbiased one.

Any accusation is a confession? No. In the discussion about Hamas and western academia, I also concluded that there is no consensus and have chosen to not add it and stop engaging. In Hamas talk I have agreed with you and stopped discussing. There are likely some examples I missed, so please do not en:WP:GAME the system by en:WP:GASLIGHT. Even here, in this response, I have apologized for a mistake I've done.

In contact my open mindness, see this weird comment you made: If the book makes that claim then it is not a reliable source, and therefore cannot be used, no matter who published it... This is the same as saying "No matter what this is wrong and nothing will change my opinion"

Another case of gaslighting in your message is you saying And of course they broke 3RR on my talkpage. No I did not. You did

I repeatedly explained to NorthernWinds that there was a jumbled mess of 2 definitions that were copypasted one inside the other. This misses the point. I never never talked about the removal of the definition of antisemitism. In fact, I did not even notice it happened or that you were talking about it until a much later state of the conversation. I was very clearly talking about the definition of holocaust denial, which I now see upon further inspection of your response, that you agreed with me. If you agreed why not add it back and end it there? What you did constitutes en:WP:GAMING, or more precisely, en:WP:FIXFIRST.

NorthernWinds links to his own talkpage which contains stuff like this and they replied to it so they must be aware of it. No, you have only brought sources saying the zionism-israel definitions were controversial. As I have already stated (see paragraph above) the zionism-israel related definitions were not what I was discussing

I think they have a strong POV no... If you would like to discuss strong POVs, perhaps this comment by you would be of more use

knowing that there was a language barrier There was no language barrier... I have no idea where you got that from

Since we already have difficulty communicating I am not going to have a discussion in 2 places which complicates the discussion even further This makes absolutely zero sense. On the contrary, discussing different things in different places will only help. Instead of doing that, you opted to bring this up in a completely unrelated chain, making my talk page very convoluted and uncomfortable to read or look at

Still, to this moment, he tells me the entire thing should be removed because of a controversy with a few other clauses of the definition. That is a strawman argument. To this I quote: I removed the definition of holocaust denial that contained in it another definition of antisemitism from the holocaust denial page. So the first items were from the holocaust denial definition and then came the antisemitism definition and then came the last item of the holocaust definitioin. You are contradicting yourself. I have already discussed this earlier in this response, where I talked about en:WP:GAMING. I am not sure if it applies here, but this could be en:WP:GASLIGHTING

But they should stop harassing and insulting me and leave me alone Never have I insulted you, please do not en:WP:GASLIGHT. You could debate on whether good faith vandalism notices, or just reinstating violation notices could be considered harrasment. I have never meant to harass you and I am sorry if this is how it came accross

I don't think they are ready to edit a topic such as this On the contrary, I have often opted to discussion and understanding. In comparison, you have said that if a book says something, then the book is not reliable no matter who published it. You said this without bringing any counter-evidence

I have not responded to everything you said, but some of my paragraphs can respond to several of yours. You have repeatedly gamed the system in your response.

@Fr33kman, I agree with you here: We don't have so many active admins that we can police problems like this easily...You are both guilty...the protection of the project must come before all else and right now this argument is hurting it. I have too contributed to this, accidentally I would say. However, I disagree with your conclusion here Of the two of you I support your (Polygnotus) side the most.

As for Yesterday you told me the issue was solved and now you come up with this mess, I believe removing the definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page is considered vandalism. I have discussed this extensively earlier. His justification is not a good justification. He himself provided This link of the definition that he removed. There was never controversy about this, unlike what he claims. Again, I am talking about the definition of holocaust denial, not antisemitism, which by the way, the controversy of it only came up recently when they added passages to the definition. The page he himself sent, which contained controversial matters (according to him) is from 10 October 2013, while the controversy only arose in 2016. Perhaps he meant the new definition of antisemitism that he removed (rightfully so). Still, specially considering he has seen this, read and sent me this govt article, I can find no explanation as to why he removed the exact same definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page. NorthernWinds (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Do I have to respond to this wall of text? It should be obvious what has happened here. This is yet more wasting my time.

Firstly, I would like to apologize for misunderstanding the edits and what I was reinstating yesterday in Big lie, I thought I was reinstating something else But you can't just think you were reinstating something else, you have to actually read and understand before reverting. And you've been explained this a bunch of times and you vehemently denied being in the wrong, and insisted I was somehow wrong.

I complained about you wasting my time, and in response you are wasting even more time.

If Steven1991 is not your buddy then I do not understand why you were sticking up for him when it was completely clear what he had done. We already knew about the harassment and insults and the POV pushing and bad faith accusations which led to their enwiki block.

At the time, I did not know the whole story. Clearly. You still don't.

If you would like to discuss strong POVs, perhaps this comment by you would be of more use You still don't understand what I am saying there. Please, carefully read the linked pages (near the bottom are the definitions). Or read the article I wrote. Then compare it with what you inserted into the article.

