Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1113

Is this a violation of wp:soap and wp:PROFRINGE?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This section on User:Pedant’s page caught my eye a few years ago because it struck me as blatant 9/11 Truther conspiracy theorizing. I’m now wondering if that’s a violation of userspace policy as an off-topic rant and a more general violation of Wikipedia’s stance on not unduly promoting fringe theory. I attempted to discuss this with the user but as you can see I received no straight answers. Dronebogus (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, yes it's polemic (and dumb). On the other hand, I'm pretty tired of Dronebogus wandering around hunting for stuff to be outraged about. Any way we can delete the user page section and ban DB from ANI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

“Dronebogus is right, so ban them”? How does that make sense? In fact when was the last time I started a thread here? Dronebogus (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No, "Dronbogus is shit-stirring, so ban them". I would support banning you if you were wrong, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Just going to point out that there IS precedent for banning someone from ANI for chronic shit-stirring. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#concerns about too much of user:Mythdon on AN/I. And yes, it was decided in that discussion that although the user's issues weren't necessarily off-base, the community was served better by removing the shit-stirrer. 184.14.205.143 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m somewhat confused why an IP with two edits is both getting involved here and showing intricate knowledge of ANI history. Dronebogus (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:IPSPA may help get rid of the confusion 166.198.198.1 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

After I pointed out that IP editors are often experienced, why did you post a new editor template to this temporary IP address? Did you really think I was aware of policy on IP editing, but also needed a new user template? 166.198.198.1 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I couldn’t thank you so it was a courtesy re-welcome Dronebogus (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize for misinterpreting the templating, and you are welcome 166.198.198.1 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I think the section is a violation of WP:BLPTALK and should be removed. RAN1 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to report User:Dronebogus for having WP:POLEMIC content on their user page! But jokes aside, it might help resolve situations like this if there was a guideline for what to do when you see WP:UPNOT material. Right now, the way it's set up seems almost to encourage users to take every single instance here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't really have a guideline on things like this, and it leads to these exact situations! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We should, just like how we nominate articles for speedy deletion if they violate certain guidelines. Imagine having to go over to ANI every time you saw an unacceptable page. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 02:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a minor incidents noticeboard? Dronebogus (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see that dumb stuff deleted, but if we start doing that we'll just be enabling a worse behavior which is seeking out dumb stuff on user pages and taking it to ANI, which is also a great way to hound editors. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Warn Pedant and more quietly tell Dronebogus to not worry so much about other people's user pages. That's my take on this before we get Pedant's input. I don't think we have enough cause here to ban Dronebogus from ANI. Sections like this probably shouldn't be on user pages, but I don't think it's at the level of banning Pedant either. Re: Dronebogus: As far as I can tell, they're not posting here more frequently than 2-3x per year anyway. That's hardly a massive drain on editor resources/time.

The april thread on this topic for Dronebogus was regarding subpages and simply requested they attempt to discuss it with the user first before bringing it so quickly to ANI and be less-confrontational. As far as I can ascertain, that's exactly what they've done in this case. If we want, we could warn Dronebogus to not bring any user page-based complaints here, at all. But I actually completely disagree with that, since most, if not all, of the claims they've brought here have had some merit! What kind of message are we sending if we punish people for doing the right thing, in the right order? (Edited to add clarity 11:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That argument would hold more weight if Dronebogus's actions in the space of user page complaints were not so overtly partisan. The vast majority of his complaints both on ANI and MfD have been against right-wing viewpoints, and he hasn't been shy about his disdain against the political right. That's the issue. I don't see altruism in his approach. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That’s your perception. It’s cherry-picking and seems to deliberately avoid mentioning that I’ve nominated left wing and neutral userboxes as well. Dronebogus (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to cherry-pick when you come out with stuff like this. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t prove anything. It’s a statement of bias. So yes I’m biased against conservatism but I don’t think I unduly target it at MfD, let alone ANI. In fact you’re the one targeting me over politics here. Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:: Your estimate is low by more than an order of magnitude: since last September, they have opened no less than 38 separate AN/I threads. jp×g 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There have been two since may. Dronebogus (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support banning Drone from ANI, or at least from having any opinions on anyone else's user pages. He did ask the user on his talk page about the section, which is a marginal improvement from the last time we talked about his actions... but then he went ahead and removed it anyhow as if there was some ticking clock that this material had to get removed immediately. They could be doing anything more productive with their time on Wikipedia, like actually editing and improving articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  A marginal improvement is still an improvement. Topic bans are not punitive, they’re preventative. You’re implying you feel I am incapable of taking advice because I made an error in judgment while being overall right in both assessment and process. Dronebogus (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  David Fuchs, 1 month is not "immediate." If something violates WP:SOAPBOX and the warned user doesn't reply, it can be removed. There doesn't have to be a ticking clock, especially because of the content's nature -- a bizarre conspiracy theory about 9/11. Also, Dronebogus doesn't have to "be doing anything more productive with their time on Wikipedia"; we don't ban users because they didn't do what we think they should've done. If only we had the ability to resolve complaints faster... — Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  @David Fuchs: I know Dronebogus didn't bring it up, but WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPTALK apply here. RAN1 (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think the noted subpage is probably a violation of WP:POLEMIC, and I think banning Dronebogus is not warranted at this time. I think I would advise them to not go "hunting for problems", that is to search through trying to find problems to bring to ANI. I am bothered by editors who think it is their job to play detective. HOWEVER, that being said, this is certainly not to the "ban them from ANI" phase. Honest to goodness, I'm ANI daily, and you'd think I'd recognize Dronebogus if they were a major drain on the resources of this page. I had never heard of them before this day. With the amount of time I'm around here, if I'd not heard of them, they probably aren't a problem. If I have been blind to the issue, I invite Floq and the others supporting such a proposal to build a case by showing diffs and establishing this is a pattern of behavior that needs stopping. I'm not comfortable banning someone without at least that courtesy to those of us unfamiliar with them. --Jayron32 18:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Most of the incidents involving me are months old at the newest. It would take some digging to find them, which I think discredits any accusations of an “ongoing problem” at ANI. Dronebogus (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think Dronebogus should be banned from here. The user page section has been deleted. Hopefully this section can be closed shortly. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  It should be closed. I’ve done nothing (significantly) wrong, and the section was rightly removed by an uninvolved, respected editor and consensus is clearly against allowing it. Pedant should consider this an informal warning. No further action should be taken here. If he insists on restoring patently inappropriate content the proper venue is MfD as an abuse of userspace. Dronebogus (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think that Dronebogus should be prohibited from policing other editors' userspace, in general. Since last September, they have opened a whopping 38 AN/I threads, of which a very large amount have been requests to censure people for political content in their userspace. Quoting from the closing statement of a Dronebogus AN/I thread from April, where commenters unanimously supported a warning (and many expressed a desire for more than a warning): "Dronebogus is warned that their actions regarding user subpages have been disruptive and have wasted other editors' time for minimal benefit". Numerous people here noted extreme unease with their "apparent self-appointment as Wikipedia's witchfinder general", et cetera. Yes, it's certainly true that at least some of these threads involved people whose userpages really did have offensive content on them: the issue is that someone is spending inordinate amounts of time creating huge AN/I threads in an attempt to have people dramatically censured for things which have little to do with editing encyclopedia articles. It is also rather concerning that they are doing so selectively according to a political agenda. This is harmful to the project, and it wouldn't be "cancelled out" by having somebody with the opposite agenda do it in the other direction -- it would just give us twice as many pointless AN/I threads. jp×g 23:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, with respect to this specific thread, it should be noted that the polemic tract in question was from 2007, and the user's last 500 contributions go back to 2008, raising the question of how it was even possible to find this without a large amount of deliberate effort. jp×g 00:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I already said it was years ago that I noticed it. I don’t even remember how. Dronebogus (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You’re using ludicrous personal attacks like “witchfinder general” as an argument? And since when is controlling racism in userspace a “political agenda”? Dronebogus (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are saying in this comment -- the quoted phrase is itself a quotation from User:Dumuzid in the April thread that I linked (in which, as far as I can tell, nobody claimed it to be a personal attack). My argument is not that it is objectively correct, but that fifteen people expressed sentiments of this general nature. As for the other part of what you said, I am also somewhat confused: is your claim here that race relations in the United States is not a political topic? jp×g 01:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t saying that race relations isn’t political, I was saying that racism is banned by the WM code of conduct so it shouldn’t be considered “political” and therefore untouchable. Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I was invoked, and so here I am. I had to look back at that comment, and I think I was quite transparent in it. This is the sort of thing that elicits a visceral reaction in me, and it probably was over the top to phrase it that way--for which I apologize--but it was simply because I lacked the right vocabulary to say the same thing with a lesser moral dimension. Dronebogus, I suspect you and I would agree substantively on most everything, and I wish you no ill will. But please try to take on board what people are telling you. It feels like you are saying that anything is fine until it leads to formal, logged sanctions. I think we can do better. That said, I sincerely wish you all the best and a Happy Friday to everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve taken what people have said into account, but I also don’t like being stonewalled out of ANI in a de facto ban despite doing nearly everything right. Dronebogus (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Also note a bunch of those threads were misplaced vandalism reports and general user disruption complaints that had nothing to with politics. Dronebogus (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Or the big WP:ARS fiasco that had nothing to do with the warning against me. You can’t sanction someone over a number. Dronebogus (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

May we consider this report closed now? Seeing as it's accomplished its goal. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely I think we should. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor disruptive editing

62.74.23.186 (talk · contribs) has been disruptively editing the Athena Manoukian article by continuously removing information. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. They have received several warnings and continued to revert content without discussion on the article talk page. Account clearly is uninterested in following protocol and not on Wikipedia to edit productively. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I continously explained at the summary the person does NOT own Armenian citizenship and they are notable as a singer and NOT for their Armenian roots. MOS:BLPLEAD is clear, ethnicity should be part of the lead only of it consists of the person's notability. 62.74.23.186 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, there was already consensus with those users regarding an addition of Manoukian's Armenian roots at the main body. Thus, Jjj1238 is wrong when it comes to the discussion part. 62.74.23.186 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

note, user is a sock of User:Dealer07 who uses multiple IPs to disrupt the article Athena Manoukian --FMSky (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has semi'd 3mo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:M.Ashraf333

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:M.Ashraf333 they are removing sourced content on Faiz Hameed and Nawaz Sharif. they also removed the words convicted and absconder from the intro of Nawaz Sharif which were sourced from a Supreme Court and High Court verdict but attempted to add them to Imran Khan without a source. It is ironic because the user considers it useless on one page and useful on the other? This falls under disruptive editing and vandalism due to the political bias of the editor.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imran_Khan&oldid=1119191304 This is the edit where they added it to Imran Khan
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nawaz_Sharif&oldid=1120001473 This is the edit where they removed it from Nawaz Sharif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactihasbik (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Reporting a user much better than to be positive and constructive editing here.

I added that word on Imran Khan page and Admin removed and message me on my talk page for explanation and on Nawaz Sharif I removed after that because Panama Papers Section explained very well. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Pretty clear block evasion by the OP. See User talk: Toomanyyearskodakblack. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E44A:4BDA:A4FA:8FF2 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Airline IP disruptive editing

99.233.169.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has resumed the same disruptive editing against consensus that let to previous block, and prior ones against different IPs. See their TP for further information. They have made over 100 edits today which will need to be reverted. MB 17:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Dealt with. Canterbury Tail talk 21:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Crun31

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor who previously called someone a homophobic slur has now returned to post holocaust denial dogwhistles. The rest of their contributions appear to be right-wing POV-pushing, including the promotion of an antisemitic conspiracy theory. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste, Blocked indefinitely- they should've already been blocked indef for that Accelerationism edit. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User gatekeeping a language/article to a specific country

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

---

User:SunnyKambojLive over at List of highest-grossing Punjabi films believes that Pakistani films cannot be added to the list, as they have set this precedence that the page is exclusively regarding Indian Punjabi films, although I don't understand why - as there is no consensus or basis for this. In fact they reverted my edit, and then stated on my talk page that it was 'vandalism' when I disputed it. Not only that, they proceeded to change the article page to List of highest-grossing Punjabi (Indian) films - again without reaching a consensus (which I reverted). Punjabi is a language that is not only spoken in Pakistan, but has almost double the number of speakers in Pakistan than in India - it seems quite unfair to exclude Pakistani films from this list. نعم البدل (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps surprisingly, most of our box office lists seem to be by origin or by exhibition location rather than by language, even when the origin is somewhat defined by language. See: Template:Film box office. So I'm afraid those who say the list should be of of Indian Punjabi-language films may have a point. Jahaza (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That retitling actually fixes the issue, by specifying that it is Indian Punjabi films. The another page could be made for Pakistani Punjabi films, if so desired. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

But I don't see why? Why not just have one article for all Punjabi films? It's not like there's a huge list of grossing Punjabi films that are from Pakistan, and I don't understand your point about origin. If we take the origin, then Pakistan has 80 million Punjabi speakers, whereas there are merely 30 million in India. نعم البدل (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Two administrators have cleared your confusion. Are u happy now? SunnyKambojLive (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) Point of clarification: I'm not an admin. Neither is Jahaza. But I do agree that this should clarify things and satisfy the concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

What do sources say? A quick search through WP:FILM/R-approved sources found this:

• Deadline Hollywood calls Pakistani film The Legend of Maula Jatt "the highest-grossing Punjabi movie" and also "a Pakistan-made or Punjabi-language film". In other articles, they stress where films were made rather than assuming "Punjabi" means "Indian": "The Punjabi film hails from 'Pollywood'" and "an Indian Punjabi family comedy".
• Variety also calls The Legend of Maula Jatt a "Punjabi-language film" here and here.
• IndieWire also specifies where a film was made, again avoiding implying that "Punjabi" means "Indian": "Punjabi-language Indian film".

Are Indian and Pakistani sources different? Because at least based on the above sources, it seems to me that List of highest-grossing Punjabi films should include both Indian and Pakistani films, as they're both Punjabi films. I suppose that separating them into Indian and Pakistani lists would solve that problem, although that seems like an unnecessary cross-categorization. Woodroar (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled that Pakistani-made Punjabi films are eliminated from discussion, but Punjabi films made in other countries than India, but not Pakistan, are discussed in Punjabi cinema of which I assume List of highest-grossing Punjabi films is a sub-article. I'm also concerned that there are WP:Ownership issues here, and that User:SunnyKambojLive's reaction to a bog-standard notification on their talk page was unnecessarily hostile and condescending. I'm further concerned that SKL has accused User:نعم البدل of vandalism on multiple occasions (diff1 diff2, diff3 - includes templating!) but when politely asked what was vandalism, didn't provide any examples. Can you, SKL, provide some diffs? In the bigger picture, this appears to be a content dispute and is also being discussed at Talk:List of highest-grossing Punjabi films#Pakistani Punjabi film. Nfitz (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I already clarified this to Nfitz. Let me share this again.

West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh have same language. But we don't consider Bangladeshi films in the list of regional films of West Bengal. People from both sides are Bengalis. And, how many countries have films in English Languages? USA, Canada, UK ... But we sort those films according to the countries and not language.

Moreover, List of highest-grossing Punjabi films is a sub-article of "List of highest-grossing Indian films", which simply means that it can't contain data about Pakistani Punjabi films. To solve this confusion, I moved this article to List of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi films but that was reverted.

I tell u why suddenly these issues are arising. The Legend of Maula Jatt has broken records and whole Punjabi community is proud of it. But Users like نعم البدل and Nfitz are trying desperately to add it in list of highest-grossing Punjabi films, an article which has information only about Indian Punjabi Films since it's inception. And let me tell Nfitz, the source country of all the films mentioned in the list is India, whether it is shot in any country or in association with any co-production from other countries. I further doubt that these two users (نعم البدل and Nfitz) know each other and unnecessarily creating problems while defending each other like advocates.

Nfitz, let me remind you, Vandalism on Wikipedia means any modification that is hoax, intentionally. Which is clear from the modifications that u r making. I don't have to provide proof for something which is front of us and we can easily understand. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Solution =

Just move this article to list of highest-grossing Indian Punjabi films. And then, create a new article which will have list of both Indian and Pakistani Punjabi films. That will not contain just The Legend of Maula Jatt but other Pakistani Punjabi films as well.

I urge other users as well not to use this article to spread hate of any kind. Punjabis all over the world love each other. Let that remain the case.

Also, I can't understand why نعم البدل was putting The Legend of Maula Jatt on 4th place? Create a new combined article and place it on the top position, which it deserves. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

At its creation, the article included information about about Indian and Pakistani Punjabi cinema, including the claim that the first Punjabi film had ties to both India and Pakistan. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

We need to find a solution. Everything you said regarding creation is correct but the three films mentioned at that time were also Indian Punjabi films. Either someone needs to create a new article covering both Indian and Pakistani Punjabi films and specify this article for Indian Punjabi films. This will be easy as this article contains great information about Indian Punjabi films from many years.

(OR) Create a new article for only Indian Punjabi films and let this article be for both Indian and Pakistani Punjabi Films. And then, include other Pakistani Punjabi Films as well and not only The Legend Of Maula Jatt. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because the Pakistani cinema isn't and certainly wasn't that big at that time - plus it's not like the article will have been completed at it's initial creation. New films are being released from Pakistan, which are Punjabi and grossing. It's quite unnecessary to have two articles regarding Punjabi films: 1. Indian Punjabi films, and 2. Punjabi films overall? I really don't understand why you feel the need to separate them. نعم البدل (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Trying to limit the list to only Indian Punjabi films seems both dumb and way over-specialization that isn't needed for such a list. And, since the sources do explicitly call the Pakistani films "Punjabi", then that means they fall under what this list article is about. Also, this conflict makes me wonder if this would fall under the India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions. Since this seems to be a really stupid anti-Pakistan action. Silverseren^C 19:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Such comment without having your facts checks, is dumb actually. Kindly read my upper comment to understand why this list can't include films from Pakistan. And, this is not a new debate. It has always been the case. Whenever page protection is removed, such users arise. Your use of word "anti-Pakistan" is enough to understand your mind set, without clearly seeing the logic. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to tone it down. Nothing you have said justifies the claim that the article “can’t” include other films. The opposing view is perfectly reasonable and clearly many people disagree on the matter. Attempting to enforce your vision for an article or stonewall bold changes without engaging in consensus building is disruptive editing, whether or not something is longstanding. The accusations against you are serious, and so far you have not presented any evidence to refute the complaint. This is not the time to be arguing the content dispute, this is the time to be arguing why we should not block you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Block? Just because I am talking about logic and trying to find a solution? Bro, I am replying in the same tone that is being used on me. What accusation are you talking about? The false accusations from 1 user? They are clearly trying to mislead others and getting successful. Are these false accusations enough to block someone who is contributing from many years? That user simply knows how to use tools/tags on Wikipedia regarding framing someone, which I clearly don't. If you are objective, just help me in tackling this. Thanks ... SunnyKambojLive (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, a total 3 people (including me) are in favour and 2 people are opposing it while Woodroar is trying to understand the situation. SunnyKambojLive (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

False accusation? Perhaps you should clarify which edit of mine was 'vandalism', that you felt the need to drop the block template on my talk page. Like User:Nfitz mentioned, I agree, there definitely does seem to be an issue of WP:Ownership here. Additionally, you mentioned Bengali films - in Bangladesh, the major language of Bangladesh is Bengali - which is why you can separate Bengali films and West Bengali films. Pakistan is not the same in this regard. USA, Canada, UK all have a huge movie industry, unlike Pakistan - these aren't relevant examples.

I could easily make an article specifically for Pakistani Punjabi grossing films, but it would be no more than just a stub. If you really feel the need to separate the two, then I don't see why you couldn't just add a separate column in the same table which defines the origin of the film? نعم البدل (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Swarm, User:Woodroar, User:EI_C please read this. I am giving my clarification.

A) User:نعم البدل, when I was talking about false accusations, it was not meant for you. I was talking about User:Nfitz, and I will explain why in the following.

B) About Vandalism - I thought Disruptive editing is Vandalism as I read it on "Vandalism on Wikipedia" article on Wikipedia. Though User:EI_C guided me and I got to know that it's not Vandalism.

When you (User:نعم البدل) started adding a Pakistani Punjabi film on the list which till then (and before any discussion started) only contained Indian Punjabi films, I found it disruptive and undid it. But you undid my revision 2-3 times in just few minutes.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1119779526&oldid=1119651034,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1119995937&oldid=1119779526,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1119997969&oldid=1119997340,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1120003622&oldid=1119997969)

Then, I thought it to be Vandalism and left you a message, (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%84&diff=1120065841&oldid=1120005093). Now that I have learnt that this was not Vandalism, so I apologize from you (User:نعم البدل).

Now, you found this to be threatening. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%84&diff=1120066011&oldid=1120065841). But it is a standard Wikipedia message and not something I wrote from my side. How that can be threatening? So, I asked you to search the meaning of Vandalism on Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%84&diff=1120190123&oldid=1120066011) Regarding which, I had wrong information or let's say, incomplete information. But that was not entirely my fault. As a Wikipedia article said so.

C) Now, User:Nfitz took advantage of this situation and falsely accused me of being unnecessarily hostile and condescending (ref. above in this same discussion. I just asked User:نعم البدل to check the meaning for Wikipedia Vandalism. How this can be hostile and condescending? We also know, it's not. For this, User:Nfitz should apologize from me.

Now, let me give everyone the proof, why User:Nfitz did this. He tried to make few changes on the page that is being discussed.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1120201100&oldid=1120196774)

According to him, we can't use the word Overseas because - "one doesn't have to cross seas to reach many of these countries".

I found this to be funny. So, I reverted and replied

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Punjabi_films&diff=1120204304&oldid=1120201100)

He just could not digest it and came to this discussion and made false accusations on me, that could have led to me blocking from editing, according to User:Swarm.

Now tell me everyone, who is the victim here?

D) User:Nfitz is still not stopping as you can read his further comments and the changes he is making on the page being discussed. Let me clear further, I did not accused him of Vandalism. I just referred him by mistake though I intended to write User:نعم البدل

For which, I already apologized to User:نعم البدل

I am sorry to write User:Nfitz by mistake. Now, we all have to see if User:Nfitz is mature enough of apologizing from me or not? For false accusations. Doesn't he qualify to be blocked after all this and wasting everyone's precious time especially mine? (just for fun or out of frustration)

E) Coming back to User:نعم البدل

There is not an issue of WP:Ownership at all. Just because I am the major contributor of the said page, it does not mean I intend to own it. It's not possible on Wikipedia. From my clarification, you can easily judge my intentions.

And, talking about the examples I gave regarding Bengali and English language are still relevant for me. We can have different opinions on it. Talking about separating the Indian Punjabi and Pakistani Punjabi films, discussion is still ON. And, I didn't think to add any column because you did not suggested earlier. Now that you have suggested, I will think about it.

F) Talking about the page being discussed, I already mentioned my times that List of highest-grossing Punjabi films is a sub-article of List of highest-grossing Indian films and adding Pakistani Punjabi movies to it will be illogical.

G) In last, I want to talk about feeling getting cornered or a case of partiality. When User:SilverserenC used such disrespectful language and strong words and wrote following.

"Trying to limit the list to only Indian Punjabi films seems both dumb and way over-specialization that isn't needed for such a list. And, since the sources do explicitly call the Pakistani films "Punjabi", then that means they fall under what this list article is about. Also, this conflict makes me wonder if this would fall under the India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions. Since this seems to be a really stupid anti-Pakistan action".

