Snokalok

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Jeffrey Epstein. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Reverting you twice after you unilaterally rewrote the entire page overnight and then reinstated the rewrite without discussing is not an edit war, if anything @Zenomonoz That's you violating BRD. But please, if you disagree, take me to the edit war noticeboard. I promise we won't be there long. Snokalok (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh you did, lovely. Snokalok (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it was definitely my bad for rushing to noticeboard. I apologise. But I would appreciate if you would actually engage on the article talk page with specifics here. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll add that I don't think it's fair to suggest that doing 50 edits is "insane" and that this somehow justifies a revert. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. There are a large number of issues with the Epstein article not aligning with sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Bold but not reckless, and again, source alignment is not all that you did - you did much more Snokalok (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, then you need to state, on the Jeffrey Epstein talk page, what the problem is. Cite diffs. Go back through them and check. Simply "you did too many edits and rewrote the article" is not exactly persuasive. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Verification of content at LGBTQ rights in Denmark

Hello Snokalok! I was wondering if you could comment at Talk:LGBTQ rights in Denmark#Verification failure since you added that content. Thanks! Nosferattus (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on LGBTQ rights in Kansas

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page LGBTQ rights in Kansas, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Chud Robot Snokalok (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Snokalok. Thank you for your work on San Jose State transgender volleyball controversy. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please fix the error in footnote 2. Thanks and have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of San Jose State transgender volleyball controversy

The article San Jose State transgender volleyball controversy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOPAGE

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Launchballer 13:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Sharron Davies

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sharron Davies, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Your recent editing history at Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Darling, consensus on talk was three to one against you, and still you broke ONUS in the full knowledge of this to continually edit war in your changes. If you want to take this to the edit warring noticeboard, I guarantee you're the only one who will get sanctioned. Snokalok (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

You hit 3RR, not me. Luna said if we include we must attribute, I said too many sources reported it to attribute. I thought that settled the matter.

Consensus needs to be based on policy and I see no policy rationale for omitting the AMA response only IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore ARBCOM has specifically identified the weaseling around RSs as a problem and I would hope the behavior around this topic would have changed accordingly. Per WP:ARBTRANS:

6) All editors have opinions—this is expected and welcome. However, an editor's contributions on content and sourcing must be neutral and dispassionate, even when the results would paint their personal beliefs in a poor light or conflict with them outright. When editors cherry-pick sources or source text; selectively argue that friendly sources are reliable and unfriendly sources are unreliable without real consideration on the merits; control the portrayal of the debate by arguing over minutiae; misrepresent discussion, sourcing, or content; abuse conduct enforcement processes to target perceived rivals; or otherwise engage in intellectually dishonest behavior, they are treating Wikipedia as a battleground and as a vehicle for the advancement of their own ideology. and

3) Disputes over sourcing have been central to the topic area. Parties have used weak sources or tried to discredit or misrepresent generally reliable sources

This is exactly the problem and I would suggest that the bolder part (emphasis mine) describes your conduct. You are prioritizing an unclear, vaguely written primary source to dismiss several high quality sources - which is against policy. And not just that, but simultaneously ignoring the NYTs response, which is very clearly written, states an AMA spokesman just reaffirmed their prior statement, and even states that the AMAs newsletter contained straight up falsehoods.

PS - I gave you a warning instead of going to the NB because it's better to resolve disputes through talking than through NBs. But if you feel that strongly about my being sanctioned for EW, be my guest PositivelyUncertain (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay first off, Luna said it seems like that AMA response is heavily contested at the moment and therefore probably shouldn't be used and at best could only be used in an attributed form which is a very clear statement against inclusion as a preferred outcome.

weak sources The AMA is A. A MEDORG source that outweighs the NYT on medical matters, see MEDPOP. B. A stronger source for their own stated position on something than those reporting on it. If the AMA says "This is our most recent stated position", and the NYT says "Nuh uh", the AMA wins out. Past that, the fact remains, that you said yes on talk, three editors said no, and then you went and added it in anyway because you didn't find their arguments satisfying, and then when reverted because consensus was against you, you repeatedly reverted it back in. Snokalok (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Please look at WP:MEDORG again, which describes guidelines and position statements. The AMA board newsletter is not that and not everything a med org/its board chair say is WP:MEDRS. As for WP:MEDPOP, you are misunderstanding its applicability, which is about news media misunderstanding research studies and therefore inaccurately summarizing findings. It's not about news media reporting standard news. But furthermore, AMAs statement supporting ASPSs decision is not medical information so MEDRS sourcing requirements do not apply. With that explained, will you please self revert? PositivelyUncertain (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Please look at WP:MEDORG again, which describes guidelines and position statements. The AMA board newsletter is not that Positions stated by the AMA in the AMA board newsletter doesn't qualify as position statements? Because those sound pretty clearly like position statements.

As for MEDPOP, The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care are pretty broad statements, and the AMA's position on a certain medical treatment sounds like it falls into that pretty neatly.

With that explained, will you please self revert? Even if I agreed with you, which I don't, it's not just me you have to convince. If I agreed wholeheartedly with you right now, which I don't, we still wouldn't have consensus for your changes. There's an entire talk page full of editors who came to a consensus against your position that you need to convince if you want your changes implemented. Until then, any reinstatement of your changes on my part would not be in line with that consensus and would thus be disruptive. Snokalok (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

If I agreed wholeheartedly with you right now, which I don't, we still wouldn't have consensus for your changes. This is just WP:STONEWALLING and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It shouldn't be this hard to get in one non-critical, neutrally worded statement of fact. Fortunately for you, I don't have the desire to argue this any longer. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madison Square Garden, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Dolan was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Steph Richards (activist)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Steph Richards (activist), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The whole persecution thing

I found the last paragraph of that closing statement to be deeply problematic for multiple reasons. I am very close to calling for a close challenge not to even overturn the no !vote but to get that last paragraph officially struck. I'm honestly furious that Beland thought that was an appropriate thing to say in an RfC closure on a contentious topic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd back you up, it felt honestly kind of obscene imo. Snokalok (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Ai-generated sources?

I was looking at https://genspect.org/restoring-clinical-clarity-on-gender-distress/, which is blatantly and uncritically AI-generated, unsurprisingly. Does this count as WP:RSML, or must the LLM use be advertised for any policy to apply (it seems like this is how the policy is currently written, just excluding SEO-slop websites or websites who's entire existence is for AI-generated content) pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 00:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buffs

I've opened it for clarity. This isn't me nor have I asked/directed such actions. If you have further evidence, feel free to put it there. Otherwise, I request you strike your remarks about sockpuppetry. Buffs (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I may add that I've had a wikistalker for over a decade and this sort of action matches his M.O. Buffs (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

(by talk page watcher) Snokalok also has a wikistalker and likely was referring to them rather than you.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Twinsies! Snokalok (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Since you seem amenable to talking, I think we can come to some sort of agreement on the A&M page regardless of the pending actions. If you're willing to talk it through, I would be happy to do so. Buffs (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the admins have a sufficient grasp on the situation to know what's best, I trust their judgement here. Snokalok (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Account notification

See Snokalok2. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is globally locked, contact cawikimedia.org for assistance. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/1353372938. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)