Never have I insulted you You repeatedly called my improvements vandalism.

You could debate on whether good faith vandalism notices, or just reinstating violation notices could be considered harrasment. That is no debate.

I have never meant to harass you and I am sorry if this is how it came accross If you hound people and insult them and revert their improvements and call it "vandalism", that is a form of harassment.

On the contrary, I have often opted to discussion and understanding. Israel related stuff is perhaps the most difficult stuff to edit on Wikipedia. You are clearly not ready to be a constructive editor in that field, hence why we are here.

You have repeatedly gamed the system in your response. Please read the page you linked to. You do not understand what gaming the system means.

I have too contributed to this, accidentally I would say. Yeah very accidentally.

I believe removing the definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page is considered vandalism But I didn't. And I have explained that like 10 times to you but you still do not understand. And you keep repeating yourself.

There was never controversy about this, unlike what he claims. I have provided the evidence on your very talkpage, and you responded to it.

Again, I am talking about the definition of holocaust denial, not antisemitism No, you are not because you added a jumbled mess of both definitions into the article. But you seem to be unable to understand that. Read it again, carefully. Do you see what you did wrong?

Perhaps he meant the new definition of antisemitism There is no new definition. Please read and investigate so you understand before you post messages.

I can find no explanation as to why he removed the exact same definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page. I didn't, as I have noted many times now, and I have explained that already multiple times. Do you not read the messages I write? For example [1] and [2] and in more places.

Sigh. Polygnotus (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the last time I am responding to you.

But you can't just think you were reinstating something else, you have to actually read and understand before reverting I read, but misunderstood. Things happened and I am sorry for the disturbances.

We already knew about the harassment and insults and the POV pushing and bad faith accusations which led to their enwiki block I don't conduct research on everyone. I saw people saying he is writing bad pages so I responded based on my experience. No, at the time I did not know about his harassments.

You still don't understand what I am saying there to this I quote: If the book makes that claim [the claim you disagree with] then it is not a reliable source, no matter who published it

You repeatedly called my improvements vandalism I have not disrespected you, I have raised concerns

If you hound people and insult them and revert their improvements and call it "vandalism", that is a form of harassment from en:WP:HOUND: Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. I am sorry if it came across as if I am trying to cause you distress or "seek revenge", I had no such intentions.

If I did not respond to something you said, that means one of these: it was said unconstructive manner, you did not fully read what I said, you did not look at my sources and links.

I will not spend more of my time responding to you. I feel like it is more of a "waste" than a "spend" NorthernWinds (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds This is the last time I am responding to you. Thank you.

I read, but misunderstood. Things happened and I am sorry for the disturbances. But you did that many times in a row with a handful of topics. You were insisting I was wrong, and even when I explained it you kept posting false accusations.

to this I quote:... You still don't understand that bit, otherwise you would know your reply does not make sense.

I have not disrespected you, I have raised concerns You have wasted a lot of time and energy.

I am sorry if it came across as if I am trying to cause you distress or "seek revenge", I had no such intentions. If you don't have the intention of hounding people, dont follow them around. If you don't have the intention of insulting people, don't call their improvements vandalism. If you don't want to cause distress, don't waste people's time with cryptic nonsense and stubbornness..

If you honestly want to learn about how various groups have different definitions of holocaust denial then you can look at the laws in various countries where holocaust denial is illegal.

For example, in Germany or in Israel or in Switzerland or the EU's Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA or Deborah Lipstadt's work.

Some definitions of holocaust denial focus on saying the entire thing didn't happen. Others also see distortion or minimization of the facts as holocaust denial.

In some cases the legal definition of holocaust denial is rather different than what some academics use. The IHRA definition is not the definition, it is just one out of many. All of them are very controversial and have various levels of adoption. I should probably write an article about them. Like I wrote here You can just Google "definition controversy X", and then instead of X the word you are interested in. Polygnotus (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote, he also gamed the system by "walking back" here (and possibly, I believe also) here note: this is speculation, not fact. the note was added after Polygnotus responded in order to clarify NorthernWinds (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I deeply regret being nice to you. If only I would've been meaner we wouldn't be in this situation. I could've just editwarred with you, and got you blocked, instead of trying to help you understand the situation. And now you claim that me being polite and understanding is somehow gaming the system. Polygnotus (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As one of pretty much all admins pinged to this discussion, I will happily endorse what Fr33kman said. I think there's a lot of accusations going around and you are both just accusing each other of things to the point I'm not sure what I'm even looking at. To me this is honestly just a wall of text where I am just seeing accusations and arguments. Neither party exactly comes out well from this. I'd prefer we had no administrator intervention in this at all. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 14:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ferien If you want a tl;dr, you can just ask for one. NorthernWinds have posted so many comments that it can be hard to follow what happened.