Nobody said anything to him or asked him to tone down. But when I replied to him with the following:-

"Such comment without having your facts checks, is dumb actually. Kindly read my upper comment to understand why this list can't include films from Pakistan. And, this is not a new debate. It has always been the case. Whenever page protection is removed, such users arise. Your use of word "anti-Pakistan" is enough to understand your mind set, without clearly seeing the logic".

After this, User:Swarm asked me to tone it down and even threaten me to block. I want to know the reason of this partiality.

Thanks & Regards, SunnyKambojLive (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. Content decisions are (mostly) based on our Core Content Policies, including Verifiability. We summarize content based on what reliable sources say, and so far, all of these suggest that "Punjabi films" includes films from both India and Pakistan. How you sort the films doesn't matter because that's considered Original Research.

I'll also mention that accusing other editors of vandalism, being misleading, framing people, etc. without evidence—preferably in the form of a diff—is considered a personal attack. Your behavior in this dispute has been poor and I suggest you improve it immediately before an admin blocks you. Woodroar (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Woodroar. I've warned SunnyKambojLive for that and about additional subpar conduct, but also offered some detailed guidance, so hopefully, it resonates. Beyond that, if this content dispute has reached an intractable level, disputants should just run an WP:RFC on it, and may the best argument win the day. There's really not much more to it, except to advise everyone to be patient while it runs its course. There's also no point in continuing to discuss that content dispute here, as that's not what this noticeboard is for. El_C 22:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• I expressed three concerns in my contribution above - and only one was partially addressed - and this was done, by claiming the alleged vandalism was a hoax, refusing to provide diffs, accusing me of vandalism, and even WP:ASPERSION that I might actually be User:نعم البدل - which is aporetic. Yes User:SunnyKambojLive you must provide diffs. Right at the top of this page it says "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". So please provide the diffs demonstrating both that there was vandalism and a hoax - for both editors you've made these accusations - which appear to be false. Also please address your apparent failure of WP:CIVIL and now WP:AGF - (an apology would suffice). And also the WP:OWNERSHIP. Also you note that the list doesn't contain films from other countries - but explain why Punjabi cinema does - this seems inconsistent. In terms of the content dispute (which is mostly out-of-scope here), there's been no real explanation on why one wouldn't include all Punjabi language films; and the attempt to do so is mostly WP:OtherStuffExists. Incidentally, I'm struggling to find language-specific lists of films at sub-national levels or language-specific lists at all. Do you have examples? Nfitz (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz, RE: and even WP:ASPERSION that I might actually be User:نعم البدل — do you have a diff for that? RE: this seems inconsistent [etc.] — again, please don't discuss the content dispute here. This is not the place to do that. Also, pressing for an WP:APOLOGY isn't really the best, even when it may well be due. El_C 23:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The diff - which is from above - is [I further doubt that these two users (نعم البدل and Nfitz) know each other and unnecessarily creating problems while defending each other like advocates. diff]. Though perhaps it's just casting aspersions that we are acting in concert - but it's all very odd, given they are the first to mention it - it's trying to cast something ... Yes, it's a content dispute - and should be dealt with elsewhere ... until the point that articles on Punjabi films include non-Muslim Punjabi movies from other countries - such as Canada, but exclude Muslim Punjabi movies from Pakistan. I'm not sure we are there - hence the question. Though perhaps by being so verbose, am I too casting aspersions? Partition of Punjab is a touchy subject - especially for those (like me) whose family was impacted by it. Nfitz (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz, I think you should let that go, at least for the time being. SunnyKambojLive committed to correcting and studying, so why don't we give that a chance with a clean slate. Additionally, if the dispute is of an WP:ARBPIA WP:ARBIPA nature, then that sanctions regime can also come into effect at some point. But you keep discussing the content dispute, so once again, please don't do it here. Figure out that classification on the talk page. If it's proven that your argument is the better one, then it'll win the day and that will be that. I'm not sure what else you expect us to right now. El_C 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Way forward? I believe this is a genuine content dispute with good arguments and good-faith editors on both sides, which unfortunately got heated. I second User:El_C's suggestion to resolve the debate abot the article scope through an RFC, and don't see a need for further admin action especially in light of the side-discussion on SunnyKambojLive's talkpage. Do any of the participants have any objections to closing this ANI conduct debate and starting a content RFC instead? Pinging @Swarm: in particular since they had indicated that a stronger intervention may be needed. Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think El_C handled it very well and I thank them for making the effort, the user seems to be getting the message. I agree the content dispute should be kicked to an RFC since there’s clearly something going on there, and I’m satisfied with the warning for the behavioral issues. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you guys! El_C 01:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you. :) SunnyKambojLive (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

P-blocks

Blocked indefinitely. Indef p-blocks: User_talk:SunnyKambojLive#Partial_blocks_and_discretionary_sanctions_alert. This is basically a Last Chance Saloon. El_C 19:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explicit legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

By 2601:543:4401:9219:443d:e876:cea8:4cff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made with this edit on 01:04, 7 November 2022 Adakiko (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

/64 rangeblocked and edits revdel'd by Tamzin. Don't think there's anything else to do here. SkyWarrior 01:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting for context, just since occasionally there's confusion about whether legal threats are revdellable, that the revdel was due to defamatory content adjacent to the legal threats, not the threats themselves. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I endorse the block and the revision deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI violation by 56independent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

More details are provided at [[1]] 134.255.241.135 (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The above editor has been blocked for harassment. --Jayron32 14:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Stark578

• Stark578 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been asked nicely and then forcefully to stop making spurious claims, in particular about celebrities and membership in DSA. They have a strong WP:ICANTHEARYOU bent and have taken no accountability on any of their erring ways, for instance when I first warned them about posting every random image they found of subjects that were not free, then warning them to stop adding these tweets which 1) do not demonstrate membership, and 2) are not even what the word "canvass" means. This was done scattershot in August and September, where I had to revert a dozen non-free images and maybe 20 spurious DSA membership claims. They ignored talk page request/warning, and a month or two later I had to go through about 40-50 or so of their edits to undo this same pattern again. This time they acknowledged the warning against adding it, but are doing it again. See this diff at Brian Yuzna which in no good faith interpretation of that tweet is there encyclopedic evidence of membership and that edit came a week after the explicit request to cease this practice. This has continued to be ignored as Stark578 continues to take any tweet mentioning DSA and add that to Wikipedia as proof of membership and attribute it to "canvassing" such as at Joel Kim Booster. I don't know what else needs to be said to this user to recognize that this in violation of our core rules. JesseRafe (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, they've been adding actors to the (e.g.) California Democrats category without providing any evidence that they've been associated with the party, instead of generally supporting them. These cats should be saved for politicians for the most part. Schwarzenegger, obviously, would fit in California Republicans, but Bob Newhart, not so much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Danielle Perez (comic) is another example. It should be obvious that performing as a comedian at an event organized by DSA is not evidence of membership in DSA. But it is not obvious to this editor. This is a very serious matter. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

They've been CU-blocked, and apparently were doing the same thing with their previous account. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Dashtshuligkech

User:Dashtshuligkech has been creating numerous incoherent drafts, some in draft space, and some in mainspace, all unreferenced & none remotely near fit for mainspace publication. Some have been deleted, and some draftified but the user has moved them back to mainspace. The user ignores all warnings and apparently can neither understand nor write coherent English. Apparently no malicious intent, but clearly doesn't have the ability to contribute coherently to the English Wikipedia, and is wasting the time of other users to clear up the mess being created. I will notify the user. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The user has also damaged various other pages through edits which needed to be reverted, as can be seen from the contribution record: Dashtshuligkech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - David Biddulph (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the editor. It is clear that they lack the basic English language skills necessary to edit here. Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Unusual accounts being created to revert edits

There are several, clearly sockpuppet accounts (with rather cryptic names) being used to revert edits to the page Unfriendly Countries List. They seem to be used only to remove notes that indicate that in the subject of the article (the "Unfriendly Countries List" published by the Russian government), "Taiwan" is listed as "Taiwan (China)" (as Taiwan/ROC is not recognized by Russia). They do not give any reasons for their edits.

These accounts include but are likely not limited to:

• Putslongz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spurxshalt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Welhwing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prxcesang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I request that something be done about this user(s?), such as an IP ban as well as banning from new account creation, and potentially that the page be locked to extended autoconfirmed users only. 129.97.124.11 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I have just run a check and blocked a whole lot of accounts. It's possible I'll be imposing a rangeblock later. Salvio 20:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, it appears I forgot one account. Lystopel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also appears to be one of the sockpuppets used. 129.97.124.11 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, blocked a bunch more. Salvio 20:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

history cleanup

Unless I'm mistaken, with with the content of the edit and the summary itself, something more than regular reversion should be done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RentAHitman.com&diff=1120604281&oldid=1115511012 — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the edit, however for something you feel needs to be oversighted, there is a link on the page here where you edit that will let you sent it to the Oversight group. Generally, you don't want to post that here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It's rare that I come across something so specifically egregious, and I've had luck with speedy action at the ANI in the past. I didn't actually know if "revdel", "oversight", or anything else (with which I'm also unfamiliar) was appropriate, so please accept my apologies. Thanks, also, for clearing that out. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocking bypass

1) User:Niyskho 1

2) User contributions for Niyskho

3) User:Kist-Dzurdzuk

4) User:Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor here

5) User:Dzurdzuketi --Товболатов (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

One IP address --Товболатов (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Товболатов. By "blocking bypass", I guess you mean what's more commonly referred to as "block evasion". Unless this is particularly urgent, if you think these users are the same person, the best place to take this up would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi. Please do remember to provide reasons why you think these accounts are being used by the same person. You can look up how to set out a new report here.--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 23:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Shirt58 thanks for the reply. I don't particularly want to delve into this issue there I see there was a whole investigation. However, this person created accounts and waged wars on Russian Wikipedia, unreasonably blaming other participants. Insulted with obscene language, in the end, the Russian administrators blocked him and he moved here. Here I noticed he also does not want to have a constructive dialogue with other participants.Товболатов (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not want to falsely accuse a person of puppetry. In the Russian Wikipedia, he definitely did this. Just keep in mind I'm warning you for the future. Have a good day.Товболатов (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I was blocked in the Russian Wikipedia, it's true, but I was blocked only because it was some kind of coincidence that you took advantage of and slandered me, before that you insulted me and got personal. Your reputation in the Russian Wikipedia is very dubious, and already the idea of ​​​​investigating you in the same Russian Wikipedia, again an experienced participant Anceran, will confirm your unprincipled behavior, and slandering other participants, and will also prove that you use several accounts:

Here are his accounts:

1)Товболатов

2)Takhirgeran Umar

3)Russian viki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 08:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• This was already explained to you not Russian Wikipedia. What do you want from me? I ask the administrators to pay attention to the participant without evidence accuses me.--Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Listen dear, you are slandering me and trying to block me. It is up to you to leave the user alone, and not accuse everyone of Vandalism. Now I say goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 09:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• I did not even know that this person is on English Wikipedia. I get the sees, he MIGHS to me with his accusations. I ask the admines will calm him down.--Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Niyskho Above. Even here, you know very well that these three people are completely different people, you are brazenly lying trying to mislead the project participants. Товболатов (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Товболатов (talk • contribs) 09:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Even here, from several accounts, he comes up with excuses for himself, how funny it is, however, nevertheless, I already said goodbye and ended the dialogue with you, I only ask the admins to reassure you, your violations will be solved by experienced Russian Wikipedia members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 09:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Niyskho here you deleted entire texts about Chechens, staged a war of edits as usual. In Russian Wikipedia, you were forbidden to edit, now you have decided to transfer your work here, misleading readers.Товболатов (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nakh peoples stop doing it and you won't have any questions.Товболатов (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Durdzuks in this article, you also started an edit war with another member of Goddard2000. Why do you come to Wikipedia to make a positive contribution or start edit wars?.Товболатов (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Where did you see the edit war? because of the lack of arguments, you just start to lie.

1) In the article Nakh peoples I deleted only the text without a source, even my opponent with whom I entered into a discussion approved my action, saying that I did the right thing.

2) There was not even any conflict in the article about the Dzurdzuks, I just added a few interesting sources and texts.

So where is the edit war on my part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you know how to delete well, if you didn’t answer all the everyday life of deletion about the Chechens.Товболатов (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I delete absolutely any text if there are no sources in it, if there was a source in this article about the Chechens, then I would not even think about deleting information from there. Chechens are a kindred people for the Ingush, I have nothing against this people, but I will not allow to distort the history of my own people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is my discussion with the participant I started the discussion with, I had a good conversation with him, and we solved the problem, thanked each other and ended it.here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You want to write your fairy tales without sources about my people. On the Russian Wikipedia, administrators and other participants have explained to you several times that you can’t write such things, you still want to push it here. You will not be able to distort historical facts here.

You wrote from different accounts there and insulted other participants. Wikipedia is not the place to sort things out. Товболатов (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are you trying to belittle the Chechens in an article about the Ingush, write everywhere, unlike the Chechens, the Ingush people are the bravest, most ancient, did not have a feudal system. You made many insulting attacks on my people there. Everything is written without source code; there is no historical data on these publications. Mostly historical facts are distorted. Last year, a certain Anakbek created several videos on his YouTube channel, where he fictitiously accused Chechen Wikipedians. Distort historical facts and introduce these fictional materials. Remove this false information from the article.Товболатов (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Do not be hysterical, no one offends your people, and even more so I did not edit without sources, unlike you, I know history very well. In the Russian-language Wikipedia, you slandered me, I repeat again, and there I never edited without sources, when I showed you authors and books, you always justified yourself by saying "this is not true, you are lying" or "this is not an authoritative source" and now you're back to your old ways. I didn't even edit the "ingush people" article, again you start slandering people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyskho (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

no need to whine there. They blocked you in Russian, so what. You have created new accounts. If you had pride, you wouldn't post here.--Товболатов (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Sockpuppets, not sockpuppets... One thing is for sure, neither should be editing in the topic area. Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• • Slywriter yes you are probably right. On the other hand, I would also think so. I am patrolling, rolling back and renaming in Russian Wikipedia for five years I have been working there and I have not been given such advantages for disputes. I assure you if I stop editing I won't be creating new war accounts. But if you block him, he will create a new account and continue his activities. If no one needs it, then even more so for me. I will not make a tragedy out of this you can block me. I apologize for causing unnecessary discussion here. Good luck to.Товболатов (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

NotOrrio is NOTHERE

User:NotOrrio has spent much of the past two weeks removing AfD templates from articles, attacking other editors, refactoring other editors' comments, and most recently posting a pretty lame personal attack on their userpage (if you're wondering, the "nerds" in question are myself and User:Whpq).

Some highlights include responding to an AfD notice with "shut up" [2], recreating an article that was redirected at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route, recreated as 902 (PTV Bus)) after falsely claiming to accept the results of the discussion [3], edit warring over said recreated article [4], removing AfD templates from their own articles [5], being given a temp block for persistent disruption of AfD [6], edit warring post-block [7] [8] (note the very creative modification of my username to "Nerdsandotherthings", more sad than anything else), accusing others of bad faith [9], more refactoring of other editors' comments [10], and more attempts to circumvent AfD (including by linking a specific diff in a mainspace article of one of the bus routes before it was redirected) [11]. With the latest userpage edits today, it's abundantly clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't say all of this isn't unjustified but some of it is unjustified

1. Why are you looking at my user page in the first place let alone old revisons likely a case of cyber stalking
2. The removing afd notices is already done and was addressed by an admin doesn't need to be readressed
3. There was no edit war Dan Ardnt kept on adding unneeded tags even though it was clearly adressed and resolve
4. The recreated article you mentioned in 103 was clearly reverted as it was changed to a revert without notice
5. You can't complain I am assuming bad faith while also saying "its abundantly clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia"

NotOrrio (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I also want to point out 1 more thing

6. The time it was stated i refracted another users comments when all i did was delete my own comment NotOrrio (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact, and your actions have demonstrated you are not acting in good faith. Much of the conduct here happened after your block, showing it was insufficient to address the issues with your behavior. "I was right" doesn't change that you were involved in an edit war (and you were wrong on the merits). That you accuse me of "cyber stalking" by looking at your publicly viewable userpage (I was actually checking your contribs to see if you had continued doing what you'd been warned multiple times against, hoping I'd see no issues and we could move on) shows a level of battleground behavior that exemplifies why I am right in calling you NOTHERE. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think you've shown that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Au contraire, I think your evidence shows they are here to build an encyclopaedia. AFAICS your evidence shows that NotOrrio doesn't respond too well to their contributions being nominated for deletion or tagged with maintenance tags. It's something they need to work on, and probably they need to accept that if consensus is against an article existing then that has to be honoured as frustrating as it may be. But this is an entirely different problem to being NOTHERE, and this particular problem is pretty common to see (unsurprisingly I suppose, a lot of people don't take too kindly to their contributions being binned). For NotOrrio: you may wish to focus your efforts on things that will pass notability guidelines? Makes them less likely to be subject to deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with ProcrastinatingReader's sentiments about NOTHERE. It's clear that NotOrrio has a passion for buses and wants to contribute to Wikipedia. Writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do for a new editor on Wikipedia. One has to know the notability guidelines well. One needs to understand what are reliable sources, what constitutes significant coverage, and what type of sources contribute to notability. The appallingly bad source assessment table provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/903 (PTV Bus) did NotOrrio no favours. It probably gave the impression that the sources NotOrrio provided were pretty good for notability when in fact they were mostly not. NotOrrio needs to take the AFDs for the three bus routes as a learning experience on notability and reliable sourcing, and also remember to assume good faith. I don't see any need for administrative action. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the worst NotOrrio has done, besides disrespecting and insulting other editors, is edit disruptively in response to their articles being nominated for deletion. I think NOTHERE would entail more deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt Wikipedia. As more experienced editors, we know (or should know) to stay cool in debates, not letting our emotions cloud our judgement; I suggest NotOrrio familiarize themselves with that philosophy so they can avoid emotionally driven disruption in the future. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• NotOrrio - I believe This can be settled if you will agree to try to work constructively with Whpq and others from now on, and just take the warning you've been given. Will you agree to do that? Deb (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Philliptruong92 - more disruptive removals

Philliptruong92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Similar to this past April when they removed all the third place results from The Masked Singer US articles, they now recently removed all the third place results from American Idol articles. I've already reverted their edits removing the results, but it shows their behavior is still continuing since the previous ANI in April. They are also still continuing to edit via other account 'Philliptruong1990s', despite the discussion that occurred during that same ANI regarding their multiple accounts.

If they are blocked on the 'Philliptruong92' account or 'Philliptruong1990s' account, I suggest they be blocked on both as both accounts are still being used simultaneously. The other account I had previously found, 'Sabrina.carbone1970s', has not still been used since October 2020, but a block may want to be put on that account for precaution if they are blocked on their current two accounts.

I have no clue why they continue removing third place results from television articles, only their random claims of, "they normally have winner and runner-up as they are the final two", but it remains very disruptive, as it previously did when they did it back in April. I hope this does not continue on... Magitroopa (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition of irrelevant sources

Across multiple articles by Myakubu123456 (talk · contribs). I've removed many, including several Wikipedia mirror sites, and asked the new editor what they're doing. I suspect they are just finding titles that look related to citation needed tags and plugging them in carelessly. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Again, I'd appreciate some help. What one assumes is an unrepentant WP:CIR issue continues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Crickets. I've reported to AIV [12]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Myakubu123456, could you please take a moment to explain what exactly, step by step, you have been doing there? I really mean click by click. Imagine you're on Wikipedia's main page. Imagine you'd like to continue doing what you did until the block. Which page do you open, how do you work? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am really sorry; I honestly thought I was doing the right thing not knowing that i was sent some messages through the notifications. But I now understand the reason I am being blocked. I promise to adhere to the community guidelines. Thank you Myakubu123456 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Per ToBeFree, I'd like to know that you do understand the reason for this block, and explain your edits, one at a time. Nearly all of your sources were unacceptable, and in many cases were either Wikipedia mirrors (this was raised at your talk page, and though you seemed to acknowledge the problem, you continued) or plainly bogus. It's also very unusual for an inexperienced editor with a new account to make a rapid series of disruptive edits of this sort. I'd like to know if there's a backstory, previous to your editing as Myakubu123456. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    i am sorry and humbly appealing to be unblocked please, thank you. Myakubu123456 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    Hi Myakubu123456, thank you very much for joining the discussion. Sadly, my question currently remains unanswered. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    sorry, what's your question again? Myakubu123456 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

    The benefit of a written conversation is your ability to check what I've asked at "22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)" above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Hello ToBeFree, all I was doing was searching for articles that needed citations and then adding citations that I feel are relevant to the articles i was editing, I thought if the citations are not in line the system will not accept it automatically, but I kept seeing the insert button and publishing changes not knowing that the notifications I was receiving were signs for me to adjust. I apologize. Thank you Myakubu123456 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Myakubu123456 ToBeFree asked could you please take a moment to explain what exactly, step by step, you have been doing there? I really mean click by click. To pick a few of many examples, how are these relevant citations [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]? Since you're not answering, I'll take a shot: it looks like you Googled a few keywords and then used whatever came up as a source, without even checking to see if it supported the content in the articles. Feel free to tell me if this is wrong. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed move of "Special member state territories and the European Union", apparent WP:ADVOCACY

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

Without any prior discussion, User:Micga moved Special member state territories and the European Union to Special territories of states participating in the European integration. (Just now, I have moved it again temporarily to Special territories of members of the European Economic Area, to at least mitigate the damage.) This user has done extensive edits to this, to European integration and to European Union that at least appear to be wp:advocacy for pan-Europeanism. They do not appear to have taken on board the words of caution on their talk page from User:Tunakanski and User:Subtropical-man. The article as it stood was meaningful in the real world, to change it to drag in the EFTA countries is unhelpful and just looks like POV-pushing.