But topicbanning someone who demonstrably did nothing wrong is clearly unacceptable. And there is still quite a bit of mess left behind by Steven1991's POV pushing.

So I need the topic ban lifted and an apology, and then maybe I can be convinced to continue working on the problem.

I'd prefer we had no administrator intervention in this at all. Well, that NorthernWinds is topicbanned is fine, they probably won't be back because they have never made an edit that is not related to Israel.

If Fr33kman is unwilling to read all that then I am happy to provide a very short summary. But just to blindly topicban both parties, is very insulting to me. Polygnotus (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this should be the cause of some soul searching. If POV pushers can make tens of thousands of edits, and they only get detected after months because someone notices their behaviour on enwiki, is Simple a viable project? And if the admins on Simple are unable to differentiate between someone who posts cryptic nonsense, and seems unable to understand at least a handful simple things that have been explained multiple times, and someone who is cleaning up the mess left behind by a POV pusher, should Simple continue in its current form? What is the point of an encyclopedia if its biased like Conservapedia? I think you guys are very lucky that I am stubborn as a mule, because 99% of people would just give on Simple as a whole, and let it be a safe haven for POV pushers and trolls. Polygnotus (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Insulting Simple is not the way forward here. We appreciate all genuine attempts to help the project but like Ferien has said you both have come off as problematic due to the way you have conducted yourselves. It's become a case where someone unfamiliar with the situation is unable to determine who's right and who's wrong. I told you that I'm leaning towards your side of the issue but like I said we can't have a situation where the project is being harmed. As such I feel it's better if both sides just stop. As for an apology that's not going to happen because I've done nothing wrong. Another admin has given an opinion on what's going on (at your request) and you disagree with what they've said. fr33kman 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fr33kman As for an apology that's not going to happen because I've done nothing wrong Topicbanning me was obviously wrong. How can you topicban someone who did nothing wrong? An interaction ban is a good idea, but NorthernWinds has already indicated they will stop wasting my time.

Insulting Simple is not the way forward here. I didn't. I pointed out the fact that if POV pushers can rack up tens of thousands of edits here without being detected, it may point to an underlying problem, like not enough oversight.

We appreciate all genuine attempts to help the project Well looking at the recent changes list I am the person who has made the most positive impact on Simple in quite a while. But instead of appreciating you insulted me by topicbanning me, instead of thanking me.

we can't have a situation where the project is being harmed You just harmed the project by topicbanning the person who is cleaning up the mess by a POV pusher.

I feel it's better if both sides just stop The damage caused by the POV pusher is not completely fixed yet. You can untopicban me and then I might fix the rest and go back to enwiki. Because I don't like it here.

The fact that you don't understand is understandable, but you could've just asked for a tl;dr. Being an admin here is a volunteer job. If you don't want to read walls of text, you can ask someone to provide a tl;dr, or let someone else handle it. But you can't insult the person who is fixing the problem by topicbanning them even though they did nothing wrong. Polygnotus (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Fix what you need to fix and then let's call it a day. fr33kman 15:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
We figured it out. Polygnotus (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Ayyuban

Ayyuban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a hoaxer. I just tagged some of their creations for quick deletion as hoaxes, and I have yet to verify that any of their contributions are real. Battle of Khoy 2025 is about an August 2025 battle, and the English Wikipedia page about Battle of Khoy 1918 was deleted as a hoax. I think blocking is the appropriate remedy. Best, HouseBlaster (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: Please keep tagging for quick deletion where appropriate, and be sure to warn the user. It doesn't look they've been warned or notified about quick deletion requests. Sometimes it just takes a warning or two to get a user to stop. If they don't, then once they have enough warnings we can indef as a vandalism-only account. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add on to the discussion about this user. I see a CU has already been performed on them however, I am seeing a very similar edit pattern as blocked socks relating to User:Tishreen07 and related blocked accounts and range. https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sahela&action=history https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Battle+of+Erbil+1991 https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Mir+Muhammad%27s+conquest+of+Mukryan among others. Bobherry Talk My Changes 00:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I unblocked the user because the user agent they use is totally different from the one that all the Tishreen07 have used. Also the exact IP address isn't the same although the ISP is the same. It may be Tishreen07 but if it is then they are editing from a new computer. Time will tell. fr33kman 08:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Import request: Template World topic

If you use template {{World topic}} there is an error message: "Lua error in Module:World_topic at line 262: assign to undeclared variable 'noredlinks'".

I noticed it at the bottom of LGBT rights in the State of Palestine.