I am not at this stage requesting that Micga be subjected to any sanctions, though others may take a different view. This request is only that this move (diff [ 05:26, 2 November 2022‎ Micga talk contribs‎ m 120,882 bytes 0‎ Micga moved page Special member state territories and the European Union to Special territories of states participating in the European integration] (and my subsequent mitigation move) be reverted to the status quo ante. All edits by Micga dated since 04:32 UTC on 2 November (that are based on their reframed scope) should be reverted pending discussion and consensus for change. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a content matter. 𝕁𝕄𝔽, can you elaborate on why you took it to ANI? Your edits to the article on 2 November between 10:41 and 11:05 have been contested, see Talk:Special territories of members of the European Economic Area#Renaming of the article and change of content. 77.188.28.121 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I moved the article to Special territories of states participating in the European integration only because the title did not match the contents. Micga (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC) But the massive rollback revert of European integration by user 77.188.28.121 is arbitrary, unexplained and simply rude - I intend to undo it. Micga (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@77.188.28.121:, No, my purpose in raising this at ANI is not about the content – that is easily resolved using the WP:BRD process, as is already happening at European integration. I have taken it to ANI because administrator support is needed to undo a page move. Micga is being economical with the truth: the reason that the article title "did not match the contents" is because of their massive undiscussed changes to the article to make that be the case. The request is only to ask that an administrator reinstate the original article title. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Now, this allegation is totally untrue. There were even more unrelated contents there before my edits (e.g. concerning the sovereign microstates). I have doubts whether you even took the time to analyze the changes.Micga (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not looked over the specific changes, but "Special territories of states participating in the European integration" is a very clunky phrase. The original title is an actual existing phrase, gave a clear idea of the article topic, and is understandable. It would be helpful if an admin could restore that title, and then if there is a desire to move the article, an RM should be used. CMD (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, then I‘m expecting retraction of the charge against me of being economical with truth. You can’t just throw such unfounded allegations at people and then pretend that nothing happened. especially if it was done immediately after another unfounded charge of WP:ADVOCACY Thr problem with 𝕁𝕄𝔽 is that they are guided by their impressions and emotions rather than facts. Micga (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding a comment here due to Micga's consistent non-constructive editing (especially at European integration). For several days, the user has been drastically editing content on these articles, typically with zero explanation, removing sourced content without reason, and adding unsourced material and a plethora of WP:OR information. I have had to remove the user's OR additions several times, only to find the user reinstating their unsourced edits almost immediately. At the very least, the user should have sought consensus before proceeding with such a large overhaul of this article, or at the minimum, provide edit summaries for the dozens upon dozens of rapid edits. Generally speaking, the user has engaged in what I believe to be non-constructive editing tactics against Wikipedia ethos and norms. As 𝕁𝕄𝔽 has pointed out, the user has ignored several warnings and persistently edited these article's as they see fit. My biggest concern here, is the amount of WP:OR information Micga snuck in at European integration. This should not be overlooked by the Admins. Thankfully, the article has since been restored to its last stable version. However, I don't know if Micga fully comprehends these policies. I pointed these concerns out several times (while also linking policies) in my edit summaries- all of which have been ignored with more and more unsourced OR being added. This WP:DISRUPT behavior must stop. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Upon further review, Micga's talk page clearly shows that almost a dozen other editors have left similar warnings regarding the user's disruptive editing. Plus a May 2021 block for disruptive editing. The complete lack of acknowledgment and almost no effort to self-improve this pattern of editing/learn from these multiple warnings is worrisome. Archives908 (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Now, could you please elaborate on this alleged plethora of OR? Apart from two-three sentences in the section „extent” at the very end of the Article, I do not see any. Please provide examples instead of general impression, as the latter is not a valid justifcation and it is rather hard to dispute it. The majority of the edits were all about sorting the chaotic layout of the Article and categorisation of integration arrangement types, along with correcting obvious errors like extending the term eurozone on all countries using euro. As for the previous disputes, the one with User:Subtropical-man was for example settled in my favor, but obviously neither you nor 𝕁𝕄𝔽 would bother to check it, would you? It’s pretty clear that you guys feel convinced that you can accuse me of lying and inventing things, without bothering to indicate the lie or the things invented. Pretty humble, honest and insightful of you. Micga (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga, you wrote: "As for the previous disputes, the one with User:Subtropical-man was for example settled in my favor, but obviously neither you nor 𝕁𝕄𝔽 would bother to check it, would you?" - no, this not settled in your favor. The fact that I have given up further discussion with you has nothing to do with winning your ideas. I just didn't have time to long discussion with you. I started a discussion (in Talk:European_Union#Controversies_and_disputed_changes_made_by_User:Micga) and the discussion showed that another user is also against your changes. Sufficient arguments have been put forward, which you didn't even answer to. Overall, probably not a single user on Wikipedia has support your massive changes to the EU topic. As indicated above, your behavior is already very bothersomeand and previous requests on your talk page by other users did not help to change your behavior, this is why I support topic ban for anything related to EU for user:Micga. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This clearly indicates that you are in deep denial, taking also into account the percentage of your edits which are devoted to various edit wars and other conflicts - which does not surprise me at all, as this kind of attitude is regretfully inherent to this nation of ours.Micga (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally you breaks Wikipedia:No personal attacks, with an ethnic outline. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 03:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In conjunction with your initial post and the personal remarks included there, this reply of yours confirms my assessment pretty well.Micga (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I am asking the administrator who will close this discussion in the near future to include such user:Micga' behavior which are a personal attacks. This discussion is about dozens hundreds of controversial changes made by the user:Micga do Europan Unon (EU) and related articles, his disruptive behavior at all, no desire to reach a consensus whatsoever ... and the lack of any improvement whatsoever. The problem has lasted for 'lastmonths' and the user shows no improvement his behavior ... on the contrary - he argues with anyone who has a different opinion than himself. I have the right to express my opinion here, especially since I was called here twice with the function {ping}, however, in this discussion, it's hard to write own opinion as I am being attacked by the user:Micga. In my opinion, the topic ban for anything related to the EU is the best option because this user has the most problems in this topic. If the user continues to use personal attacks, I will agitate for block his account. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, my request is not for sanctions against User:Micga. It is a request to reinstate the name of the article to "Special member state territories and the European Union", which has been its long standing name and its exclusive content before this week. I did not accuse Micga of lying, but only that their assertion that they "only moved the article ... because the title did not match the contents" omits the highly relevant detail that they had just changed the content of the article so that it no longer did so. It was the truth but not the whole truth. European integration is a highly controversial topic and it is best kept in its own firepit. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not see the need for admin intervention at the moment. WP:BRD might also be cited...Micga did literally a bold move, this can be reverted/moved back and then discussed either on talk or via RM, although Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial might be probably a good way to go here, as it will (hopefully) get more eyes on the topic as a whole. Lectonar (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but an admin is needed to revert the move, because the redirect cannot be deleted automatically. Probably could have been handled at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests rather than ANI, though. MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes...I was kind of brainstorming with myself, the link to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial being the final result :). Lectonar (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably my error in raising this at ANI, as it is first time in many years of editing that I have felt that I needed to so for any reason, because I consider it the last resort. Cry wolf etc. I believed that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial is what should have been used in the first instance since it was the first move that was controversial – but it wasn't, which is why we are here. Is a move back to the original, long-standing and accurate name somehow controversial? Conversely, I believed that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests is designed to implement a consensus decision at an article talk page, where there is some trivial obstruction to be cleared up first. I would certainly have done a BRD reversion but for the fact of the midstream move. Is this really the first time a case like this has arisen?

I am content for this ANI discussion to be closed if there is administrator consensus on a more appropriate place to take it for resolution. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record; that implies that I broadened the scope of the contents and then adapted the title accordingly. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The discrepancy between the title and the contents was most pronounced in the original form of the article before my edits. Thus, in order to reconcile them, I removed contents entirely unrelated to the subject (e.g. sovereign microstates) instead of adding any, and then tried to adapt the title to this NARROWED scope. Therefore, saying that I changed the content of the article so that it no longer matched the title, is an obvious manipulation that has nothing to do with the truth, as the mismatch was originally even greater. I assume, though, lack of insight secondary to laziness as the main cause, rather than outright malevolence. As for the move to the original title, I will not contest it, though I insist on undoing the unjustified rollback of my edits, as they went in the direction of making the contents match more closely also the original title rather than deviating from it, contrary to 𝕁𝕄𝔽′s allegations above. Micga (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for User:Micga

• Contrary to appearances, but too bold edits that completely change key Wikipedia articles (hundreds changes in short time in article of the European Union), renaming and change of meaning important articles (like example above), removing content from one and moving to another are very controversial andvery debatable. Controversial changes by user: Micga are made without consensus and the praceder has been going on for months, this is very burdensome. As already mentioned by several users, user behavior resembles the appropriation of articles on this topic (Wikipedia:Ownership of content)?. The user, not paying attention to the opinions of others, changes freely the articles related to the EU, according to his own opinion only. Despite the fact that the procedure has been going on for months, the user has not changed his behavior and it looks like he will not change because he makes such controversial changes even during the lifetime of ANI, for example [17]. It follows that the user is completely unreformable and will continue to create problems in this topic. The most appropriate sanction to stop creating dozens of controversial changes in the future made by user Micga is topic ban for anything related to European Union. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I second the above proposal for a topic ban. Given the fact that the user has ignored so many warnings and continues to push their edits without accountability and ignoring policy (for well over a year now), a topic ban is justified. Archives908 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A short summary of (User:Subtropical-man and Archives908 views: we do not like the user’s edits, we consider then WP:OR, though we do not need to elaborate on the details or indicate any examples, as our expert opinion is binding without justification, and thus synonymous with consensus or its lack, so either the user deals with it, or he should face a ban. user:Archives908 additionally says: I don’t care that the user sourced his Pro-Europeanism edit with some scientific publications and one university conference, its still irrelevant because I, the ultimate authority, say so. Considering that the user already had some disputes in the past, regardless of their outcomes, this is a sufficient justofication to routinely roll back all his further edits summarily, without bothering to analyse their worthiness, as they did not get my mandatory prior approval. User:Subtropical-man additionally says: I had an edit conflict in the past with the user. Even though the majority opinion in the article discussion supported my adversary, the result is invalid and should be ignored because I stopped participating in the later phase of the discussion; thus, those edits are to be regarded as vandalism - because I say so. Besides, I have an impression that nobody ever supports the user (disclaimer: no, that was not a personal attack) as opposed to me, pretty obvious, in spite of the fact that I devote about one third of my edits to various edit wars and conflicts - its the behaviour of the other user which is disruptove, not mine. So let’s place a topic ban on this user.Micga (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Micga, this type of comment will not help you in any way, and even show others your real behavior. If you think that - I quote you words: "the majority opinion in the article discussion supported my " - where is consensus for your changes? please link. I can see that in an article where you made 140 changes in a week, there is rather agree that your changes are harmful/disruptive or debatable: Talk:European_Union#Controversies_and_disputed_changes_made_by_User:Micga. The second opinion was expressed by user Furius. These are just several users (Archives908, Subtropical-man, 𝕁𝕄𝔽, Furius, CMD + other in many other EU' articles) who to disagree with your changes and opinions in various issues of EU' topic. And there are more of them. Of course we're all wrong, you're right about everything ;) Now for real. You are looking for guilt in any other users but not in yourself. Even though many users got attention to your behavior, you didn't do anything to improve you. Instead, you are aggressive and attack other users in this ANI. Despite open ANI thread in your case, you continued with your actions, even the administrator warned you that you could get blocked [18]. Sorry, but not everyone accepts your still the same controversial and debatable changes like hundreds changes in short time (for example: a week) in European Union, renaming and change of meaning important articles (like example above), removing content from one and moving to another, changes in the order of content and sections in articles etc etc, all without discussion and consensus. Your praceder has been going on for months, this is very burdensome. Your behavior resembles the appropriation of articles on this topic (Wikipedia:Ownership of content)?. You not paying attention to the opinions of others, changes freely the articles related to the EU, according to his own opinion only. Despite the fact that your actions has been going on for months, you has not changed his behavior (despite the warnings) and it looks like you will not change because you makes such controversial changes even during the lifetime of ANI, for example [19][20]. When someone notices/warn you, you react aggressively It follows clearly that you are completely unreformable and will continue to create problems in this topic. Requests to you do not help. You give no choice to other users. The above arguments are sufficient to impose a topic ban on you. And stop attacking other people who disagree with you because you only make your situation worse. To be clear, this is not about one your selected edition, it does not matter whether you entered OR or not to any article (regarding your conflict with Archives908). "Topic ban for anything related to the European Union" is the solution for all your controversial changes that have dragged on for months on this topic, and which will not end as long as you work on this topic. You will be able to edit articles of other topics. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga, you still really don't get it, do you? Smug and arrogant comments like that only shows that you are not open to receiving constructive criticism from other editors and serves no purpose. Have a look at your talk page, there you will see dozens of editors leaving warnings on general non-constructive edits done by you the past year. Surely, they can't all be unjustified. Unless, you want the Admins to believe that only you are above wikipolicy and everyone else is undeniably in the wrong for raising concern. Ridiculous. Instead of wasting time on such mockeries, you should take time to understand why so many editors have had concerns with your edits, learn, become a better editor, and cooperate with others. Archives908 (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Archives908, my point in the case of your behaviour is that you revert contents contributions of other users under very vaguely and broadly specified reasons, along with pursuing their contributors for failing to submit the changes for discussion in advance, while at the same time you exempt yourself from elaborating on the detailed justifications of these reverts in the article discussions, preventing in this way any sensible dispute and consensus-builing. Bearing in mind the above, I further regard these actions as turning the cat by the tail, in particular in case of a rollback, because instead of listing your detailed particular reservations to my contents contributions on the respective article discussion page following your revert, you demand from me in principle to seek for each of my contributions your discretionary prior approval there first, under the threat of repressive actions in case of failing to do so. Although such behaviour is permitted to some extent for an admin, it constitutes an obvious abuse in case of a regular user; therefore, I see absolutely no reason for accepting such usurpation resulting in double standards. Sub-trop is in turn an entirely different story, as they simply have not acknowledged the outcome of the discussion that took place and now consider this ANI a convenient opportunity for retaliation, yet again, you don’t bother yourself with getting into the details. For these reasons, your actions may be perceived as arbitrary, disrespectful and thus non-conciliatory, towards a user that has been around for a time almost fivefold longer, even if your actual intent was otherwise and some legitimate motives existed. They also indicate who is actually the one to consider themselves being above the wikipolicy. No surprise that it elicits anger (though not aggression), turning me sour. Micga (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga. Previously, I asked you to provide a link to the alleged discussion. You did nothing. So far I have provided the link to the discussion in which your changes are treated as very debatable. Besides, it doesn't even matter one discussion, because there are problems with your changes to many articles related to the European Union. The current thread in ANI is about such another example, one in many. Secondly. It doesn't matter what Archives908 is doing, you are trying to distract the discussion from your actions. The fact is that your changes are debatable and it has been going on for far too long. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Micga, could you stop revising your comments after there have been responses? That violates WP:TALK#REVISE, and you've been doing a lot of that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In particular, in regard to European integration, I still do not see:

• justification for this rollback, taking into account that the IP user who did it was subsequently almost immediately blocked for disruptive editing; nevertheless, their disruptive edits were initially supported to my disbelief both by JMF and by Archives908, while my attempt to revert their undiscussed rollback was undone by JMF, and later the version preceding my edits was again arbitrarily chosen as the stable one by Archives908 during the cleanup after blocking the IP user, all of these actions without any trace of discussion or at least explanation
• justification for restoring multi-speed Europe and the attacks against me that followed, taking into account that the current table in European integration is limited now to EU agreements
• legitimate justification for this arbitrary revert
• criteria for keeping in European integration some of the organisations while excluding others
• criteria for keeping some sections of European integration (e.g. Energy) while removing others (e.g. Telecommunications)

To be honest, I do not expect to get them any more, from a user that does not distinguish the eurozone from EMU, and whose audacious pattern of arbitrary actions and lack of honesty may somehow be exemplified by the fact that a user of Armenian descent feels unashamed to remove Azerbaijan from the table in European integration, naturally also without any explanation. To my opinion, this is tantamount to an attempt to exercise adminship by a non-admin. Micga (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga, as user:rsjaffe mentioned, you extreme violates WP:TALK#REVISE. You have made 45 changes to your comment to which you have already received a reply. If it was to improve typos, etc., it's ok but you added more sentences, and your statement increased threefold. Secondly: you try to attack other users, eg IP or Archives908, you analyze their edits, try to find any drawbacks of editing them but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) is no place for content disputes. The topic ban was offered for you not because of the three examples you gave against IP or Archives908 but for the entirety of your editions on the broadly understood topic of the European Union. For months you've been making controversial and disputed changes to articles on this topic, and that's too bothersome. It is also burdensome to give you still the same warnings constantly and undo your new changes with the help of Wikipedia: BRD and Wikipedia: Stable version. You are unreformable. The problem is also that you think everyone is wrong and you are always right. Therefore, chances of improving your behavior are very doubtful. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Micga, you realize that you just violated WP:NPA by making accusatory remarks about my ethnicity? Defamatory language regarding someone's ethnicity is not allowed. If you have issues with my editing, keep it focused to the editing, no reason for you to target my background. Admins- I hope something is done about this user's poor conduct. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Micga also used similar personal attacks including personal attacks with an ethnic flavor against me above, so breaking Wikipedia:NPA is next a problem of this user. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I've given Micga a warning on their talk page for that comment. Absolutely inappropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Zhomron

• Zhomron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Not capable of observing WP:BRD, WP:CIVIL or even WP:V. Chooses to attack capable and seasoned editors such as myself about my allegedly deficient language skills, rather than address the sourceability of facts in articles.

Elizium23 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It is interesting to see you try and argue WP:CIVIL when you tell me to "fuck off" while attempting to undo your violation of WP:BLANKING Zhomron (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Users blanking their own talk pages is not a violation. See WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. And why did you tell Elizium23 to piss off? Sarrail (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Because they have consistently disregarded basic etiquette, excessively tagged ubiquitous information as lacking or needing citations, and even went as far as rashly accusing me of being a sockpuppet master for random IP editors simply because they also reverted their edits. Case-and-point, as soon as things don't immediately fall into line for them, I'm here on the noticeboard. Likewise, WP:REMOVE provides a clear (and bolded) stipulation of what should not be removed from a user's talk page. Zhomron (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and nothing Elizium23 removed from their own talk page is against WP:REMOVE. They can remove templates put on their page if they like, such as the disruptive one you placed, that's perfectly fine. Can you point out what they violated by removing your templating of their talk page? Canterbury Tail talk 00:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally there is zero wrong with tagging non-English translations as requiring citations. Canterbury Tail talk 00:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhomron as related activity to this dispute has crossed my watchlist. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

CheckUsers cannot link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy. It is most likely to be declined, as per one archived discussion. Sarrail (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup. However the edit interaction between Zhomron and that IP is blindingly obviously the same person. Canterbury Tail talk 00:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct, but WP:BADSOCK indicates that users with accounts must not edit whilst logged out to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. CheckUsers can use behavioral evidence to draw the conclusion that is not permitted by their technical tools, and it would be a blockable offense to do this sort of editing while embroiled in an edit-warring, incivil dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Dang, almost certainly looks like it. Looks like a false accusation or WP:DENY. Sarrail (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It also would not be out of reach to identify active sanctions from WP:ARBCOM in various places Zhomron has chosen to dispute WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I can contribute here as an editor familiar with the underlying facts. None of these are "translations", but rather original words or spellings of which the English word exists to function as a direct translation or transliteration. It is genuinely unnecessary and counterproductive to require messy citations in the lede for information available in any Biblical dictionary or edition of the Hebrew Bible, in the same way that every page whose title is an indigenous English word doesn't need to cite a dictionary entry for its spelling. There are thousands of pages about Biblical names and terms, many of which I have written or edited, and I have never seen a citation which specifically sources the spelling. In cases where the spelling is disputed or multiple spellings exist (and Zhomron and I have discussed several examples), detailed information is always noteworthy enough to feature on the page, with citations, but this is extremely rare and does not apply to any of the pages being discussed.

At the same time, the etymology section of the Shabbat page is a different story and Elizium23 was correct to tag it. And I can't defend Zhomron's attitude toward other editors, about which I have also warned him in the past. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

For what its worth you (both) might benefit from just taking a deep breath, and try to de-escalate your relationship with each other. Neither of you are being civil to each other, You're chucking WP:DENY around which does anything BUT deny recognition since you're addressing it directly. You've opened at least 3 SPIs involving Zhomron in about the past month's time, and even though it looks like the latest may be true, I don't see much evidence of a particularly WP:BADSOCK. And now you've raised talk of finding ARBCOM sanctions to throw at Zhomron, instead of just doing it. All of this because of a content dispute with 2 diffs with debatably nastygram summaries. Have either of you actually tried discussing this? Talk Page? User Talk? Don't discount the fundamentals of WP conflict resolution. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have discussed, yes, I have followed WP:BRD, and it doesn't get traction with someone who will edit-war and then edit-war some more from an IP and then make WP:POINTy edits on my watchlist while logged out to evade scrutiny. I won't be abused and insulted by a condescending editor who can't even grasp WP:V, that is why we're here and not on user talk, and that's why their IP is blocked for a month. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Found this nugget on en.wiktionary: 00:45, 28 November 2020 Chuck Entz talk contribs blocked Zhomron talk contribs with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion)

@GabberFlasted: nah, I don't AGF, nor do I attempt to reason, with sockpuppets. Elizium23 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I refuse to dignify you – you are now mass reverting edits I've made with dozens (literally) of reliable sources in order to justify WP:V. Since you revert all attempts to contact you on the talk pages, I'm noting it here. Just as you have, conveniently, completely ignored @GordonGlottal: and @GabberFlasted:'s input, you're now ignoring WP:AGF and WP:POINT. Zhomron (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Just keep edit-warring, bro, per WP:ROPE I can't wait to file the new SPI. Elizium23 (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Their account at the First National Bank of WP:AGF is well into overdraft territory at this point. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2022 Elizium23 (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Go right ahead mate. Violation of WP:3RR and WP:GAME, I cannot wait to comment on it. Zhomron (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No rush, no rush; I'm just waiting for @Ellin Beltz: to weigh in on why you were originally blocked at Commons for mass-uploading non-free content in 2017-2018. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Zhomron still has a bad habit of not filling out the edit summaries as stated in my ANI report against the editor. Are there any repercussions for continuous failure to fill out the edit summaries?. If not, does that mean I or any other editor not have to fill out the edit summaries either? Judekkan (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, Judekkan. This was brought up last time - summaries are not mandated, just highly encouraged. We have a whole information page on it. Zhomron (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigations

• BedrockPerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BedrockPerson is a globally-locked account whose owner, beginning in 2017, engaged in sock puppetry, edit-warring, disruptive editing, uploading of copyright violations, etc. They have been blocked from Wiktionary (2020), Commons, and enwiki. They have also edited the French, Hebrew, Yiddish and Wikidata projects. I will be compiling behavioral evidence to link BedrockPerson to Zhomron so that they may receive justice. Your collaboration is welcome as always. Elizium23 (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

IP range making unconstructive edits and edit warring

The IP range Special:Contributions/2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0/48 has been making unconstructive edits to a number of articles, and edit warring for their preferred versions. Their edits include adding unreferenced information to BLPs. Virtually all of their edits for the last two weeks have been reverted. It has been difficult to engage with this editor because their IP is constantly changing, and they have not engaged with conversations started on talk pages.

Diffs of edit-warring behaviour at Mitchell Marsh: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

Attempt to engage with the user at Talk:Mitchell Marsh: [28] (the user was notified at User talk:2402:D000:811C:5FAE:84EA:8475:FDA2:70AB as it was their most recent IP address, they've made subsequent edits without acknowledging the attempt at communication)

Questionable changes to BLPs (now reverted): falsely claiming the subject is transgender; removing virtually all content to call the subject a "show boy"

It also appears they've wanted to add unreferenced content to Mark Finchem but could not because the article is protected, so they've made edits instead at Talk:Mark Finchem, falsely claiming the subject has African-American heritage twice. OliveYouBean (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor is still active. I've just had to revert another of their unconstructive edits to Vinodh Perera here, which had a pretty aggressive edit summary of "Those who want to change this, check real life of this mother fucker......". OliveYouBean (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Knoterification issues with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE

User Knoterification has been violating WP:NPOV for some time, often removing entire paragraphs backed by good sources. Example 1. What has caught my attention, where I believe WP:FRINGE applies, is that the user constantly removes or try to push a narrative against Black people. Latest example, where they didn't use the "undo" button properly in the Eugenics article, possibly to avoid being detected. Other examples include: Example number 3, where in a WP:DNR dispute, the user did not refuse any of my arguments about downplaying racial issues of a particular protest after the murder. Example 4, when they first tried to start an edit war in the previous example, I found a silly reason to remove content regarding existing struggles in Brazil.

I haven't opened a discussion here because dealing with them at DNR was quite stressful, and I wanted to focus my attention elsewhere. Tetizeraz - (talk page) 23:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In example number 1 I have already stated that I was wrong to erase that information. We are all humans and make mistakes.

I have never pushed a "narrative against black people". I am simply trying to correct americancentric bias about subjects relating to Brazilian society and history.

In relation to the eugenics article, I am correcting a contradiction in the article itself. While it claims, correctly, that:

"the Whitening Policies advocated miscegenation in order to reduce the numbers of pure Africans in Brazil in favor of mulattos, who were expected to then produce white off-spring",

it than claimed that: "This led to the "Politica de Branqueamento" (Whitening Policies) set in practice in Brazil in the early part of the 20th century. This series of laws intended to enlarge the numbers of the white race in Brazil while reducing the numbers of descendants of African slaves.

Those two statements contradict each other. You could claim whitening policies tried to reduce the number of black Brazilians, but not that it tried to reduce the number of descendants of slaves, because the goal, as shown by the first statement, was to make black Brazilians have white descendants (as shown by the painting in the article). Those white descendants, having black ancestors, would still be the descendants of slaves. Knoterification (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

In relation to examples 3 and 4. I still believe I am correct and following a neutral point of view, because in both cases the disputed information is based on interpretations of sources, not on the information given by the sources themselves.

In example 3, you interpreted that when the interviewed man said he was harassed by people of light skin, he was meaning white Brazilians. I however, find the use of that expression, instead of "white people", unusual, therefore, I thought it would simply be better to put it in its original form. "people of light skin". It points to colourism, which has always been the main feature of racism in Brazil.

In example 4, it is nowhere "fringe" to dispute that white Brazilians are a dominant minority comparable to American-Liberians, Alawites in Syria of Afrikaners in South Africa. Fristly because white Brazilians are roughly half of the population. Secondly because what is well established by scholars, is that Brazil is firstly and foremost a social apartheid, meaning a small white elite holds the vast majority of power and resources. But among the general poor population a relevant segment is white. 30% of inhabitants of favelas are white for example. https://m.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2011/12/1024312-populacao-de-favelas-e-predominantemente-parda-mostra-censo.shtml Knoterification (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

In relation to the undo button. I swear by God it was an accident, I am not that good with computers. Knoterification (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Bradleyk360 copying and pasting premise from other websites

User:Bradleyk360 has been adding premise section to Tv shows which are blatant copy and paste/English translation from the network that aired the respective Tv shows.[29][30][31][32][33] He has been warned by three editors in the past regarding this issue. TheHotwiki (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User: HotWiki has asked me to attribute the content that I was adding which I have done. it is fully attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lets review your edit I reverted.[34] Not only it is a blatant copy and paste from GMA Network's press release, but you are also marketing the show by keeping weasel words/sentences ("Will Celeste choose the bright lights of Manila with Tonito or will she leave her heart and live a possibly quieter life in Sorsogon with Mikoy?") which aren't allowed in Wikipedia.TheHotwiki (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:HotWiki has been deleting every single premise i added with my own words based on source that i have always given,accusing me falsely of copying and pasting when it was never the case. He did it repeatedly so i changed the words each time thinking he would validate them but he kept acting crazy each time accusing me of copying the press and other sources to my surprise.

User: Hotwiki sent me Multiple Times articles about attributions and as a NEW Comer i had a hard time understanding what he needed from me. When i finally thought i understood,which means i could take the Text from a public Domain if and only if i Attributed the Text thats what i did. Every synopsis that i have taken from the Website was attributed as he recommended but he still wasnt satisfied now telling me about weasel words which he never explained clearly to me before erasing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User: Hotwiki obviously takes pleasure in misleading other contributors, it seems that he doesnt want any form of premise or Plot added to these pages although it means that the page will be less attractive. Every Single Plot or premise to the Show you use, he regards it as copy and Paste eben if he has no evidence at all. He accuses contributors of things they have not done. To me it is clear and simple that he doesnt want a plot added to these TV Shows.

User: Hotwiki asked me to add the attributions to Text from public Domain, if what i contributed is not allowed on wikipedia i apologize to the admins. I would not be surprised if he sent me those links to mislead me on purpose because his attitude as an admin has been very questionable. I would like to know how can i add the plot that i summarized myself without being accused of copying and pasting as i want to make those pages more attractive which isnt possible because of User: Hotwiki. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bradley360, I do not think that you understand what public domain means. That term refers to content that is not covered by copyright, usually because it was published more than 95 years ago and the copyright has expired. The contemporary content on websites of entertainment companies is definitely copyrighted, and you cannot tag it as public domain. That is a violation of the law and must be removed immediately. You can write premises and plot summaries in your own words but you cannot copy and paste big blocks of copyrighted text and call it public domain. It is not allowed. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Hotwiki is not an administrator but I am. Bradley360, the evidence shows that you have incorrectly labelled copyrighted text as public domain at least five times. Please stop until you understand the basics of public domain, copyright and close paraphrasing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at @Bradleyk360‘s comments on @Hotwiki‘s talk page, I think @Bradleyk360 should receive a formal warning to refrain from personal attacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User: Cullen328 thank you very much! This is exactly what i had been doing, writing the premise using my own words while associating the source which is the official Website but he kept erasing everything telling me that i'm copying and pasting press. Now i definitely understand. User: hotwiki did confuse me by erasing every word i had literally put together. The only premises User: hotwiki has not deleted is of course the ones i did wrong by copying as he Made me believe with an article about attributions that there was indeed a public Domain for a Show released in 2021! I will right away correct my mistakes and i hope User: hotwiki will stop reverting user's contributions for no reason. We are all here to learn and grow as much as possible. Thank you admin. I wish everyone was as Patient as you, i would have already become a better contributor by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User: rsjaffe i am sorry if i could not speak in a better Manner but what you read are the comments of someone whose work has been erased for weeks by User: hotwiki by labeling my work as blatant copy and Paste for no reason At all. I knew his attitude was not right but i did not know where i could complain to. I changed my words my very own words Multiple Times in large and in shorter Texts only to please User: hotwiki so that he will not erase my work but a few Minutes later or hours he was erasing it again accusing me of the same thing. That is why i said he was abusive because his attitude was. I am sorry to have reacted in this Manner and i will definitely do better in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bradley360, your edits were reverted because they contained false and legally incorrect attributions, and also too closely paraphrased the sources. I understand that you are new and trying to learn. But you should not get upset with another editor who reverts your significant errors. Just stop making the errors. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Admin i have already erased all the attribution templates i wrongly used thanks to User: hotwiki and here is the premise of a page with my own words based on a youtube Trailer as i used to do before when User: hotwiki kept erasing my contribution. If you would please Review it and tell me if i am indeed wrong in the way i contribute to the synopsis or Plots of TV shows and i will improve it.[35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bradley360, I do not know whether your premise is accurate but it does not seem to be a copyright violation, as far as I can see. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Thank you admin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@ Cullen328 hello Admin again, I'm so sorry that I have to disturb you about this issue over and over again but it seems that user: HotWiki decided Wikipedia should not be a peaceful and pleasant environment for all. He erased another contribution of mine, it is getting exhausting. could you then again please review it? I added the source so you could read and see if that's blatant copy and paste as user: HotWiki insists in accusing me of. If my contribution is indeed wrong I will send my deepest apology to User: HotWiki. please and thank you. [36] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyk360 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You know you were reported here for a reason. How about just stop "making premise sections". You keep adding the same copyrighted materials into those articles, with onlu small tweaks and they still look like copy and paste materials from other websites. Also you have to stop, taking this personal. You have been warned to not attack editors, and the evidence is clear here that you are still doing it.TheHotwiki (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You reported me for reasons that aren't true because I do not copy nor do I paste as you claim. you even told me today after deleting another contribution of mine that I should stop editing. I don't know why a common user would say that to another one but even so I did not attack you, did i? I came here to ask to an admin so how is that attacking you? for the last few days every user that saw my premise did not undo it, some even made corrections but nobody told me to literally stop Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind that I'm asking to an admin how we should solve this matter because I want to contribute in this way and you seem determined not to let me do so unless you approve of my contribution. I don't find it fair that my contribution should depend of your approval? especially when of all users you seem to be the only one who has a problem with it.You don't bother trying to correct it, you just erase it completely.Bradleyk360 (talk)07:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well-meaning editor who has problems with verifiability

Maitrey M. Telang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user mostly edits on pages regarding the Indian armed forces, but most (nearly all) of the time they don't give any sources to back up their changes (see [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], and many others). Despite several warnings, they still don't seem to get the point, sadly. BilletsMauves^€500 18:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Commenting so it doesn't get archived BilletsMauves^€500 18:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@BilletsMauves: I checked their latest edit, and it was actually pretty solid as our current article on the Sea King says that variant doesn't have ASW systems (source). Seeing as they've slowed down the pace of their edits (possibly? hard to say), and you haven't gotten any comments here, then you might want to re-file the report at WP:AE next time if they pick the behavoir back up. Doug Weller gave them an alert 3 months ago, so they're formally aware of WP:DS related to India. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Craffael.09

Craffael.09 (talk · contribs · logs)

Craffael.09 has been claiming to have been an editor since 2017, and that their original account was hacked and deleted. However, the account that they claim has never existed on either en.wiki or fr.wiki, and obviously accounts can't be deleted. Craffael.09 is using this fake claim of being an editor since 2017 to try and gain clout, including starting an ill-fated RfA (which was courtesy deleted) that wasn't even transcluded properly. This quickly turns from mostly harmless innocence to outright disruption. They've used their lie about having an account for 5 years to request permissions. They've adopted or attempted to adopt users with multiples more experience than them ([44][45], even though they themselves can barely edit competently. Their participation as a DRN volunteer ranges from useless to outright damaging either by their comments or their lack of ability to control the conversation [46][47] (compare that to what an actual DRN mediator does). They've now tried their hand at GA reviewing by doing this "review" [48]. They've completely ignored the advice of several users at their talk page (including Floquenbeam's very well-worded response), and are continuing to trek down this path of lying about how much experience they have to try and gain clout, which is causing real manifested damage. Curbon7 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Ugh my mistake I forgot to notify them. Thank you Swarm for fixing my mistake. Curbon7 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, one of their accounts, User:Ieohrbdnjbfgduigbrhrbjdj, was indefinitely blocked French Wikipedia for vandalism. I don't understand why User:Craffael wasn't blocked, too. User:Crffli is them, too. fr:Special:Diff/196796303 makes it pretty obvious that the account is just playing around on French Wikipedia. None of this was on English Wikipedia, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well it seems pretty obvious that they’re just playing around here too…Floquenbeam identified these issues several days ago. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate User:Craffaeldabest, User:Craffael2021 and User:Craffael2 are also them. Same claims to be an experienced editor [49], same claims that their account was hacked [50], same interest in the lord of the rings and TV, same messing around with things they obviously don't understand (one of the accounts seems to have tries to make a wikiproject in template space?) and the obvious name similarity. I agree with swarm that their edits here seem to just be messing around. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear looking at those that the multiple accounts are being used to try and game anything, and looking through edits they don't seem obviously deliberately disruptive, but there's obvious issues with experience and it's weird to claim accounts that don't exist (they also claim to have been RaphLibUland (talk · contribs) at User talk:Craffaeldabest). Removal from DRN should be enforced with a partial if necessary. CMD (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m gonna be honest, right now I’m interpreting this as a known vandal/troll who is roleplaying (poorly) as an experienced and trustworthy member of the community, that is pretty much what we know at this point. I’m curious to see what others think about this strange situation, but I’m thinking this is a NOTHERE situation, regardless of what their motivations actually are. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I've commented three times at User talk:Craffael.09, if this comment is misleading or inappropriate do let me know. IMO this is a generally good-faith, friendly editor who is unconstructive IMO, but still edits 30% at mainspace, with these edits not being all that bad. Nevertheless, there are a couple of mistakes made IMHO.

1. Reviewing good articles- Despite warnings from multiple users at User talk:Craffael.09#Talk:Morgoth/GA1 they did not withdraw the review or improve it after seeing the message, instead ignoring it.

2. Unconstructive and poor handling of WP:DRN discussions, which require more experience.

3. Inappropriate adoptions. The user lacks sufficient experience to properly mentor others, shown by them not (or lacking sufficient experience to) teaching about the basics, e.g., WP:5P, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:VANDALISM, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:GA to name a few I can think of), instead superfluously giving WikiLove, after the adoptee requested help at User talk:Craffael.09#First of all, the user proceeded with poor c/e that was not comprehensive, 1, 2. Further, following numerous other users recommending against adopting others, including Liz warning against at User talk:Suryabeej, diff, and warnings at User talk:Craffael.09#adminship, the user refused to accept valid concerns, and continued to offer adoption.

4. An inappropriate WP:RFA (which has already been deleted) and subsequent advertising at VPM.

In consequence, I purpose that the GA review be closed and vacated for a more experienced user to review, vacating current DRN discussions Craffael.09 is taking part on for more experienced users, and sanction the user from adopting more users (including recommending Ruwaym to select another adopter). If my summary is inadequate, improper, misleading, or confrontational, please do let me know, additionally, feel free to strike parts you believe are unsuitable. Many thanks again for your considerations and time! VickKiang (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editors that the involvement of Craffael.09 at DRN has been problematic. They began by jumping into the Star Control dispute as the volunteer who would help out, after I had already opened that case. Their involvement in the Mary, Queen of Scots and West Herzegovina Canton disputes has alternated between overly active and neglectful. They have either tried to offer what they called a consensus solution to disputes (when there obviously wasn't consensus, or the dispute wouldn't have been at DRN), or allowed back-and-forth discussion to continue too long (and back-and-forth discussion is seldom productive at DRN, because it has already failed) before hatting it. We have a shortage of volunteers at DRN, and I want to be welcoming to any new volunteers, but this one seems not to be helping. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The multiple started and abandoned accounts with similar names (usually more than 90 days apart) are also troubling. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Robert McClenon. While this user doesn't necessarily seem to be here to intentionally cause problems- they are causing problems. Lots of them. Never before, to my knowledge, have we had to discuss how to remove a volunteer from the DRN- but their inexperience and lack of mediation skills is.... well it makes their volunteering untenable. They are making things worse. I mean- lord knows Robert is overworked, and I am not enough help- we need more volunteers but WP:CIR. Their GA nomination? I'm sure their adoptee has worked hard- but that doesn't mean the article is ready to be GA status. They should not even HAVE an adoptee. They need to be adopted. And an RFA- no. IMO- they need to have all their rights stripped down to base and warned that if they abandon and create a new account they will be banned. Just my opinion. Take some time- learn the ropes. Work on becoming the fabulous editor you clearly want to be- and then start taking on some admin roles. Like the DRN- maybe start out by clerking there a bit. When new case is opened- check that it fits us- that all editors have been notified, and that there has been discussion- then note that, and let a more experienced volunteer mediate the actual dispute. Watch how we handle it- then start assisting with mediation- maybe mediate one with a mentor. You don't have to just jump in and go full force. I think its admirable to want to be a big help to the project, but without knowledge- your just causing more work for others. . . And please- don't just abandon this account and wait 90 days and make a new one. You haven't responded here, so I'm afraid thats what is about to happen. Please prove me wrong! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• I started to list all the things I thought we should "make" them do to avoid a block in the future, and it got really long really fast. Stepping back and reviewing their fr.wiki and en.wiki contribs from their various accounts, is there any objection to an indef block now for disruption? They're just screwing around, and have demonstrated zero concern for the effect that this playing is having on other editors. The behavior of the Craffael.09 account on en.wiki alone might lead to suggestions of mentoring, guidance, not biting newbies, etc. But, really, this is long-term disruption that is not going to stop. Any future accounts can be blocked for block evasion. Any unblock request should be met with either a "no, come back in a few years", or "ok, subject to the following 6 restrictions...". Any objection? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam Please do it. They can explain what they have been doing, going back to 2007 off and on, in an unblock request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sad, but I would support this solution. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked them indefinitely. They do not seem to go back and use other accounts once abandoned, but I'll go thru the socks listed here and block those too in a few minutes. I've asked for help cleaning up the mess made at the GA review. @Robert McClenon:, can you deal with the mess at WP:DRN? I'm not sure I'd know what the best way forward was. I will also contact their adoptees to let them know. Any other cleanup anywhere that I've missed? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Floquenbeam - I've assumed the role of mediator in the two disputes that they were mishandling. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Would it be useful to community-ban the user (which of course applies to all of their accounts)? Since they have also been misbehaving on the French Wikipedia, should we ask stewards to globally lock them? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

They have, of course, already started socking. I just blocked User:MrYellowWatermelon after a note from a CU. Which explains why they went radio-silent as soon as this ANI was started. I'm not a big believer in community ban discussions for obvious problem editors who are indef blocked, but that opinion might be in the minority. I'm thinking more along the lines of RBI. But no objection if you want to start such a discussion. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I've undid User:MrYellowWatermelon's GAN nom and comments at Talk:Misato Katsuragi, IMO another editor should do the c/e instead. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

VickKiang - could you also undo the GAN nom and comments at Talk:Morgoth and delete the GA1 page Talk:Morgoth/GA1 so we can have a fresh review? Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Undid those and requested CSD. VickKiang (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This category

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

Category:Police departments of On Patrol: Live has been created by HollywoodREDIRECTOR, and he is currently adding the pages about cities (not actual police departments) to it and has not responded to my question about why he is adding it to cities or what the purpose is for it. As I explained at Categories for Discussion, I find this to be a very useless addition, but maybe others would disagree. If editors here would agree that this is a useless category, I think it needs to be deleted, and this guy needs to stop adding it to pages. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

They've created these two unnecessary categories:

Category:Alphabetical lists

Category:Police departments of On Patrol: Live

They've also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Alphabetizing. I don't think we need an entire WikiProject with only one member --Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a natural task force for WP:WikiProject Lists. Levivich (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Among Us for POTUS: @Nythar: Can you show us the prior discussions about this issue? --Jayron32 14:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, I was just passing by here when I saw this report. No prior discussion took place because nothing happened. (I don't usually prefer immediately reporting someone before attempting to communicate with them, but there were several attempts at communication and HollywoodREDIRECTOR didn't reply.) Current discussions are taking place at two CfD discussions for the categories and an MfD for the WikiProject. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 18:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    • If no prior discussion has happened, then why are we having the discussion here? ANI is a last resort for intractable behavioral problems and not a place to get content disputes resolved. Unless there is someone is getting blocked or banned, or an article needs to be protected or deleted, there's no reason to come here. --Jayron32 19:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

      User talk:HollywoodREDIRECTOR#Category:Alphabetical lists. GiantSnowman 19:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

      Jayron32, I agree it shouldn't have been taken here. The categories could have simply been nominated for deletion. Maybe we should advise the OP? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 21:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

      • I presume they can read. --Jayron32 11:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:ImprovetheArabicUnicode

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

This user has created two very problematic articles (Goycha-Zangezur and Rizvan Talibov) full of clearly false/non-factual statements based on either original research or biased, partisan and unreliable sources and has added info connected to the concepts on many other articles [51]. The user also seem to out himself on his profile page [52] that he has used accounts previously that have been blocked for sockpuppeting [53] and for other reasons [54]. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The accounts listed are a strange collection. The first claims to be Pakistani and made a very small number of edits from 2006 to 2014. The second doesn't exist. The third only ever edited their user page and only for a day in 2019, and includes Urdu (so might be the same person despite the user page stating South Africa). The fifth and sixth both have a handful of edits on various pages of languages in and near Pakistan, although the edits are three years apart. The fourth is the only one with an extensive edit history, and is blocked as a sock of this case, the accounts of which seem to all have Pakistani-related interests. No idea if these are all the same person, but there are some links. The ImprovetheArabicUnicode account has a few Pakistan-related edits before jumping over to the aforementioned Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area. Courtesy ping to Girth Summit and RoySmith, who have recently been involved in the SPI and might know more about this case. CMD (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis which SPI are we talking about here? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005 CMD (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith - Muhafiz-e-Pakistan was split off into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhafiz-e-Pakistan - similar editing interests to CyberEyes, but CU data consistently geolocated to a different part of CyberEyes's country, and recently was editing from a different country/continent. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I ran a check, since they were claiming to be a sock of a blocked user, and they are  Confirmed to Muhafiz-e-Pakistan and their last sock, محفوظ ہمارے زبان. I don't see any other accounts on their latest IP, which looks like it's stable, and located in the new country. I haven't looked at the old accounts their claim to be theirs, I assume they're long-since stale. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Masses of poorly sourced content added to crime articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• CoverageDragon (talk · contribs) has been warned by Acroterion and Diannaa for disruptive edits and copyright violation. Hasn't slowed the train; everything needs to be checked for sources and possible copyright issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

See Zodiac Killer, as one example, where much unsourced content appears to have been taken from a fansite, after warnings by Diannaa. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting - see contribs of User:0HH0LYN1GHT, who was doing the same thing on some of the same articles before being blocked a few weeks prior to this account showing up. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 blocked that account--he's an expert on block evasion. Wouldn't be surprised if other similar accounts are involved. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Same at Ted Bundy--lots of crime details copied from or paraphrasing crime fan websites. I can't access some of the articles, but again, suggest mass reversions for copyright issues, poorly sourced content and block evasion/WP:LTA. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism by adding contents without resource & deleting sourced contents

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

This user repeatedly removes sourced contents and adds his own version of truth. Please check his talk page where I have written to him. Moreover, he keeps adding contents without any source to separate Maz Jobrani (a comedian who was promoting NIAC for many years) from NIAC (an Iranian organization in the USA that recently turned to be lobbing for the brutal Islamic dictatorship of Iran in the USA), therefore there could be a case of "conflict of interest" between "Maz Jobrani" and the user "Michelledooley". Iranwatcher (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:Michelledooley appear under headings of "Please stop vandalism" and "Stop vandalism". That is not suitable for an edit like this which is very definitely not WP:VAND. The article talk page (Talk:Maz Jobrani) should have an explanation of the situation concerning that edit. All I can see are claims that Maz Jobrani is not a board member of NIAC from 2018. Is there any evidence that Jobrani is currently an advisory board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC)? The article has four wishy-washy references from 2016. I'm not looking for an explanation here—it should be at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

("Michelle" is also probably not a "him") Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kbrose

Repeated removals of valid content from automatic number announcement circuit without consensus. User has already been warned on the article's talk page but continues excising valid, factual information here, here, here. Looks to be gaming 3RR by keeping just under the radar in revert frequency, while using misleading edit comments like "cleanup" to disguise that he is repeatedly deleting all of the test numbers, including well-known system-wide facilities on major incumbent carriers. Last stable version before this user began his content-removal spree and the associated edit war looks to be this; yes, this has been going on for a month, despite the intervention of multiple users. 66.102.87.40 (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

By "multiple users", it seems you mean a shifting IP and an account with a total of 30 edits in five years. Perhaps the provided explanation (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) is valid? Since this report was added, another independent editor has joined in by again reverting the list of ANAC numbers. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm the uninvolved editor (though at that point I may be involved). As far as I saw, Kbrose is simply enforcing WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and the "shifting IP and account with a total of 30 edits in five years" (because I couldn't word that better myself) is trying to disrupt that. Regardless of whoever is at fault, I feel like everyone, including myself, has been assuming bad faith against each other, something we can hopefully fix. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You might want to check my edit history; I've had this same IP address for a year. The user who first noticed Kbrose's repeated removals of content and attempted to fix the problem is not me. This has been going on for a month with multiple users attempting to get him to stop, or at least agree to some sort of compromise where a few of the main system-wide numbers for major incumbent carriers (Verizon, Bell Canada, British Telecom, Telstra and the like) are left intact with the small, local numbers omitted. That small handful of examples does not a directory make, no matter how long this one individual continues with his my-way-or-the-highway removals of valid, factual and useful info. The numbers are needed for installers to determine which line they're plugged into in the analogue landline world. They're not a hack or crack.