It looks like the functions noredlinks and redlinks need to be local. Like so:

local function noredlinks(args1, args2, argsprefix, argssuffix, sorter)

To me, it looks like the enwiki version is better and newer and should be copied to Simple. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:World_topic Polygnotus (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I copied the new module over and it seems to have worked (after purging). Polygnotus (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi, Could someone revdel this and this please, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Edit summary revdelled on the first, summary and text on the second. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Auntof6, Thanks so much, Sorry to be a pain but could the summary of this be revdelled too please, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Ty Auntof6, much appreciated :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

RFPP

Creation protection for Boy Chandra Kusuma. Repeatedly recreated. Bobherry Talk My Changes 20:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I just blocked the posting account. That should be enough for now. -Barras talk 20:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

RFPP

Temp semi protection for Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! due to recent vandalism/unsourced content from IPs over the past few weeks. Bobherry Talk My Changes 00:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Bobherry, just so you know, page protection is usually only added if we cannot keep up with the amount of vandalism. Ternera (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bobherry: Ternera is correct. Even if all the recent changes by IPs on this page were vandalism (I didn't check), there haven't been enough to protect right now. The page history shows the following total edits:

• July 16: 1 edit
• July 15: 6 edits
• July 12: 1 edit

The edits before those were back in June. This is not enough to semi-protect, but feel free to ask again if the vandalism becomes unmanageable. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Need IA rights

Since no crat is around on IRC right now, I need IA rights (again) to fix the reftoolbar. See my talk page. (Or just fix it yourself :) ) -Barras talk 18:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done @Barras: granted for 24 hrs --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 21:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive and Misleading Edits by HistorianAlferedo and Chronos.Zx on Abhira Article

hello admins, i would like to report two editors - User:HistorianAlferedo and User:Chronos.Zx for repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing on the Abhira article, in violation of several Wikipedia content policies.

Both users are modifying the meaning of cited sources and using them in misleading ways to push their personal viewpoint. They have removed reliably sourced content that was previously added according to WP:V and WP:RS. They are inserting unsourced or poorly sourced claims and personal interpretations, violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV. They have made multiple reverts without engaging in proper talk page discussion, violating WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISRUPT.

This pattern indicates tag-team editing to promote a particular narrative and remove balanced, sourced information. 2409:40D2:1007:CDA3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I have observed this IP range on both English Wiki and Hindi Wiki engaging in caste-based warrior-like activity. It was also sanctioned as a sockpuppet range on English Wiki. Chronos.Zx (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chronos.Zx: Your response here is a clear case of personal attack and disruption.

Instead of addressing the actual content issues and policy violations raised in this report, you're trying to deflect by making broad, baseless accusations against an entire IP range. This is not how Wikipedia dispute resolution works.

Accusing someone of "caste-based warrior-like activity" without evidence is a violation of WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks).

Claiming sockpuppetry without filing a proper WP:SPI case is unacceptable and misleading. If you believe there’s a behavioral issue, you must provide diffs and follow Wikipedia's official procedure

My edits were based on reliable sources (WP:RS) and written in a neutral tone (WP:NPOV). They were reverted without proper justification that’s the issue being reported here.

I request administrators to take note of this deflective and accusatory behavior, which further confirms the disruptive editing pattern already mentioned above.

Please keep the discussion focused on content and Wikipedia policy not personal identity or baseless assumptions. 2409:40D2:1007:CDA3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Your IP range is blocked on Enwiki, and a review of the contributions suggests a consistent pattern of caste-based editing, particularly promoting Ahir/Yadav-related content. See this. Chronos.Zx (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

+IP range in Ahir Caste warrior SPI [3] Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The IP you mentioned is part of a broad IPv6 range that includes many users across different regions. Just because a block exists on that range on English Wikipedia does not mean every edit from that range is disruptive.

Also, I have not edited those pages you are referring to. Those edits were made by others using the same large range. It is incorrect to assume all activity in that range is mine.

This is Simple Wikipedia. Please focus on the content issues here. If you have concerns about specific edits, they should be discussed based on their sources and accuracy, not based on unrelated IP blocks from other projects. 2409:40D2:1007:CDA3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

GeoGlobe Tales

GeoGlobe Tales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and their presumed IP 73.158.157.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have recreated AumSum four times since it was deleted via RFD at the end of May. They have also created other poor quality articles that have had been QD’d. It may be time for a ONESTRIKE block. They are blocked at En. for disruptive editing and it seems to be continuing here. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that the IP is indeed them as per this and this, I concur with C&W they've had plenty of chances to stop and change their behaviour accordingly but they've failed to do this - instead they've simply continued and gone one step further by editing logged out (which is valid but still deceitful imho).

Anyway I believe in second, third chances and even fourth chances .... but there just comes a time when you say enough is enough. Rich coming from the guy that has said F Off more times than you've had hot showers I know but still... enough is enough. –Davey2010^Talk 12:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep, agreed and  Done. I blocked the user, not the IP. The the user shows up unnamed, you know where to report. -Barras talk 15:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)