I'm asking that the pending changes reviewer and rollbacker permissions be revoked from this user until such time as he is no longer removing valid content and no longer engaged in this edit war. I looked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_permissions but it just seems to send me here. 66.102.87.40 (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor states that they are a troll, I believe them

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP editor Special:Contributions/2603:6080:F740:3580:94A5:D90C:E170:15AF states on my talk page that they are an Internet troll (diff). Previously, they made two non-NPOV and possible OR edits to Wes Moore, which I reverted. I think we should take them at their word and accept that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I'll go add the required notice to their talk page now. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by User:Orangemike. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Alsoriano97

Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User edits in portal namespace: [55]

This case was initially filed at WP:AN/3 as a follow-up to a previous edit-warring sanction, but was referred to WP:AN/I by the handling admin due to complexity and scope.

• Alsoriano97 was blocked less then a week ago for edit warring and violating 3RR as a result of this discussion.

• On 4 Nov, Alsoriano97 reverted a entry relating to the 2022 FIFA World Cup [56]. No reason was provided, with the nonsensical edit summary Uhm….

• The removal is reverted by the original editor [57]. Given that no reason was given for the removal of a legitimate entry, this seemed to be reasonable. Subsequently, the entry is removed again [58], with no edit summary.

• Given the nonsensical and unjustified removals, I re-added the entry, while amending the wording of the entry [59].

• Afterwards, the entry is edited by a number of editors to further correct wording and content. Despite the subsequent edits by many editors, Alsoriano97 removes the entry again [60], claiming A "deputy minister" is certainly unnotable.

• I reverted this removal [61], and told Alsoriano97 to gain consensus on the talk page, creating a new entry for the discussion .

Clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again.

I further issued a warning relating to edit warring on Alsoriano97's talk page relating to the removals.

Please stop removing a clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again. You may gain consensus at Portal talk:Current events/2022 November 4.

• In response to the edit warring warning, Alsoriano97 removed the warning with the following edit summary.

Ridiculous your tear down mania against me lol. No lessons you can give.

In response to the talk page discussion, Alsoriano97 wrote the below.

do you really think that a boycott by a deputy minister is a "clearly notable event"? Do you know what a "deputy minister" is? Do you know that the World Cup has not even started? Do you know that people don't come to Wikipedia to "play"?

Both replies contain egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF against not only myself, but the previous blocking administrator and this noticeboard in general.

• A further reply by Alsoriano97 on the talk page has shown he is not willing to discuss or compromise relating to the subject-matter of the entry.

It's still irrelevant. "Announce"? Come on, I'm sure it can wait until the day of the game, right? That's what can be remarkable. Everyone announces many things and Wikipedia is a serious place. It's just that the boycott is still being done by a deputy minister from a subnational (although sovereigb) entity. Do you know what rank that is.

Alsoriano97's tone again breaches WP:CIVIL.

• While 3RR has not been reached in this case, given that it has been less then a week since Alsoriano97's last block for edit warring, and taking into account Alsoriano97's egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF in connection with the edit warring conduct in this case, I feel that it is worth further examining Alsoriano97's conduct and considering further sanctions.

• Alsoriano97 has also directly challenged and dismissed the legitimacy of his last block, claiming it to be a tear down mania against him and that there were No lessons that could be given. Given this dismissal, and his pattern of behavior before and after the block, I believe that the previous block has not had the intended effect and will not be sufficient to stop his disruptive conduct and edit warring activities.

Background:

• Alsoriano97 has a history of edit warring, civility issues and tendentious editing on Portal:Current Events going back many years.
• A search by an administrator returned 66 potential violations of 3RR over a 3 year period.
• An AN/I filing was previously opened against Alsoriano97, where Alsoriano97 was warned to not further engage in the above issues.
• Alsoriano97 has been previously blocked for 3RR violations on Portal:Current Events.
• The majority of Alsoriano97’s removals relate to news on Anglophone countries, with a specific emphasis on the USA. These removals frequently relate to news that, while occurring in the US, are widely reported globally in many RS's.
• Alsoriano97 frequently removes or makes uncivil comments for entries which do not include the country of where the event occurred.

Previous Discussions & Warnings:

Recent

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive460#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User:Alsoriano97 (Long Term Violations of Edit Warring, WP:CIVIL & Tedentious_Editing)
3. Portal_talk:Current_events/2022_November_4
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#"Too_local"_attempted_assassination_on_Nancy
5. Wikipedia:Current_events_noticeboard#Do we really have to place countries all the time?

Significant

1. Portal_talk:Current_events/Archive_12#Multi-Revert_Issue_with_Alsoriano97
2. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Warning
3. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Use the summary box before making an edit!
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#May 2021
5. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Your use of the word "Domestic"
6. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_2#Revert of Current Events
7. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Your revert about Dwayne Haskins
8. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Matt Gaetz
9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: No action)

Carter00000 (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Alsoriano97’s first and only comment Let me explain. First of all, when I say "don't give me lessons". Have you seen your Talk Page? Have you seen the conflicts you have provoked in Wikipedia with other editors in such a vulgar way? Have you forgotten when in the last ANI, many editors criticized your attitudes? Do you really think you can give lessons on how to be a good editor? I can't even do it myself! Why did you come to Wikipedia? What contributions do you want to make? Or just problems with everyone? This is a serious place, away from personal whims.

Secondly. We communicate in writing. What you may misinterpret does’nt mean that it’s exactly what the person meant to say. You have to be more mature and assume that, often, we will read and listen to things we don't like without that implying that we are being disrespected and that the person is rude. Do not mix things up. It’s very serious and reckless to treat a comment as uncivil gratuitously and lightly.

Thirdly. You consider certain questions I have asked you to be uncivil. Simple questions! How should I, from now on, ask you questions?

Fourthly. "against not only myself, but the previous blocking administrator and this noticeboard in general". On what do you base your assertion?

Fifthly. Let the other editors and administrators work. Stop going to the "last instances" without even trying, in a friendly way, to get someone to explain you. Stop "playing court", out of respect for those you are forcing to resolve this.

And lastly, and very seriously. Practically all your last contributions you have made are to open processes against my edits or removing my contributions to try to provoke an edit war only and exclusively against me. This is called harassment, and it is very serious. This nomination is a clear example of it, a nonsense. What exactly is your goal? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you forgotten when in the last ANI, many editors criticized your attitudes? Do you really think you can give lessons on how to be a good editor? It is basically never a good idea on wikipedia to try and use personal criticisms of those critiquing your behavior like this to defend your own actions. Which basically your entire reply is about someone else, and does very little to apologize, acknowledge, defend, or even explain your own behavior. That's not a good look. Your reply here is very much an example of incivility, and I say that as an uninvolved editor, with no bearing on any other user's behavior here. I have no idea how anyone else has behaved in this dispute, but I can clearly see that your reply here is bad news. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it uncivil to state a fact? They can criticize my behavior, but I can't criticize their? Just because an editor opens an ANI, he/she is presumed to be right and correct? And those involved have no right to defend themselves or explain themselves? This is a serious question. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

They can criticize my behavior, but I can't criticize their? Not what I said. There's a way to do so tactfully while primarily addressing the meat of their accusations en face. In general, it is best to allow others to expand upon whether or not the proposer's behavior is questionable, since you should primarily be focused on telling the rest of us why you are not a problem user.

Just because an editor opens an ANI, he/she is presumed to be right and correct Also not what I said. Absolutely the proposer's conduct at ANI is questioned and examined in the dispute, same as the accused. This is to discourage frivolous reports, and to make sure our sanctions are equitable and fair. I described why you as the accused should be focused on telling us - the uninvolved users why your actions actions are A) actually not problematic, B) problematic but not to the point of sanctions, or C) problematic but have mitigating factors, etc. etc.

And those involved have no right to defend themselves or explain themselves? - The exact opposite of what I said. You should be explaining yourself and your own actions.

In general, your style of asking questions like this creates a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment of pitting you against others in an adversarial style, which portrays your emotions as heightened and volatile. I would suggest you find a less confrontational way to discuss these things. Finding a way to talk about topics with other users without upsetting them (and keeping your cool) is a core virtue on Wikipedia, and something with which you appear to be having some difficulties. Figuring out a better discursive style would go a long way towards improving the tone of discussions and how other people respond to you on this website. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

A few lines above I say this: We communicate in writing. What you may misinterpret does not mean it is exactly what the person meant. You have to be more mature and assume that, many times, we will read and hear things we don't like without that implying that we are disrespected and that the person is rude. And I don't say that in vain. I emphasize it because someone can make the mistake of thinking that a person is being challenging or aggressive when his or her objective is not, in any way, that. You can be sure that my intention is very far from turning this space into a battlefield or a cockfight, and I'm sorry that it can be understood that way.

Nor can you pretend that in the face of certain statements that are being made I cannot take them with disagreement. And being dissenting is not synonymous with being rude. And I'm glad that you say that the conduct of the ANI proponent is also scrutinized. I hope and expect that it will be.

About your statement of portrays your emotions as heightened and volatile. This ad hominem accusation is a very serious one that deserves a lot of tact before being issued. You don't know me, nor have you followed my work on Wikipedia, and four written paragraphs cannot define the personality of any editor. Statements about the menage of emotions, which have an inevitable connection to mental health, cannot and should not be made in such a gratuitous manner, especially in the face of written language. I'm especially calm, and I'm sorry, again, that I could be misunderstood. But, no doubt, subjectivity often plays against us. I take your advice that I should cool down, but, and it is scientifically probable, you can't cool down something that is already cold. On other occasions I've been able to debate with other users and they have never defined me the way you have. Again, I apologize.

In the other occasion that I was opened a process in ANI, I apologized because I recognized that Carter and the rest of editors were right when they evaluated my attitude (I insist, uncivil attitude usually very punctual). On this occasion I'm certain that Carter is wrong, and that his intentions, this time, exceed the requirement of strict compliance with the manners of a good editor. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alsoriano97 no one can know your intent if you do not state it. We are left only with an interpretation based on what you write.

Re: This ad hominem accusation is a very serious one that deserves a lot of tact before being issued Just trying to help you understand why this has happened to you several times. If you are uninterested in that advice, I cannot help you. I never said anything about your personality as an editor, I only described why what you write here is not likely to be received well.

Overall, I am uninterested in having an extended and long conversation about this if you are not interested in improving the reception of what you write here. If you think you have done nothing wrong (which is the impression I get from your reply), then I cannot help you. You may feel free to have the last word, I will not reply. Have a great day. Please do not ping me in this conversation after this (directed to everyone, not you in particular) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I will be wrong often and I recognize it whenever it happens, but I'm sure that this time I will not. I think it's important that you read what the IP user writes a little further down and you will understand, maybe and only maybe, why this discussion has me particularly indignant. In any case, I appreciate that you had the will to want to convey to me how what I wrote could be understood. Advice is never in vain. Have a nice day. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I think it's about time we blocked Carter00000 as a timesink who is incapable of working in a collaborative environment. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to state that about 50% of Carter00000's edits are attempts to get other editors sanctioned, almost all of which are meritless and lead nowhere. Their behaviour towards Alsoriano97 is, in my opinion, little more than harassment at this point. In the short time they have been here this user has filed two rejected arbitration requests [62] [63] a multitude of meritless ANI threads (some examples [64] [65]) obviously frivolous edit warring reports [66] etc. Their modus operandi when involved in a content dispute is to try to find some reason that the opposing side should be blocked or sanctioned and file an administrative request, rather than trying to discuss and build consensus.

They are guilty of all the misconduct they accuse others of. They file complaints that others are edit warring, while edit warring themselves to reinstate contested edits [67] and insisting that other editors need to reach a consensus to revert them [68] [69]. They accuse others of being uncivil, while themselves making unfounded claims accusing others of editing in bad faith [70] or being negligent [71]. They have just received an AE topic ban for exceedingly poor conduct [72].

The actual content edits made by Carter00000 are a minority of their contributions and are certainly not worth the constant drama and timewasting they cause trying to get others sanctioned. It is trivial to find examples of poor quality, incorrect or problematic edits. Here [73] they reinsert an item which is completely wrong and is unsupported by the provided source. Here they are edit warring to reinsert utter cruft that does not belong in a global current events portal [74] [75]. Here they are removing an item on the basis of WP:OR and unverified sightings [76]. etc. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, anon, I'm wondering what exactly led you to be here? You aren't involved, you weren't notified by Carter00000 (as I was), and you don't appear to frequent ANI. I think you should log in before anyone gets any strange ideas about who you might be --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gimmethegepgun I don't have an account and I have never had an account. If you are going to accuse me of wrongdoing provide some actual evidence, rather than just casting aspersions. There is no requirement to have been notified of a discussion to comment, and many of the notifications by carter00000 look to be canvasing anyone who might hold a grudge, rather than appropriate notifications [77]. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you need to be notified to comment. I'm saying that the lack of notification, combined with a lack of edits in ANI (suggesting that you likely don't routinely follow events here), makes it altogether strange that you even found this, let alone decided to research and comment on it --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• I can't pretend to have looked into all of the protagonists' edits, but I see that this dispute involves Portal:current events. Why do we have such a page when this is an encyclopedia not a news outlet? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure what the purpose of this comment is. If you can't be bothered to comment on the actual dispute, and are just using it as an excuse to complain about P:CE, you should probably just start an RfC about that instead. Ionmars10 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is a comment on the actual dispute. It would not have happened if we followed policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Would it have, though? At most, you might be able to argue that a single dispute like this is an example of a broader problem with P:CE. Even in that case I'd still recommend starting an RfC and making your case there, since you're not gonna get a long-standing, highly trafficked part of the wiki deleted without seeking comment from the community as a whole. But really, I don't see how the nature of P:CE itself is relevant in this particular dispute. As far as I can tell, this user just happens to hang around there a lot and is engaging in generic edit-war behavior. If they weren't causing trouble there, they'd probably just go somewhere else on the wiki. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Just pointing out that claiming that I have "generic edit-war behavior" and that "this user just happens to hang around there a lot" is, again, totally unknown the way I work. Fortunately I've many things that occupy my time outside of Wikipedia. The important thing is to know how to make everything compatible. And I guess these unsubstantiated statements don't help this discussion. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

My addition of an item about the recent $2 billion Powerball win was just reverted by him. I'll admit a little bit of fault for not checking the revision history to see it had already been added and removed. However, I would like to point out that my version of the text put the jackpot in a global context by noting that it was the largest lottery winning anywhere in the world, ever, which should alleviate concerns about this only being of interest to Americans. Although that shouldn't even really be necessary, given how many items are just "thing happens in country X". Even ITN specifically tells users not to Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive, and this also applies to P:CE per this page: Significance of a subject [on P:CE] follows the same rules as for "In the news" ... (although ... slightly more inclusionist). Ionmars10 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend that you pay attention to my edits and you will see that what you are saying is totally incorrect. If this lottery had taken place in Greece or Thailand I would think exactly the same, but this is not debated here. If there's more traffic from American editors who add news of very low notability to Current Events (taking into account the consideration of the USA as a "super nation" for many Americans and that it's a Portal at the English Wikipedia), it's logical that it will be more visible the people who try to avoid an Americancentrism that many are still unable to recognize. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't want to forget. I also invite you to look at the countless times I have not removed news about the US, participated in US related nominations in "Candidates" to facilitate them being posted in Ongoing, RD or INTR and in favoring certain US personalities or events in this country to be in Year in Topic. As a tip. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so this is a push to "counteract" American-centric news, eh? You'll find that that's not a great reason for reverting other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute unworthy of administrative attention. An item was added to the current events portal, which was removed by Alsoriano97 citing lack of significance. Per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD at that point the editors seeking inclusion should have started a discussion to gain consensus for inclusion. The item was added again without consensus and without addressing the concerns raised (which is fair enough, you say you didn't notice the prior removal or objections of other editors), so it was removed again. This needs to be resolved through talk page discussion at this point.

The only person who's actions here are out of line are Carter00000's, who used this as an excuse to continue to harass Alsoriano97 with inappropriate edit warring notices [78] (two reverts stating a reason for removal is not edit warring by any reasonable definition) and who still does not appear to have understood how BRD and consensus works and is still insisting that editors need to gain consensus to revert what are obviously contested changes [79]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior from User:AndyTheGrump

User:AndyTheGrump has been engaging in various forms of uncivil behavior over an issue which started at Talk:Flying car, but has since spread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and FT/N. The behavior has mainly been targeted toward User:Steelpillow, as both have been in a dispute over the contents of Flying car.

The uncivil behavior started when Andy assumed bad faith and reported Steelpillow to FT/N. Throughout the FT/N and elsewhere, Andy has accused Steelpillow of engaging in historical revisionism ([80] [81] [82] [83] [84]). I requested Andy to provide evidence of Steelpillow's alleged history revisionism, but he refused to do so. Furthermore, the discussion at User talk:AndyTheGrump#Personal attacks makes it apparent that Andy is not willing to listen to warnings. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't 'report Steelpillow to FT/N'. FT/N isn't a behavioural issue noticeboard. I started a thread there on a matter I considered of relevance to the noticeboard, asking for input from others. This was after attempting to have a discussion over what I thought was a fairly simple matter, which resulted in me being told to "stop bashing your PoV rhetoric". [85] Perhaps ZLEA could explain how that wasn't uncivil? As for historical revisionism, the immediate locus of the debate appears to be whether a machine built in 1901 (two years before the Wright brothers' first flight) should be included in a list of 'flying cars' in an article of the same name. Given that the clear consensus amongst mainstream aviation historians is that Whiteheads machine (and others he built or claimed to have built, before and after) never flew, and given that the description of this machine as a 'flying car' seems to originate with a 1901 newspaper report widely regarded as more or less invention, it seemed questionable at minimum for Wikipedia to be including it in a list so entitled. And frankly, I was surprised that someone with Steelpillow's experience didn't see what the issue was. In trying to get a clear explanation I have been faced with endless bluster about a supposed Wikiproject aircraft 'consensus' on lists, which seems to actually consist of nothing more than an essay written almost entirely by Steelpillow, with no real evidence of discussion relevant to the specifics of the case, let alone any actual consensus. Meanwhile though, my curiosity was aroused, and it became clear after a little Googling that Steelpillow had an external webpage heavily promoting the fringe Whitehead-flew-before-the-Wrights claims. [86] I was initially reluctant to bring this up, but given Steelpillow's endless stonewalling, and refusal to actually explain why Wikipedia should be presenting fringe claims as fact, it seemed prudent to do so. Not that it made much difference, since little in the way of actual explanation for this has been offered beyond endless attempts to assert Wikiproject ownership on the article, and a claim that "There is no policy that forbids it, no case to answer." accompanied by accusations of engaging in an " error-riddled personal crusade".[87]. How exactly wasn't that uncivil? And how exactly wasn't Steelpillow's accusation that " the WP:FRINGE police are now wanting to turn our aircraft list style guide on its head, on the basis of one paranoid theory about one entry in one aircraft" uncivil? [88] I await ZLEA's explanation for why I have been reported here, but not Steelpillow? And why is ZLEA claiming that I failed to provide evidence of historical revisionism, after I informed them that the matter was being discussed in the FT/N thread? I provided the evidence. I merely refused to engage with Steelpillow in inappropriately spreading the same discussion over multiple pages. ZLEA is being less than impartial here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't pretend to be impartial. You've managed to tick off more than a few editors in the past 24 hours, including myself. This discussion is about your behavior, not Steelpillow's. I won't deny that Steelpillow has also engaged in uncivil behavior, but it's you who has caused the most trouble. If you actually read Steelpillow's website, you will notice that it doesn't claim that Whitehead No. 21 flew before the Wright Flyer. In fact, the last paragraph makes it clear that he doesn't care who flew first, only that the dispute should be settled once and for all. The case of who flew first has been the subject of legitimate controversy for a while, especially after the Wright brothers' contract with the Smithsonian. It's probably worth noting that the claims that Whitehead flew first were supported in the 2013 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft. For the record, I personally believe it was the Wright brothers who flew first, but I cannot deny that others have provided evidence of others flying before them. While some of the claims are fringe, the Whitehead claim is by no means one of them.

You may disagree with me, and that's fine, but the diffs I provided show that you have not been engaging in civil discussion about the matter. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't pretend to be impartial. Fine. Don't then. I'm sure people can take that into account. Meanwhile, I suggest you take note of how this noticeboard actually works. Which very frequently involves discussions regarding the behaviour of individuals other than the contributor initially named. And as for me causing 'the most trouble', if suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn't describe non-flying things as flying is really 'trouble' worthy of reporting at WP:ANI, Wikipedia is truly screwed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Characterizing someone as pushing historical revisionism is not a personal attack. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Mackensen, criticism of view does not equal to criticism of person. depicting criticism of view as criticism of person itself may amount to undue personalization. I would advice reducing direct interaction for a while. Dispute seem to need regular WP:DRN and WP:RFC.

This is uninvolved non–admin opinion. Bookku (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, cars that didn't fly can't have been "flying cars", no matter how much someone wants them to have been. I trust that will be the result at FTNB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Andy criticizes Steelpillow's views isn't the issue, it's how he does it. Andy was very quick to assume bad faith in the beginning, as well as here and here.

And for the record, a "flying car" is simply the name of a type of aircraft which is designed to drive on the road. The term "flying" is not literal and is used in several aircraft type names and does not mean that the aircraft has to actually be built and fly in order to be described as such (other examples being flying boat, flying saucer, and flying wing). - ZLEA _T\^C 03:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So, if someone mixes a potion, and says that it cures flatulence, calling it a "healing elixir" we should recognize it as a legitimate medicine because they say it heals? What about, you know, reality? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The term "flying" is not literal..... Not in Gustave Whitehead's case, no. Not according to WP:RS. Actual RS (eg. the Royal Aeronautical Society, for a nice summary of what has also been said elsewhere [89]), rather than a Janes article that was later disowned by the publisher. [90] However, I find it hard to believe that anyone should seriously argue that readers won't expect to find actual flying cars in a list entitled 'flying cars'. Or has WP:WEDIDNTMEANITLITERALLY become policy somehow, without anyone noticing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken We should recognize it as the reliable sources recognize it. I have yet to see a source which refers to unbuilt and unflown aircraft as "claimed aircraft" or similar. AndyTheGrump If you want to insist on taking the term "flying car" so literally, then Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster technically counts. The Flying car article makes it clear that a flying car is a name for a "type of vehicle". - ZLEA _T\^C 04:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@ZLEA, @AndyTheGrump, if "flying" in "flying car" is the issue here, maybe you two can settle down on "roadable aircraft"? 'Cause if some aircraft hadn't managed to get airborne, it's still an aircraft, just unsuccessful one. a!rado (C✙T) 07:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that the OP is claiming the uncivil behavior started with Andy. The linked diff presented in support of that assertion is Andy's reply to an uncivil remark from Steelpillow. This report is quite one-sided, and the OP should have taken better care to present an accurate picture. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to Andy's uncivil behavior. I was aware of Steelpillow's uncivil remark, but I did not see a pattern of such behavior from him. Feel free to correct me if I missed something. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This strikes me as a spat rather than an actionable civility problem. There was incivility on both sides, and Andy’s explanation of the context speaks for itself. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Irrespective to ATG's behaviour, ZLEA's original post is just ridiculous.

• "The uncivil behavior started when Andy assumed bad faith and reported Steelpillow to FT/N. " What is it supposed to mean? WP:FT/N discusses not users, but fringe theories. In that sense, it is similar to, e.g. WP:RSN. Is it possible to assume someone's bad faith by going to RSN, NORN, and similar noticeboards?
• "Andy has accused Steelpillow of engaging in historical revisionism". I think ZLEA needs to go to a library, and I am sure they will be surprised to learn that "as many professional historians pointed out to the President, rather than falsifying or white-washing the past, revisionism is simply what good historians do." In other words, contrary to what ZLEA claims, the term "historical revisionism" has no obviously negative connotations.
• In the statement " to promote your pet exercise in historical revisionism" the core claim is not "revisionism" (which is a pretty neutral term), but the words "your pet exercise in " (i.e. that is an accusation of engaging in original research). Are such accusations considered PA?

I think this report should be ignored as frivolous, and the user who submitted this report should be warned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

All other points notwithstanding, I think we all realize that Andy was using "historical revisionism" with obviously negative connotations. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Steelpillow here, the butt of AndyTheGrump's rudeness. If I have in turn been rude then I am glad to apologise. There is a fine line between robust defence against bullying and falling into the same trap oneself. I have already redacted one example, thanks to the intervention of another editor, see here. I would also reproduce the following lists of links from that brief discussion:

Examples of the repeated abuse, doubting my good faith, accusations of wacky conspiracies and deliberately misleading and lying include:[91][92][93][94][95][96][97].

[AndyTheGrump] has been warned[98][99] but continues to be defiant[100][101].

Since that post, his rudeness has continued. So you can see that this is about far more than spurious claims of historical revisionism - claims which are not even relevant to the article in dispute. Indeed, AndyTheGrump has seized on a minor difference of historical opinion (over a claasic aviation controversy) to build a clear hate campaign against me and claim that I am deliberately attempting to subvert Wikipedia. This refusal to assume good faith lies at the heart of his rudeness and his endless digressions, some of which have already found their place above here. If anybody can isolate my specific rudeness from those walls of text, please do point them out to me and I will happily apologise for them. But, since AndyTheGrump stands proud in his violations of WP:CIVIL, I feel that there is a significant issue with his behaviour. Had I not taken a night's asleep for the last eight hours, I would have raised the issue here sooner, myself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow. A "hate campaign"! Have you tried reading the comments from uninvolved editors above? Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Only those AndyTheGrump has scattered everywhere, but I do not regard him as uninvolved. When someone accuses you straight out of lying through your teeth and, repeatedly over multiple discussions and in highly charged emotive language, of subverting Wikipedia, what better description can you offer? Did you check all the diffs I provided? Note that they give the lie to the claim made somewhere above that I started the rudeness. There have been more since that I can collect for you, if that would help? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq said Have you tried reading the comments from uninvolved editors above? and you (@Steelpillow) replied Only those AndyTheGrump has scattered everywhere, but I do not regard him as uninvolved.

Maybe you (@Steelpillow) should consider reading the comments from uninvolved editors, at which point you will see that describing this as a "hate campaign" is a bit off base. Both you and @AndyTheGrump need to step back from this and cool down. It's an internet encyclopedia.

Sometimes the best way to de-escalate a dispute is for one of you (it literally does not matter which) to disengage. If you're the first person to do so, it does not make you weak and it does not admit fault. it makes you a reasonable human being who understands when things get out of hand. If either of you step away from this dispute, and find that no one is backing up your position, it may be that the position was not worth defending in the first place. If no one else steps up to defend it, among all the many zealous people on this website, it probably was not worth defending. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a "bullying campaign" or "harassment campaign" would be more appropriate to following me around from discussion to discussion with these accusations? Call it what you will, the diffs are there to be acknowledged. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It will be readily apparent to anyone looking into the relevant editing history that 'rudeness' began with this post from Steelpillow: The first-to-fly controversy is utterly irrelevant here. Please stay on topic and stop bashing your PoV rhetoric. An editor as experienced as you should know better. Thank you. Even ignoring the rudeness, it is frankly bizarre. Of course the 'first-to-fly controversy' was relevant. It was the reason I'd started the thread, since Whitehead's 1901 (i.e. prior to the Wright's first flight) inclusion in the list was clearly incompatible with the established perspective of mainstream aviation historians. I was being accused of 'POV rhetoric' for suggesting that Wikipedia content should reflect the mainstream view, rather than that of Whitehead's supporters. As for following Steelpillow around, it would not have been necessary if Steelpillow had not misrepresented a debate about the inclusion of a specific item on a list as some sort of conspiracy to demolish a Wikiproject style guide. I have nothing against style guides, as long as they are used as such. As 'guides' rather than a set of 'rules' to be enforced in order to shoehorn inappropriate content into articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I am the editor who warned both AndyTheGrump [102], [103] and Steelpillow [104] about incivilty. AndyTheGrump rejected the warnings, quoting DTTR [105], and when I commented that being a regular doesn't negate the requirements of NPA, and that he should comment about the subject, not about the editors [106], banned me from his talkpage [107].Should certain editors be given immunity from having to be civil or from casting aspersions against other editors? Should these editors be protected at the cost of sanctioning any other editors who dare to raise questions about personal attacks, as User:Paul Siebert seems to suggest above - if this is the case then en:wiki as a whole has a problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

At no point have I asked for immunity from anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Post of @Nigel Ish helped me revisit, understood where they are coming from and appreciate they took immediate and impartial interest.

Those who are regulars do have more moral responsibility to follow WP:NPA faithfully and give primacy to dispute resolution mechanism.

WP mechanism to avoid harshness and incivility need improvement and also improvement in calming down process to give deescalation a due chance and time gaps to reflect upon. Bookku (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

While you undoubtedly were well-intentioned when you issued those warnings, DTTR exists for good reason. Templated warnings to regulars generally serve to raise the temperature without really helping anyone. Moreover, given that you aren't an admin, you were issuing warnings that you couldn't enforce. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I was unaware that DTTR was policy and over-ruled WP:NPA - has anyone told WMF that the UCOC doesn't apply here. Please can someone tell me the policy-based reason why I am not allowed to warn others about civilty issues. It is clear that you think that my opinion is worthless - presumably you think that my contributions are worthless too.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that you aren't allowed to 'warn others about civility issues' when appropriate. You warned me. I responded, so you know I'd seen the warning. I merely asked you not to keep posting further warnings, since I was already well aware of Wikipedia's (rather confusing and contradictory) attitudes to incivility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I've got to say that I'm with Nigel Ish here. If regulars who know the rules continue to break them, then repeated warnings are clearly in order. DTTR is nonsense, and the idea that regulars are somehow outside the normal rules is an exceptionally dangerous route. After framgate things definitely improved here but recently we seem to be drifting back to the bad-old-days. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what?! When did this turn into a referendum on your contributions? All I did was offer a very mild criticism of your actions which included an explicit acknowledgment that you were acting good faith. To answer your question, no, there is no policy-based prohibition on templating regulars. I never claimed that there was. But the fact that you can do something does not automatically mean that you should. It's possible to make a situation worse without violating any policy, and that's exactly what happened here. I am sorry if my very polite criticism of your well-intentioned actions caused you to conclude that I consider your opinion worthless. Have you stopped to consider how Andy might have felt when you dropped a pair of templated warnings on his page as if he were a newbie? Warnings = criticism, so you need to stop issuing warnings if you can't accept even the simplest criticism of your own behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It's true that we are responsible for our actions and need to avoid hurting people feelings unnecessarily. However, these a massively important issue here, the drift back to regarding incivility by regulars as somehow acceptable. Nigej (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I never said that incivility by regulars was acceptable. My allusion to DTTR should not be misunderstood as an assertion that regulars should be allowed to be uncivil. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: Stating that one should not drop template warnings on regulars ≠ stating that regulars have free reign to do everything we have warning templates for. Warning templates are not the project's exclusive means of handling user conduct. They are made generally for new or unknown users as they find their footing in the project. You and I and the sun and the stars all know that templating a regular will A) not inform them of anything they don't already know, and B) most definitely upset them, particularly when a dispute is already happening regarding the matter. If you're having a heated argument with someone, you wouldn't stop the discussion to say "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" unless you were deliberately trying to upset them. I hope I'm adequately expressing that warning templates are great and all but they don't exist in a vacuum, and if you know a template is only going to upset the regular, without informing them of anything, you probably shouldn't paste it to their talk page. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted: this was a very well-stated explanation, but it does not appear to have been well-received. @Nigel Ish: is there a reason why you are responding to us at your userpage instead of engaging in the discussion here? I genuinely do not understand why you think that we do not want you to comment here. I never said that your opinions/contributions were worthless, yet you have accused me of holding those beliefs. Neither I nor anyone else in this thread ever claimed that DTTR was policy (in fact, I explicitly agreed that it is not policy), yet on your userpage you are claiming that DTTR has been promoted to policy. That statement is plainly incorrect. I write this comment with some hesitation given that you seem to be interpreting every comment as negatively as possible, but I am frankly perplexed by your reactions. Please discuss your concerns with us and make a sincere effort to understand what we actually mean. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I have removed any comment from my user page about behavioural issues on Wikipedia as my thoughtappear to be so objectional to everybody here and do not intend to engage further in this discussion unless I have to as my opinions on the use of WP:DTTR to protect established users and the toxic environment here have been thoroughly rejected. Continuing the discussion here will not be helpful, as this discussion is no longer about any incident, and will merely inflame the issue further.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

WTF is this diversion doing here? Poking NigelIsh is obviously going to further upset a colleague who is already badly upset, which may be taken in the context of all those pious words about not upsetting other regulars. It is also unhelpful to prolong a dead thread about something else, when there are more relevant places to discuss the likes of DTTR and, for my money, WP:TTR. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not poke anyone. It was never my desire to attack Nigel Ish or even to upset them. I had been hoping to resolve the misunderstanding amicably, but I have respected their desire to let the discussion die. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Close as a clear content dispute without action and WP:TROUT ZLEA - This is another example of content disputes spilling onto ANI. Nothing here is actionable in the slightest. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So in your point of view, the requirements of Wp:NPA do not apply to certain superusers. Clearly there is no point in mere mortals in raising any concerns about behaviour. I suppose I should be glad that I have not already been banned from the whole of Wikipedia for not totally agreeing with certain users.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

How about we compromise? I take the slap on the face with a wet fish on your ZELA's behalf, and you find something else to be overly-dramatic about instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I would tell you @AndyTheGrump that describing @Nigel Ish as "overly-dramatic" is also not a great look for you. I would refrain from saying things like that. If they are true, you should, in general, allow uninvolved users to say as much. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I would second this suggestion while also pointing out that Nigel Ish should dial back the over-the-top rhetoric. See their userpage for an example of the problem. Nobody has suggested running them off the site, yet they are acting as if their future on Wikipedia is under threat. I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth, especially not in a such a blatant fashion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

From their rhetoric, you'd think Nigel Ish wrote Wikipedia:Unblockables, but I would point them towards WP:TINC which is, in essence, a direct response to that kind of rhetoric. No one is trying to deprive anyone else of rights, no one is running anyone else out of here, no one is silencing anyone else. Incivility poisons discussions, that much is clear. And a lot of users here are at fault for participating in that incivility. But escalation of discussions always to drama boards like this or over-exaggerating everything to a personal attack is also poisonous to discussions. Overcoming incivility means not participating in it, not getting rid of everyone who was ever not nice to you so that wikipedia can be full of people who agree with you always. This is not meant as an endorsement to @AndyTheGrump or @Steelpillow or anyone else to do whatever they want. It should be clear enough that the community will be watching both of their behavior pretty closely after this episode... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: clearly NPA should apply to superusers, but I don't think we should be applying it so liberally for things like this. I am sorry but i disagree with you on whether it should apply here. It has nothing to do with the "level" of users involved. I just don't think the comments from anyone here are bad enough to merit sanctions from WP:NPA. Perhaps a warning to be more CIVIL to both users, regarding specific things that both users have said. But I disagree with you on whether anything more is warranted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You, along with User:Paul Siebert were not simply saying that the NPAs didn't rise to a level that admin action was required - which is a matter of debate, but were demanding action against editors for raising the issue in the first place. If there are no channels available to raise concerns (i.e. not allowed to warn other editors on their talk pages according to how DTTR is being enforced as policy, and not allowed to raise issues here or else risk sanction) then ordinary editors are reduced to the level of nobodies with no rights.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but was I really "demanding action against editors for raising the issue in the first place" ? I said we should WP:TROUT the proposer for bringing a content dispute here. Have we really gotten to the point on this website where applying a silly joke template to tell people to be a bit more cautious about what counts as ANI-worthy is seen as "demanding an action" a la sanctions? I have never recommended any formal warnings, formal actions, bans, or blocks in this thread.

I also never made any comment whatsoever on whether warning templates should or should not have been used. I think you may be confusing me with someone else.

I think we would all be a lot better off if there were fewer threads at ANI, and if people used WP:3O and WP:DRN more often. There are plenty of other channels to use to resolve disputes like this, and shame on everyone involved for not employing them. No one here is being reduced to the level of nobodies with no rights. There were plenty of other things that could be done instead of bringing this to ANI. No one is "being deprived of their rights" here.

Overall, I would like to point out the problem with some of the behavior here. Drawing uninvolved editors (like myself) into the dispute with heightened rhetoric and high stakes accusations is the beginning stages of WP:BATTLEGROUND. As if everyone who is not with you is against you. Let's just talk about this reasonably, and allow others to disagree with whether sanctions are merited. Please and thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are happy to sanction multiple breaches of WP:AGF and even accusations of outright lies in breach of WP:NPA Moreover you think that shooting the messenger is called for? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh, what? I'm sorry @Steelpillow, but WP:TROUT is hardly a bullet wound. Please just cool your jets. I am sorry that I disagree with you on whether these things merit sanctions, but it is not a statement on your personal worth or conduct as an editor. I would disagree with the tone and civility of some of AndyTheGrump's statements, but I would also disagree with the tone and civility of some of yours. And I don't think either of these raise to the level of sanctions per NPA or AGF. Please respect my right to disagree, thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Of course I respect your right to disagree, I was more concerned to confirm that you were on top of the behaviour issue, and you have done that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Steelpillow, I wanted to follow up on this. Above you say Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are happy to sanction multiple breaches of WP:AGF and even accusations of outright lies in breach of WP:NPA. This is akin to a journalist asking the president So, you like killing yemeni children. How does that feel, to be a child murderer? Do you see what I mean? I would urge you to avoid this in the future, please. It may feel good, or it may make people agree with you already agree with you more, but it does very little to de-escalate a situation or achieve consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

With due respect, I put up the diffs demonstrating those abuses and you responded by saying they were acceptable. That does not feel at all good, especially when you confirmed it, but we have agreed to differ so please let it pass. For what it's worth, my fellow editors on the ground supported me here for a reason, and ANI has been letting all three of us down shamefully. One of them is far more upset than I am. So it goes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Every one of is knowledgeable, wise here and very well understand we all have much more to do, We are not here for WP:Battle of WP:EGO, all us focus is content improvement. and If every one takes a step back and WP:DEESCALATE may help everyone IMHO. Bookku (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Agree there. Much of the discussion has actually been along the lines of "lets shoot the messenger", a classic anti-whistle-blower tactic. Let's focus on the important issue here. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't be mad if I am trouted, I could have worded my original post a little better. However, I will defend my decision to bring this issue to AN/I instead of WP:DRN, as this is not simply a content dispute. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Steelpillow collapsing discussions

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Lists of aircraft, where Steelpillow has twice collapsed relevant content posted by other contributors as 'Off-topic diversion'. This appears to me to be an attempt to control discussion and to assert ownership of the page, in a manner incompatible with WP:COLLAPSENO. Would I be justified un un-collapsing the content? Or (preferably) could someone else do so, since it would seem preferable not to increase the heat even further? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

From my perspective, these were just increasingly acrimonious diversions. If others here do feel that I collapsed content relevant to improving the WikiProject's style guide, I'd be grateful if you only un-collapsed the directly relevant content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Billyball998 is sealioning

I think that Billyball998 (talk · contribs) is using WP:Sealioning at Talk:Book of Daniel. They are a case of WP:1AM and WP:SPA. They are pushing a Sangerite interpretation of WP:NPOV against the academic consensus (the consensus claim is verified by no less than four citations). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Billyball998 is raising a legitimate point Tgeorgescu's approach to excluding the description of the views of religious scholars has been problematic across a number of different articles. Interaction with him tends towards bludgeoning and often involve incivility. The only reason one could disagree with the "scholarly consensus" is because one is either "severally misinformed or a religious bigot".

It does look like Billyball998 is a SPA, which is bad. Someone with tools should probably look at it to see whether it is a sock puppet and take appropriate action. However, the 1AM issue is a red herring. Tgeorgescu drives contributors with different views away from these articles and then claims that any new ones who show up are 1AM. Jahaza (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ryken, Leland; Longman, Tremper (2010). The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310877424. The consensus of modern biblical scholarship is that the book was composed in the second century B.C., that it is a pseudonymous work, and that it is indeed an example of prophecy after the fact. N.B.: Ryken and Longman have an axe to grind against this mainstream academic consensus, nevertheless they report it for what it is.

And... I did not revert Billyball998. Two other established editors did that.

As I stated at WP:DRN, I am not against citing the Medieval Rabbi Rashi. I just oppose citing him as being on a par with modern mainstream historical research.

They may cite Rashi using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but they should leave the mainstream academic view undisturbed. My verbatim statement was:

I am not principally opposed to citing Rashi, but there should be no implication that his dating is on a par with the modern, mainstream academic dating. WP:NPOV is not an excuse for maiming mainstream historical information from the article.
— User:tgeorgescu

The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.
— User:Ian.thomson

Same applies to those "religious scholars": they are often not modern mainstream historians, so they should not be consulted for the voice of modern mainstream historians. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to try to avoid the content dispute per se here, including the problems with academic consensus as a concept.

You've now replied five times in 30 minutes to this comment, which is part of why I mention bludgeoning. Twice I've tried to reply and had my comment edit conflicted out.

You say that you're not opposed to including other views, but you don't seem to work towards a mutually agreeable version, or edit the page in a compromise way to include them as historical or minority while restoring information about modern academic consensus. This seems to be its own kind of sea lioning, where you claim that you want to include those views, but oppose their inclusion in practice. Jahaza (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jahaza: Can you mention examples from the past wherein I have opposed including "religious scholars" using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? I certainly did oppose citing them in the voice of Wikipedia, or as being on a par with modern historians, but I don't remember that I would have WP:CENSORED "religious scholars" per se. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

One hour later: my understanding of WP:TPG is that talk page posts can be edited as long as they have not been replied to. Is my understanding wrong?

And I would gladly be considered "the bulldog of the academic consensus", although more often than not I am the canary in the coalmine. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me spell out your choice: abide by WP:RS/AC or be gone from Wikipedia. There is no need to beat around the bush, the end result is the same: you will be blocked and banned if you don't abide by it. We don't need fundamentalist claptrap masquerading as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Either you kowtow to WP:CHOPSY, or Wikipedia is not the proper place for you. User:tgeorgescu

• I think that this sort of discourse can stand on its own to show the chilling effect and the WP:SYSTEMIC bias that has been bludgeoned into articles on Sacred Scripture throughout enwiki. This topic area has a third rail and if its WP:CABAL rejects anything that isn't CHOPSY then I consider it to be intellectually bankrupt and not worth my editing time or effort. I really do avoid anything related to Scripture because of this pervasive attitude and WP:OWN of articles across the broad topic area. I can testify that it has a chilling effect against any actual Christian scholarly views being represented.

Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the mainstream theological position but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). Claritas (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask anyone who edits in this area: scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Wikipedia. --Ermenrich (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it? Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as scientific consensus which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as Creationism, Breatharianism, The flat Earth theory, Acupuncture and the belief in ancient aliens. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and absolutely no business doing so here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Attempting to picture WP:CHOPSY as an Anti-Christian cabal is hilarious. Most Bible professors from CHOPSY are either Christian or Jewish, but not of the fundamentalist sort. Such accusation is not far from the idea that liberal Christians are not Christians at all, or from the idea that Catholics aren't Christians. You could equally well claim that the historical method is the mark of the beast.

Someone has to tell the newbies as it is: what's wrong with kowtowing to the academic consensus? Aren't we all expected to do that? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add that conservative/traditional (so called fundamentalist) religious positions are not ipso facto sub-scholarly/anti-chopsy, the big 6 regularly publish conservative/traditional religious positions. Chopsy is about adhering to scholarly standards, not a rejection of religious views. I of course do not advocate for citing as evidence poorly sourced or other sub-scholarship, but published works that, for example do not implictly disqaulify the possibilty of prophecy, are not sub-scholarly, and are often published by the big 6. For example the porter young article you cited from oxford. Even Collins does not inherently reject prophecy, he makes claims as to why he doesn't believe it to be prophecy (J.J. Collins, Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with an essay, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by A. Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993)) p. 26. I will post this on the talk page in question (Talk:Book of Daniel) also. Billyball998 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The historical method (aka methodological naturalism to many) rejects genuine prophecies as attestable historical facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not the historical method.. and it is not the criteria of chopsy as evidenced by the fact that chopsy do publish works that leave prophecy as a potential, such as the porter young work. Do you have a source that wikipedia abides by methodological naturalism? I know for a fact chopsy doesn't. Billyball998 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That applies to the World War 2? I would love to publish an article how elves and fairies influenced the battles of WW2. Or does it apply only to the Bible? Then I would love to publish an article that leprechauns have dictated the Book of Daniel. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

wp:Chopsy still applies... i doubt chopsy would consider your article, because of poor scholarship and citations, not inherently because of your beliefs, unless you could apply proper scholarship to your claims. Billyball998 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Answer from Dr. Ehrman: I think the theological modes of knowledge are perfectly acceptable and legitimate as theological modes of knowledge. But I think theological claims have to be evaluated on a theological basis. For example, you know the idea that these four facts that Bill keeps referring to showed that God raised Jesus from the dead. You could come up with a different theological view of it. Suppose, for example, to explain those four facts that the God Zulu sent Jesus into the 12th dimension, and in that 12th dimension he was periodically released for return to Earth for a brief respite from his eternal tormentors. But he can't tell his followers about this because Zulu told him that if he does, he'll increase his eternal agonies. So that's another theological explanation for what happened. It would explain the empty tomb, it would explain Jesus appearances.

Is it as likely as God raised Jesus from the dead and made him sit at his right hand; that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has interceded in history and vindicated his name by raising his Messiah? Well, you might think no, that in fact the first explanation of the God Zulu is crazy. Well, yeah, O.K., it's crazy; but it's theologically crazy. It's not historically crazy. It's no less likely as an explanation for what happened than the explanation that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob raised Jesus from the dead because they're both theological explanations; they're not historical explanations. So within the realm of theology, I certainly think that theology is a legitimate mode of knowledge. But the criteria for evaluating theological knowledge are theological; they are not historical.

“The historian has no access to “supernatural forces” but only to the public record, that is, to events that can be observed and interpreted by any reasonable person, of whatever religious persuasion. If a “miracle” requires a belief in the supernatural realm, and historians by the very nature of their craft can speak only about events of the natural world, events that are accessible to observers of every kind, how can they ever certify that an event outside the natural order-that is, a miracle- occurred? – Bart Ehrman – Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 193)

“Since historians can only establish what probably did happen in the past, and the chances of a miracle happening, by definition, are infinitesimally remote, they can never demonstrate that a miracle probably happened. This is not a problem for only one kind of historians, it is a problem for all historians of every stripe. Even if there are otherwise good sources for a miraculous event, the very nature of the historical discipline prevents the historian from arguing for its probability.” – Bart Ehrman – Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 196)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that I am involved here, I thought I should chime in at least briefly. I see a clear consensus against Billyball998's proposals, and agree that they have been a bit strident on the talk page, but I don't think they have been truly disruptive. I have great respect for tgeorgescu, and agree with him substantively almost all the time, but he tends to be a lot more proactive than I am. I am content to simply keep saying "no" to Billyball998 unless and until they provide us something more compelling than the argument to date. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been participating in discussions concerning Biblical articles for several years. I often find myself agreeing with what tgeorgescu is saying, but he is rather quick to start threatening other users. The conversation gets heated for no real reason. In this case, Billyball998's list of sources does not seem to reflect mainstream opinions. I would personally avoid citing Kenneth Kitchen as an authority on the Old Testament's historicity, since nobody seems to agree with his views. Dimadick (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

seaLioning, at the Book of Daniel? Seems we've really walked into a certain large feline's den in this one, folks.

All that aside, I agree that @Billyball998's proposals here are WP:FRINGEy and depict a serious lack of competence in this editor space. In reply to @Dumuzid I am content to simply keep saying "no" to Billyball998 unless and until they provide us something more compelling than the argument to date. I think eventually that does get tiring, and becomes a pretty clear drain on editor time and resources. Eventually we have to do something to allow editors to spend more time on, yknow, actually improving the articles. TBANs are meant to be preventative in exactly cases like this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed. The language you quoted was from a couple of days ago when I was more hopeful of a denouement. There's a reason I described tegeorgescu as "proactive" rather than doubting his judgment; it seems like time has shown him more correct than I was. Billyball998, your insistence that we keep running in circles on this really is becoming an issue. I would implore you to find another area of the encyclopedia on which to work, at least for a time. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I fully understand that continuing the standstill-argument isn't productive, please see my last comment on the page in question from yesterday to attest to this. Thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussions end up being not productive in large part because tgeorgescu et al. have driven off any editors with different views than their own that are not fringey. Jahaza (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:tgeorgescu - It appears that you are forum shopping. You opened this thread at 1909 GMT, 3 November, after opening the FTN case at 1654 GMT, 2 November, and then also opened the RSN inquiry at 0039 GMT, 5 November. (You didn't file the DRN case that was closed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if that really counts as forum shopping.... Each thread appears to be covering different aspects of this situation. Forum shopping would be if he were taking the same issue to different places to attempt to get a single outcome. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Understood. Then you may close any of the discussions opened by me. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban

See [108]? They're hopeless. They're not even good for rough ashlar. They lack any WP:CLUE. I propose giving them a topic ban for lacking WP:CIR. Hint: there are now 5 (five) WP:RS which all verify the WP:RS/AC requirements. Some people never learn. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• What is the scope of the proposal, so we don't have to guess after looking through? Is it specific to the Book of Daniel, or will a broader topic ban be needed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Scope is anything in the intersection between mainstream history and religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too soon for that. As mentioned above, there are also problems with the way tgeorgescu carries on discussions (I still haven't got used to the way he uses quotes) so I would not use any interactions with him as evidence against another editor. As for the content, while there may be an academic consensus on the dating, that is in itself not a reason to put it in WP voice, and we have no policy that requires us to do so. (WP:CHOPSY, cited above, is tgeorgescu's own essay.) StAnselm (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am fine that instead of writing "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd century writing" we would write "The consensus of mainstream historians and mainstream Bible scholars is that the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century writing". But according to me, that is a distinction without a difference. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose i think its a reasonable proposal, even if you disagree with it, i am not pov pushing or an SPA. also obviously the spurious SPA ban on my account was lifted fyi

Billyball998 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose While I think Billyball998 should accept a consensus against some/all of their points, the simply unacceptable approach to discussion taken by other editors should also be taken into account when assessing BB998's statements. It also looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that a very mild BOOMERANG might be needed; considering this warrantless and gossipy message on a noticeboard frequented by many editors who are already inclined to support the very standards tgeorgescu is aggressively defending. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  The majority of "facts" about Ancient history enjoy a lesser amount of WP:RS/AC than the Book of Daniel written in the 2nd century BCE. That would mean a free pass to maim most Ancient history articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is true. Does not change the fact you violated a core policy (biting newcomers) and without demonstrating any patience with someone who is clearly trying to understand policies they were only just informed of. You are very right that your objectives aren't the issue, but your approach in this specific circumstance was. You are clearly a trusted editor and I'm glad you pushed back against something that broke policy, but the last few days of bickering could have been avoided. I hope you don't get sanctioned and would disapprove of it, just as I disapprove of something towards our new fellow editor (for now). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  That is, assuming that their inability to get a WP:CLUE is sincere (genuine) and not fake naivete. As I said: I did not revert their edits, and there were more editors telling them how we do things around here. Did you see [109]? That was their 8th edit at en.wiki and does not seem at all like how a newbie would edit their talk page. So cut me some slack that I do not believe that they are intellectually unable to get the point, they just pretend to do so. Interesting is that Étale.cohomology (talk · contribs) had a similar POV at [110], [111], and [112]. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  In fact, it's not "interesting," since @Bbb23 has stated that technical data shows that they're not the same user[113]. Implying that someone is a sock-puppet of another account after an administrator has cleared them seems quite improper. Jahaza (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Jahaza: Do you know that there is a substantial difference between technical checkuser data and WP:DUCK? They were cleared of using the same IP and browser, not of having similar edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  In fact, their edit histories are not very similar at all. Please AGF. Jahaza (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  As the saying goes, AGF is not a suicide pact. They usually use the visual editor, as any newbie would, but not at their 8th edit ever. WP:DUCK again at [114]. Yet another WP:DUCK: [115]. Blatant WP:DUCK: [116].

  I think that now it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they do have the same POV. Are they the same person? How would I know? But it is absolutely certain that they share the same POV. The only difference is that they have declared Also I am not Jewish or Christian just fyi. at [117] while the indeffed accounts proclaim Jesus. And if they are neither Jewish nor Christian, I don't understand their motivation, e.g. for Muslim apologists it is very fashionable to bash the reliability of the Bible. For the Baháʼí Faith, the inerrancy of the Bible is not relevant, and Mormons consider themselves to be Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I am also not muslim or mormon... as I said my motivation is an academic one because I don't believe this issue is an established fact and I believe it should be presented neutrally using wps voice. The edit 108 was an edit of the content you posted on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billyball998&oldid=1119574987 Billyball998 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I am considering some sort of WP:BOOMERANG proposal to prevent tgeorgescu from engaging with newcomers. His behaviour even in this thread has been less than ideal, and he has a long history of biting new editors, particularly ones with Christian convictions. I appreciate that his motives are honourable, and that he is certainly here to build an encyclopedia, but the way he is going about it is, IMO, unacceptable. StAnselm (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Christian convictions is not the stuff that irritates me. What irritates me is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for religious fundamentalism. There is a difference between rendering a fundamentalist opinion with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (of which I am fairly tolerant) and engaging in religious propaganda, mainly through removing mainstream historical information from religious articles. The only difference between Billyball998's edits at Book of Daniel and outright vandalism is that Billyball998 took time to argue their POV at the talk page. Otherwise, their purpose is the same as the purpose of fundamentalist vandals who maim religious articles, namely deleting mainstream Bible scholarship from Wikipedia. And your argument holds if they are a newbie, but I have my doubts about that. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I realise there is a a problem with naive editors making edits like that to biblical articles, it's the way we treat them that's the issue. Calling them "fundamentalist vandals" is part of the problem. Yes, their edits should be reverted, but with gentle explanations. Don't you see that the very fact that you posted a thread here is an indication of biting? And even if you have doubts about the editor being a newbie, you're still not assuming good faith? StAnselm (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me like your very first response to Billyball998 on the article talk page was "Let me spell out your choice: abide by WP:RS/AC or be gone from Wikipedia." If that's not WP:BITE, I don't know what is. StAnselm (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Why that strong reply? Because the same POV had been pushed very recently by other editors and IPs. Whether they are or not a newbie does not change the above affirmation that I consider them hopeless as an Wikipedian. And, yes, when I began to edit Wikipedia, I was hopeless as an Wikipedian, but I was simply not obnoxious as to get banned. I have matured intellectually, and only then I could become a reliable editor.

So yeah, there are three possibilities: WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, and a very improbable coincidence. These are my reasons for considering that they are not a newbie.

8 October Jesus is God of gods 003 (talk · contribs)

18 October Jesusisourfreedom (talk · contribs)

1 November 174.242.209.149 (talk · contribs)

2 November Billyball998 (talk · contribs)

That's the timeline of the same POV-pushing at this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Those accounts made unverifiable unsourced claims, I would urge you to point to any edit that I made that was factually untrue, or unverifiable. I did not push any pov, i am not a Christian, I want to remove the bias that exists towards one of multiple scholarly theories, there is no reason to assume Collins is correct when it is a debated issue even and especially within biblical criticism. Billyball998 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

[118] says that the sources you have provided have failed to make the case for your POV.

Also, not Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim, not Mormon, but purely academic interest... do you understand that even if that's true, it still is hard to believe? People with an academic interest are generally speaking not overzealous POV-pushers. Especially when defending someone's else's scholarly POV (yup, it is a POV belonging to conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists).

And less than 10 hours after the POV-pushing edit warring you offered us WP:THETRUTH of the same POV-pushing. That's also hard to believe. See [119]. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I am making no claims as to the truth of any of the views, I am advocating neutrality, saying that the c. 165 bc date is debated, is not pov pushing, i would argue that unwavering commitment to SR Drivers theory, and trying to write it as fact, is actually pov pushing. also fiveby did not review the sources, and he is not the be all and end all. Please make actual arguments against the sources (and individually) that people can check if you want them to be disqualified.

As far as my ability to produce evidence for my claims... its almost as if, as I've stated, it is a debated issue amongst scholars, and I didn't make that up. Billyball998 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In order of not beating around the bush: you have failed to produce any WP:Verifiable evidence that there is a controversy raging in the mainstream academia (about the dating of Daniel). And you had the huevos to call Collins's judgment extreme supposition. Well, for more than a century that's the only mainstream academic view about the dating of Daniel. Other views are simply WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to produce any WP:Verifiable evidence that there is a controversy raging in the mainstream academia (about the dating of Daniel).

The verifiable citations I have provided? What exactly is your claim against them, all of my citations are within the last 60 years, except some of the ones borrowed from Collins.

and where did I call Collins' theory extreme supposition? thanks. All the scholars ive cited are scholarly, even if they are minority, they are not fringe. Billyball998 (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries from Book of Daniel:

Restructuring to keep elements under correct headers, improving flow, removing jargon/unclear (?) ("wisdom circles") defining positions on authorship, added hyperlinks and citations, removed extreme supposition that Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period specifically, added minutia, additional positions, and evidence concerning modern biblical criticism scholars, aswell as rewording of some appeals to authority (ie. "some scholars believe..." in place of "the consensus is that…").

please see the talk page "consensus", please edit if you feel you can better summarize something instead of undoing. moving elements under correct headers, improving flow, removing jargon/unclear (?) ("wisdom circles"), defining additional positions on authorship, added hyperlinks and citations, removed extreme supposition that Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period specifically (OR)(?), adding minutia, additional positions, and evidence concerning modern biblical criticism.)

And you have to produce real evidence that in 2022 AD there is a debate thereupon raging in the mainstream academia. Sources from 60 years ago don't count to that effect.

If you claim that you have an academic interest then I don't have to explain to you which sources count to that effect. If you fail to get the point, then it is a false pretense that you have an academic interest. Does publish or perish tells you anything?

This is very neatly explained at Scientific consensus and arguments from authority on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Collins does not assert that Daniel was authored under the maccabean/hashmonean dynasty, it actually goes against his dating... if it is supposed to mean "at the same time as early Maccabean revolts", it should say that but still that would be synthesis. Especially because Collins estimate of 168-165 bc is not completely with the early Maccabean revolts (which begin in 167 bc)

For you to claim a source is outdated, you have to demonstrate why, you saying they are outdated does not make them outdated. Scholarship in this area has not changed fundamentally in the last 65 years. Scholars in this study routinely cite scholarship even older, see Collins, Flint, etc.

I agree with the point of the video which talks about how a theory can be 'accepted as the consensus when the amount of evidence is overwhelming, and no one can find a serious flaw', this is not true of SR drivers theory. Criticism of the theory represents true scholarship, backed by evidence, not denialism, or anti scholarly fringe theories. Billyball998 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

i think we should move further discussion back to Talk:Book of Daniel. thanks Billyball998 (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This is what Google shows for the search terms Maccabean period: "The main phase of the revolt lasted from 167–160 BCE and ended with the Seleucids in control of Judea, but conflict between the Maccabees, Hellenized Jews, and the Seleucids continued until 134 BCE, with the Maccabees eventually attaining independence." So, may I ask, is c. 165 BCE during the Maccabean period? Or this: "The Maccabean Revolt of 167-160 BCE was a Jewish uprising in Judea against the repression of the Seleucid Empire. The revolt was led by a country priest called Mattathias, and his military followers became known as Maccabees." tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Technically speaking, "macccabean period" is not a term historians (as far as I know) use. There is the hashmonean dynasty, which begins in 140 bc. The first revolts began in 167 bc, whereas collins claim is somewhere from 168-165. In conclusion, I would say c.165 bc is not within the "Maccabean period" (a misnomer) and also Collins claim does not even fall completely within the revolts.

If you are claiming that the first maccabean revolts are called the maccabean period, you should provide a citation, but there is still the other issue.

Now i will try not to continue on this page because this is not the subject of this page, please know in the future I will respond back on Talk:Book of Daniel. thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You stated removed extreme supposition that Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period specifically (twice).

So, not only your interpretation of WP:RULES such as WP:RS/AC and WP:NPOV is confused, your interpretation that a controversy is raging in the mainstream academia is also confused, and it is you who have used misnomers twice, according to what you said yourself above. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not using the misnomer... I am stating that removed the statement that "Daniel was authored in the Maccabean period." Eitherway, the point is i was not calling Collins position supposition, only the faulty wording of the article. Thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Strange, since you did not use quote marks in order to show that it isn't your own view. And even if it isn't your own view, the claim that it is an extreme supposition is highly off the mark. Anyway, your interpretation of WP:NPOV is confused because when the consensus view of the mainstream academia is that something is fact, then it is also a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. I have edited for a long time and I don't know any exceptions from this rule. Since you demanded a WP:RS, here it is: Wessels, Anton; Jansen, Henry; Hofland, Lucy (2020). The Grand Finale: The Apocalypse in the Tanakh, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 150. ISBN 978-1-7252-7601-7. Retrieved 5 November 2022. The Hasmonean dynasty ruled Judea from the Maccabean revolt in 167 BC until 37 BC. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It has not been demonstrated that there is a consensus, offhanded comments are not proof of a consensus, like in the porter young, or peter flint works. My point in providing the sources I have has been to demonstrate a lack of consensus. The video you provided from 16:27 onward might be helpful in understanding my assertion. And please remember consensus does not mean majority, it means its virtually undebated, save for pseudo-scholars and sub-scholarly holdouts.

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable

WP:RS

I don't want to continue the debate about the "maccabean period" because it doesn't seem particularly important, but ill just say that the level of control that the hashmonean dynasty had waxxed and wained, and most people probably would not characterize 167 bc onward as a "maccabean period", it was one of multiple powers. Thanks Billyball998 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You do not make the call about what counts as WP:RS/AC. I have WP:CITED to that effect one full professor and three associate professors, all four published at prestigious academic publishing houses. You have WP:CITED an unpublished Master's thesis as if it would count as WP:RS. As Warshy has explicitly told you:

That is precisely what I said. Anything argued in an unknown Master's thesis is inherently sub-scholarly and unfounded vis-a-vis the high-bar biblical criticism claims that are trying to be advanced here. The simple attempt to try and make someone look up into some unknown thesis dug up from who knows where is really preposterous in my view. Since you have noone here even slightly agreeing with you on any of your claims, it is high time you stopped beating this dead horse here, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you take their advice to the heart, before admins indef you for trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I have listed many more sources, any sources you don't believe to be appropriate please argue why in the appropriate location. Thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

But no WP:RS claiming that such controversy is raging in the mainstream academia in the 2000s, or in the 2010s, or in the 2020s. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: @tgeorgescu: You need to learn the difference between a content dispute and a conduct dispute. RAN1 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  They violate WP:DEADHORSE.

  Let me spell out for you the basics on the dating of the Book of Daniel, and I won't even bother dropping the names of the reliable sources, since this is all rather elementary for anyone who knows some history of the period. I also don't have time for it, and this whole thing is already becoming tiring and boring to death, as anyone looking from the sidelines knows, and as I have already pointed out to you. As I already said, the Book of Daniel did not make it into the Prophets section of the Hebrew Canon. For Jews, in general, the Book of Daniel is rather unimportant as a so-called "prophet." For Christian messianic theology, on the other hand, it is fundamental, because without it there is no basis whatsoever for the Book of Revelation, which is the basic text of Christian apocalypse. However, Jews of the Second Temple period did not start speaking and writing in the Aramaic language before 200 BCE. The Mishnah, which is the basic Jewish religious law collection of the period, did not begin to be compiled before 200 BCE, and it is written still completely in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. The Book of Daniel, is the only book of the Hebrew Bible that has substantial parts of it written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew. These two basic points make any dating of the Book of Daniel before 200 BCE completely improbable. I again, for the last time, strongly suggest to you that you just drop the stick and back away from this dead horse. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  My respone to this quote on the page in question, copied here so as not to misrepresent that the above claims are true:

  Your suggestion is noted. You should know that portions of the Mishnah are written in Aramaic, portions of Ezra are Aramaic, it has also been documented for a very long time that Jews were speaking Aramaic as early as 530 bc in the elephantine papyri (see G.R. Driver "The Aramaic of the book of Daniel). Billyball998 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oh boy, you're trying to pull wool over our eyes. Fortunately, Wikipedia has Hebrew language#Displacement by Aramaic. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, nothing written there contradicts my statements. Also please remember that Collins and almost all scholars believe that Daniel's Aramaic was written well before the Hellenistic era, asserting otherwise truly is a very minority view. Warshys argument is not a logical (imo) or widely accepted one. Billyball998 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  See also https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1707-aramaic-language-among-the-jews tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sawyer, John (2012). Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts. Religion in the First Christian Centuries. Taylor & Francis. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-134-80139-8. Retrieved 6 November 2022. By the second century BCE, Aramaic was being used by Jews for religious purposes too, as can be seen from the Book of Daniel (2:4–7:28), which was composed c. 160 BCE [...] tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) DEADHORSE is not an excuse to ignore policy. I linked two very relevant policies in my oppose, and it's necessary for you to know them. RAN1 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @RAN1: About WP:CONSENSUS: at the talk page of the article, nobody else agrees with Billyball998. About WP:CIVILITY: I did not called them names, at most I said that their interpretations are confused. Also, I do not beat around the bush, but I presume that isn't incivility. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  What I meant was that content disputes are resolved through consensus, but ANI handles incivility problems. RAN1 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  You called them "hopeless" and "not even good for rough ashlar" meaning incapable being fashioned into a masonry stone, a metaphor for uselessness and/or stupidity. This doesn't exhaust the pointed personal criticism deployed and doesn't even begin to discuss the repeated accusations of sockpuppetry without substantial evidence. I suggest you drop the stick here and take the content dispute back to the talk page where it belongs. Jahaza (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  I just saw your message, and I'll take your advice to the heart. May someone close this topic? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Also, you need to be cognizant of the difference between an essay and a policy or guideline. DEAD HORSE is an essay (as have been a number of other pages you have suggested are being "violated". Jahaza (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Jahaza: Billyball998 has lost the article talk page dispute, the WP:RSN dispute, and the WP:FTN dispute. It is high time to admit that removing the mainstream academic consensus from the article has definitively failed. They may become a productive Wikipedia editor only after publicly admitting that their attempt has failed. Otherwise they are just wasting our time with peddling claptrap. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is entirely untrue,

  (RSN: Book of Daniel is asking you to reformat your appeal, no one has even looked at the sources because of how you asked.

  the one comment on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Book of Daniel is disagreeing with you (I believe).

  The talk page discussion is still underway, consensus is not reached Billyball998 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Billyball998, I was preparing to disagree to some extent with tgeorgescu, but that was after seeing you blocked as a SOCK. There is no way i would now because it would be completely unproductive. There are eleven pages of talk archives for that article, much filled with arguments similar to your own. Editors such as warshy are clearly tired of having to drag out the same sources and explanations over and over. The discussion has sprawled across four noticeboards and there is clear opposition to your edit and arguments. This is certainly WP:FRINGE content that would require careful handling and agreement from multiple editors. It will not be reflected in the article as you have proposed, and after a clear warning from some admin i think a topic ban would be appropriate if this continues. fiveby(zero) 01:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, i disagree with the fringe characterization as the criticisms are supported by clear scholarship, please keep in mind fringe does not mean minority or even extreme minorty, it relates to the attitude towards scholarship. That being said I understand that I was not able to convince other editors. Have a nice day/evening/night. Billyball998 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support This user is clearly a pretty large drain on editor time/effort, and provides very little in the way of benefit in improving this article space. a TBAN would be a good way to incentivize the user to improve other areas of wikipedia where they can be more impartial, and perhaps return back to this topic at some later date. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban at this time. What I can see is that User:Billyball998 has views that are not supported by academic consensus and can be considered fringe, and that User:tgeorgescu is using a bludgeon to "win" content disputes. They have not made a case that the support of fringe viewpoints by Billyball998 is tendentious or otherwise disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Robert McClenon above. Also, coming to ANI with a content dispute and citing WP:DEADHORSE is rather funny. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Wandsword

• Wandsword (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jayant B. Udgaonkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Wandsword's sole purpose of editing at Wikipedia is to add derogatory content about the two subject articles, claiming that criminal complaints have been filed against both the professor and the Institute. Wandsword has repeatedly sourced these claims to generic Indian websites (https://pgportal.gov.in and https://dpg.gov.in) without specific links to actual verifying documents. Wandsword has already been blocked once for edit warring over this matter. When pressed for better citations, the user produced a couple of documents uploaded to a Google drive account. Even if we could accept these as a reliable source (we can't), they show only that a complaint has been lodged. No citations have been produced (nor does the user's text even imply) that any investigation of the complaints has occurred nor any arrests made nor any other repercussions of the complaints. For all we know, this could be a case of a disgruntled student filing a nuisance complaint against a professor. User Wandsword has been warned repeatedly about the problem of adding such derogatory information (especially in the case of WP:BLP), but has not ceased to restore the material whenever it has been deleted. I request an administrator to intervene in this matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking that an indefinite partial block from both those articles should be the starting point, and then escalate if Wandsword decides to try and evade it. Give him an opportunity to focus on unrelated articles first. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and  Done. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

User:King Mohammad RZ

Can someone please remove talk page access from this account. This account keeps making personal attacks and keeps vandalizing on his talk page. See [120]. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t have that much experience with notice boards so I’m not sure if this is the right place to put this type of discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Pizzaplayer219. Talk page access revoked, offending edits and edit summaries have been revdel-d. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Likely COI editor (User:Barton1234) repeatedly editing against consensus at Richard H. Ebright

• Barton1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richard H. Ebright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Version of the article with way too many citations and overly positive treatment of subject's accomplishments: 11:26, 29 September 2022

Talk page section where consensus about WP:OVERCITE was established: see here

Diffs of the user reverting against consensus:

1. 19:28, 8 November 2022
2. 20:17, 3 November 2022
3. 18:51, 3 November 2022

User WP:OWN reverting others' attempts to reduce WP:OVERCITE or otherwise helpfully improve article (while calling it "vandalism"):

1. 10:20, 26 April 2022
2. 09:44, 13 December 2021
3. 10:51, 6 July 2021
4. 12:03, 8 February 2021
5. 20:39, 25 August 2020
6. 16:41, 21 August 2020
7. 09:26, 4 May 2020

Unilaterally removing "excessive citations" template without discussing on talk, after removing just 2 cites from a page with dozens for each sentence:

1. 18:06, 9 August 2021
2. 18:05, 9 August 2021

Diff of myself and others warning the user about this behavior, warnings which were ignored:

1. 07:43, 4 November 2022 Follow WP:BRD. You are editing against consensus
2. 01:07, 9 November 2022 (EW template on user talk)

Diff of my and others' attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page, attempts which were ignored:

1. 00:35, 4 November 2022 @User:Animalparty attempting to resolve other dispute with user never responding
2. 11:51, 4 November 2022 Me: See above discussion regarding WP:OVERCITE. The consensus here is to remove these many multiple redundant citations. What specifically do you have issues with?

Attempts to ask the user about COI, to which the user has never responded (or on any talk page for that matter):

1. 23:05, 10 February 2021 @User:PaleoNeonate on user talk
2. 11:50, 4 November 2022 (me on article talk)

Diff of ANI notice posted to user's talk page:

1. 22:59, 9 November 2022

Comments:

This is a weird one. Basically, @User:Barton1234, who created this page, has added dozens and dozens of citations to it of this guy's every paper ever, basically turning it into a CV. Any attempt to bring the page in line with WP:OVERCITE (or improve the article sometimes in other ways) is met with a revert in the style of WP:OWN from this user simply saying "vandalism". They have rarely edited any other page, and typically only as it relates to Ebright, to add Ebright's papers to those other pages, or to basically make them say what Ebright's article says: [121] [122] [123]. Given obvious COI implications, myself and another user have tried to broach the COI topic, to which the user has never responded (indeed, has never responded to anything on any talk page), continuing instead to revert despite consensus on the talk page against their actions. I believe the user should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE and a blatant WP:COI connected editor, pushing a particular version/POV about the article which they treat as though they WP:OWN it.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• User blocked from Richard H. Ebright (only) for 3 months. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Stifle Thank you for taking a look at this. While I have you here, can I get your advice, should I take this to COIN to get consensus on whether there's enough here to label them a COI (which I'm honestly not sure there is - a lot of it is circumstantial)? So we can get that label on the talk page to have them at least collaborate on the talk page after that block expires? Or would that be forum shopping? Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  That would seem worthwhile. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack against article subject on talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earlier today, I initiated a civil discussion at Talk:Aseem Malhotra, which received some constructive response, save this comment on Mr. Malhotra's character. "Nonsense" is perhaps only mildy rude, yet to question the sanity of a named person is a whole other affair. I moved to refactor the uncouth part of Bon courage's comment, in lieu of removing it entirely (which could also be justified). The user restored the personal attack with an unhelpful edit summary, and left some templated warning on my user talk, which I found kind of unnecessary. I went ahead and used a different template, to collapse the uncouth comment, only to be reverted again by Bon courage. Not content to reinstate the personal attack on the talk page, they also went ahead and attacked me personally, calling me a pain, and started casting aspersions about my engagement with the article, as well as my personal views. I also received another unpleasant message on my talk page, in which Bon courage showed no remorse for their repeated personal attacks, but instead elected to "warn" me about some discretionary sanctions. According to WP:RTP, WP:RPA & WP:RUC, it is perfectly reasonable to refactor personal remarks on article talk page. Please help me out here. Nutez (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Malhotra claims his diet can protect against Covid-19 and claims that MRna vaccines are dangerous. His diets were criticised by multiple reliable health sources as actively dangerous and numerous of his writings have been described as simply false ("He was quoted later as claiming his mother's vegetarian diet contributed to her premature and painful death"). Per WP:PSCI I don't think Bon courage's edits are problematic. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• If somebody comes out with quackery calling that quackery "quackery" is not a personal attack. In fact it's kind of necessary for WP:NPOV. The OP needs to get a WP:CLUE. Bon courage (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, his claims are fringe and outside of mainstream opinion on dietary guidelines. That should be duly described in the article prose. Does that mean that it is acceptable to attack him on the talk page with snide comments? How is that constructive? Nutez (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Calling a view nonsense isn't attacking a person - especially if the view is in fact nonsense. Nor is asking for a sane source - preferably all sources should be sane. MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why use the adjective "sane" at all? Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not operate with that kind of terminology… Nutez (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  You will find that most Wikipedia editors don't sound like a walking, talking policy page. Some people prefer informality. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah ... Bon courage could have perhaps formulated their replies in a less aggressive manner and actually explained to you why you were wrong to mess with their talkpage comments, but they are correct in that there is no problem describing pseudoscientists as pushing pseudoscience (or in the case of the Covid stuff, complete nonsense). Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  They also attacked me personally, calling me a pain and told me to go away. Do you think it is acceptable to cast aspersions about another editor's editing, like Bon courage decided to do? Nutez (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: You don't think this is a personal attack? Nutez (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, as I said, they could - and should - have been less aggressive, but you shouldn't have been redacting their talkpage posts in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Note this is not a newbie editor and no stranger to ANI. They should have a clue. Bon courage (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's inconsistency never fails to astound me: [124]. When I'm in a good mood, I would say that this depends on whether the preponderance of reliable sources describe it as quackery or something akin to it – and I'm with Bon courage in this case. When I'm in a bad mood, I'd say that it's all a matter of which editors one pisses off. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Interesting discussion; thanks for the link. I have to say I agree with this comment

  I think it is. I would say: don't call a person a quack, or their work quackery, or bad science, etc... unless you're citing/quoting a source who says that. Editors' personal opinions that papers are quackery or bad science etc. are irrelevant. Our opinions about sources are irrelevant. What is relevant is the opinion of other WP:RS. So if other RS say this is quackery or bad science, quote them, and then it's not a BLP issue.
  — User:Levivich 02:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Bon courage's comments were well beyond the pale, and totally unnecessary for a productive discussion. Upon restoring the attack on Mr. Malhotra's character, they also attacked me several times, calling me a pain and questioned my motives. Now they even want me booted off Wikipedia entirely. Nutez (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Don't let him get you down, my friend... I have to suspect Bon Courage knows EXACTLY what he is doing and that his goal in being so vitriolic with other editors is to, if not remove them from the project, at least discourage them so much that they remove themselves. Le Marteau (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Which, I presume, is why you come up with edit summaries like this? [125] This has suddenly become a quite interesting thread as regards more than one editor. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  That edit summary is one of the finest, most truthful things I have ever said on Wikipedia, and I stand by it 100%. The day Bon Courage gets banned from this work will be the day I buy the thickest steak I can find, and a bottle of wine, and celebrate. In my almost 20 years of editing, this individual is, if not THE worst, ONE OF the worst editors I have ever encontered for their pattern of tendentious editing , and something needs to be done about it. Le Marteau (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight. When he's being vitriolic towards you, he's a menace and a fiend and needs to be banned. When you're being vitriolic towards him, that's alright and couldn't possibly be a personal attack. Is that your narrative? Ravenswing 08:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  No, that is not my narrative. I invite you to read my talk page, the "Your recent conduct on article talk pages (August 2022)" section in particular. Note that Bon went by a different name then, but you'll know immediately who I am referring to. Once you digest that, I think you will understand where I am coming from further. Or, if that does not make my "narrative" clear, feel free to IM me where I will feel freer to open up with what I TRULY think about this individual, and the nature of my dispute with him. Le Marteau (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  And you think that section makes you look good?? What I am seeing there -- as elsewhere -- is that you have a serious case of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, that you do not believe yourself subject to civility rules so long as you claim that The Other Guy has it coming to him, and that the admonishment of uninvolved veteran editors is just so much white noise to you. Ravenswing 14:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what's up with Le Marteau. They seem to be fine doing low-level work but are apt to go to DEFCON ONE over a detail in content disputes. I invite any editor to review this[126] section of their User Talk page (or that page more generally) to get a feel for this. It should also be noted this editor has a history of socking/harassment (see block log). The weird grudge bearing is concerning. Bon courage (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  My conduct in the section you link may have been my finest hour on Wikipedia, and I am quite proud of it. That you think that linking to it serves to discredit me serves only to demonstrate how out of it you are. (note to the reader: "Bon" changed his name shortly after this episode... can't say as I blame him... truly a disgraceful episode here by Bon. His perennial defense by Shibbolethink is a sight to behold as well. Le Marteau (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  You think being told by SandyGeorgia that what you did "was extremely inappropriate, disruptive, and very harmful", was your "finest hour"? Okay, I have no further comment. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  That you hold up Sandy's standard of propriety as objective truth of me being a dastard speaks little of your intellect or your intellectual integrity. Absolutely pathetic. Le Marteau (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• As someone new to this situation, I would characterize Bon Courage's tone here as "succinct". And perhaps a bit too curt, but only to a mild level which is understandable when repeatedly dealing with POV editors. I would not say that this runs anywhere near WP:NPA and in fact is very in keeping with WP:PSCI. OP, on the other hand, is rapidly careening towards WP:NOTHERE if they continue to push POV nonsense as is described above. They don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with that assessment. I also think it's pretty unlikely that anything in this thread is going to require the use of administrator tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink: You are very welcome to comb through my contributions to find evidence which substantiates the ASPERSION that I am a POV editor, a pain in the a*rse or somehow partisan. I've contributed for many years to this project, on a variety of issues. @Tryptofish: Considering the fact that Bon courage doubled down on their behavior, called me a pain on three separate occasions, and started vilifying my presence on the project, I do think there is an issue here. From the very relevant thread you linked earlier, there seems to be a widespread belief among the skeptic community on WP, that anything is fair game when discussing fringe, non-mainstream individuals, and that one is at liberty to call them every pejorative under the sun, since they have been placed in the category "alternative". Nutez (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Nutez, I think it's worth noting where I came down in that discussion. We've actually had an ArbCom case about skepticism-related content. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to mainstream science and non-mainstream science, nor should it. You escalated the dispute considerably when you tried to template Bon courage's comments, and it's time now to deescalate. I've advised that no admin action should be taken against anyone, and I strongly suggest that you should take that result as the best you are going to get. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  You are correct in the assertion that Wikipedia does not give equal weight to mainstream science and non-mainstream science, nor should it. I, however, was talking about comments on article talk pages, not article prose. Do you think hyperbolic, derogatory language like "nonsense" or "claptrap" is helpful for a productive conversation? Are biography talk pages a free-for-all if the person described is an alternative medicine guy? And is it acceptable to cast aspersions about an editor objecting to the uncivil comments? This comment of yours in the discussion you linked seems to support my refactoring of Bon courage's commentary, seeing as I only removed the offending bits, as opposed to the entire comment.

  If one doesn't like hatting the comment, it would have been easy to use the redacted template, and a user talk message about please tone down the language, instead of going straight to saying it was a policy violation with all that implies – and that would have avoided this entire flare-up. There was no need to remove an entire talk page section over some phrases that could, instead, have been redacted
  — User:tryptofish 17:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Nutez (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but the idea that one should eschew vaccination and instead follow some disreputable fad diet to ward of COVID is nonsense and claptrap (as well as being dangerous misinformation). You should not expect anybody to dance around that when discussing these concepts, and how to treat them, in content discussions. Bon courage (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think we might be talking past each other. I am discussing talk page conduct, not article prose. This is not RationalWiki, and we ought to have a slightly less vituperative form of discourse. It didn't take you long to call me a "shit", "nuisance" and "pain", and wanted me excommunicated from the project, simply because I objected to your invectives in the Malhotra discussion. Also, you still haven't apologized for casting aspersions about my motives. Nutez (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I never call you "a shit", but this kind of lying certainly makes you a pain. Others will see what you're doing and decide: the boomerang thread it below. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  In the "boomerang thread" you made this invective comment:

  In fact it's another problem with ANI that because it's a WP:CESSPIT editors think it's okay to behave like shits and say whatever they want with impunity. It needs to stop.
  — User:Bon courage 09:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Who is the one lying here? Nutez (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  You. Either than or WP:CIR. Bon courage (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  That is in no way a personal attack, about rather a comment about ANI. Bon courage could do with dialing it down a bit, but they have not called you a shit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed it's a known problem with ANI and has been for years. WP:CESSPIT links here for a reason. Bon courage (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Being completely uninvolved, I find Nutez behaviour both on the talk page and especially here far more problematic. There was nothing wrong with Bon courage's comment (we call a spade a spade). In contrast, Nutez has removed parts of Bon courage's comment, attacked Bon courage (as Black Kite points out) and displayed a refusal to WP:HEAR the comments from numerous editors here. My recommendation is for everyone to just walk away from this. Jeppiz (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Nutez asks above "Why use the adjective "sane" at all? Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not operate with that kind of terminology". MrOllie's answer, "Some people prefer informality", seems to miss the point. Talking about people as lacking sanity is not informal, it's uncivil. For better or for worse, when editors are (perceived to be) right on content, WP:5P4 just isn't applied to them. I've had Bon Courage tell me I think your arguments are insane more than a half year ago [127], and it still stings. Depending on personal context, bringing up sanity can be very hurtful. Yes, this kind of thing does have the potential to drive good editors away. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Where does Bon courage use the word "sane" to describe a fellow user? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  In the incident brought up by the OP, they used the word in reference to a BLP.[128] In the incident I brought up just above, it was in reference to me.[129] Of course you could go the 'it refers to your arguments, not you' route, but I think that would be unhelpfully apologetic. Let me use the opportunity of formulating this reply to add that I too believe that admin action is not needed. My point is simply that in this text-only medium it's easy to use words that can do far more damage than one either intends or expects. It would be useful if that would receive more recognition, ideally from Bon Courage themselves, but if not from them then at least from their peers on this website. If we can move a bit in that direction, this report may end up not being entirely a waste of time. If we can't, I understand, but then I'd suggest not commenting and letting it get closed soon. Sorry to have added to it in that case. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  What deceptive, hypocritical rubbish. We want to use sane sources for fringe topics and saying so is not an attack on any person, merely a informal way of stating Wikipedia's actual requirements for such topics. Similarly your old grudge about being caught yourself (by Hob Gadling[130]) using bizarre illogic and personal attacks[131] against me (saying in terms that I had "a serious problem in understanding logic") is not something you should be trying to misrepresent to the peanut gallery. I do not resile from a single word I made in those exchanges with you, which I did not write lightly. Bon courage (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, we want 'sane' sources for fringe and for all other topics around here, but especially in as far as a source is actually a person (Aseem Malhotra) there's no need to imply that they're not 'sane'. 'Reliable' will communicate the message much better, without such potentially hurtful language. Further, check your own diff and see what it replies to: I don't know what you're doing, other than producing verbiage. You don't seem to understand logic [...] so it's impossible to respond meaningfully. (bare, without argument) Calling a reply to that in the form of If [substantial argument] then you have a serious problem with understanding logic a personal attack is not very credible. Sure, that back-and-forth got too heated, but I was focused on the substance throughout (I truly believe that neither you nor Hob ever got around to even trying to understand the substance, which from where I stand appears to be due to a preference for ad hominem). In any case, we strongly disagree on many things, sometimes seemingly do not understand each other, but there's simply no excuse for ending that particular spat with a comment on my sanity. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have no bad opinion about your sanity, but I do have an opinion about your very lengthy insistence on particular lines of reasoning which (as other editors have pointed out) are illogical, especially when it's combined with your saying I have a serious problem in understanding logic. If you prefer, I am happy to call your view "irrational and wrong" rather than "insane". However your coming here to pile-on with your one-side-of-the story is just the kind of ANI jiggery-pokery than causes this noticeboard's problems. Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone – From the discussion cited above, it seems that you were first to use a PA, when claiming that Apaugasma didn't seem to understand logic. Also, using my logic faculties, I think it is on its face rather facetious to accuse Apaugasma of coming here to pile-on, when basically nobody is defending them (apart from this comment of mine perchance). Also, this comment

  The source says the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven. If you make of that sources say qi doesn't exist, you're misrepresenting them, right here.
  — User:Apaugasma 15:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  is perfectly reasonable. What is illogical about it? Nutez (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Bon Courage, you told me "You don't seem to understand logic" because you believe I'm wrong. Obviously, I believe that you are wrong and that it's clear for everyone that the point I made in that diff is logically correct, so I replied 'no, you have a serious problem with understanding logic'. Not very productive I agree, but that beyond simply saying 'I think you're wrong' or similar, you seem to believe that it is within your remit to call me 'irrational', and why not, 'insane', is truly a problem with your conduct. At least I believe in good faith that it is a problem, and part of a wider one with pro-positivist (skeptic) editors commenting on sanity and/or logical capabilities in WP talk pages. However, if uninvolved editors tell me that the problem is in fact me bringing this up at ANI (I'm sympathetic to the jiggery-pokery issue), I will certainly refrain from doing so. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  You are conflating my characterisation of your views with a characterisation of you which I never made. (While giving yourself a pass for complaining I had "a serious problem" – which I have never complained about at a drama board!). This is why I said your complaint was hypocritical. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• As others have said, this complaint doesn't appear actionable, but I would urge the community to recognize that when editors wear their feelings about a BLP in talk page discussions, that doesn't help towards civil discussions. An editor that readily calls out a BLP with labels used by RSes or other demeaning statements that are already given by RSes (eg like calling Trump "Drumpf") may not bringing rational discussion to the table with a preconceived notion of how the BLP article should be written. We routinely ban editors that show a strong slant on fringe views (eg those that come to try to "fix" far-right BLP articles by calling for whitewashing) when they become disruptive. It would require a lot more in this specific case for that be disruptive enough to call for a ban, but it is definitely on the road towards that same type of issue. --Masem (t) 13:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  For fringe aspects of BLPs it's important to focus on concepts, views, and ideas rather than characterizing the person (except insofar as appropriate RS does). Thus it's unproductive to call Trump "Drumpf", but it's fine to discuss how (say) his ideas about injecting bleach for COVID are dangerous nonsense. What we often see is when WP:PROFRINGE editors don't like an idea being attacked they WP:CRYBLP and elide the difference between ideas and people. That's what the OP is doing here. Bon courage (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• # Nonsense is nonsense, should be stated as nonsense in articles, and can be called nonsense on article talk pages. Editors pushing nonsense should reconsider or face consequences.
  # Editors should really think twice before using language linked to mental health. This isn't a criticism, such language is completely common in everyday use, but when communicating with an unknown audience it's best to choose words carefully. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  That is a really good point. I shall retire "insane" from my descriptions of ideas henceforth! Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, that's good to hear. Hopefully this thread will not be entirely in vain. I for one have learned a whole lot. Nutez (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Sheesh! Nutez needs to grow thicker skin. This whole thread is ridiculous and an abuse of process over nothing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Triple boomerang?

As Black Kite notes above, "This has suddenly become a quite interesting thread as regards more than one editor". The three editors are:

• Nutez – The OP here with a vexatious complaint. No big deal initially but it's been compounded by WP:IDHT.
• Le Marteau – Who in complaining about personal attacks has revealed that they're the real offender is this regard. Known harrasser and in my view this is a continuation of that type of conduct.
• Apaugasma – Continuing a long-held grudge by trying to sell ANI a story about how they were on the receiving end of an attack, while omitting to mention that rather it was they who had been called out for making an attack in the dispute they reference.

This is also an interesting case study of how problem editors try to use ANI for a pile-on - this Noticeboard's infamous WP:KNIT problem. Could this be the moment to turn the corner and attempt some kind of reform by letting editors know sneaky pile-ons are not okay? I propose a logged warning to all three about conduct at ANI in future. Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Once I find out which admin black holed my last two comments, and why, I will respond more fully. Until then, I have been censored, and my contined input here will be a waste of my time. Le Marteau (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

In fact it's another problem with ANI that because it's a WP:CESSPIT editors think it's okay to behave like shits and say whatever they want with impunity. It needs to stop. Bon courage (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

One more time, and this time, with feeling "Once I find out which admin black holed my last two comments, and why, I will respond more fully. Until then, I have been censored, and my contined input here will be a waste of my time." I invite the interested reader to bookmark this and to come back tomorrow, because I will in fact be back with the reason for my being censored (unless that in itself will be censored... I would no be surprised at this point) and we will see if it is because i am behaving "like shits" as Bon thinks I am. Le Marteau (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You weren't censored, you comment was just caught up in the deletion of a different comment in a different section by a now blocked editor. Your post fell between the addition of the comment that need to be deleted, and the reversal and deletion of the comment. Nothing nefarious, just unfortunate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Le Marteau This is a really important point. Don't mistake accidents for intent!!! I don't think there was enough of an issue with your comment that it needed to be revdel'd, I think ActivelyDisinterested is right about this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'm reading Le Marteau's comments on this thread, and then reading their comments on a talkpage section that they consider their "finest hour at Wikipedia" (this litany of unpleasantness) and wondering if we really need them here at all. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I second that comment. I don't want to be associated with that particular editor or their crusade. They have successfully derailed this entire conversation. Nutez (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• +1 to Black Kite. Between the outbursts that Le Marteau is proud of making, his history of blocks and interaction bans, the numerous complaints about his behavior on his talk page, his general attitude that he's permitted to violate any and all civility rules in A Good Cause, and his reflexive assumption of bad faith? It's not that he doesn't understand what other editors are telling him. It's that he doesn't give a damn. Consensus isn't something he can give the finger to at will. Ravenswing 14:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Bon Courage, I understand where you're coming from with this, especially with regard to Le Marteau's behavior (if they have no evidence to offer, they should in fact rather disengage, and this PA as well their recent pattern of incivility absolutely is sanctionable), but characterizing the concern I brought up as 'selling a story' is truly worrying as to your readiness to even consider whether civility might be an issue in the skepticism/fringe space. I compiled a rather large amount of evidence for that here. I only retracted it because the Arb case was not going to be about civility, but the evidence is there and the problem has been noted by other editors. Sure, those being accused of being uncivil will tend to disagree that there is in fact a problem, and I think I've made it clear above that if a majority of editors can't even agree on whether there's a problem, it may be better to let it rest. I stand by that, but calling for a flying stick in my case (and probably Nutez' too, though I didn't look closely into that) does seem a bit over the top. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, there are problems with civility around fringe topics. I'm not convinced it's more or less than for other topic areas – even Bach cantatas can be a locus of furious disputes. In fact, it seems we're about to see at least one editor here sanctioned for it. However, the idea that editors need to genuflect to quackery and grift as though they are mere "alterative formulations", and that using words like "nonsense" is some kind of WP:CIVIL problem, just seems odd. In this, Jimbo probably had it about right. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Ha, I of course do believe Jimbo was very much wrong to use the word 'lunatic' there. I could even see myself saying something like that in a weak moment, but then getting quoted on it throughout the wiki ages must be rather painful. However, the argument that words like 'lunatic' and 'sane' should not be used in this type of context is not to be conflated with an argument that universally rejected theories should be called 'alternative formulations', which would be a clear-cut NPOV breach. The term 'nonsense', again, is on the 'lunatic'/'sane' spectrum, but skirting a line: it's not generally used by RS, unnecessary in most contexts, quite often inflammatory, but perhaps more often than not rather harmless. Now that you link to WP:PROFRINGE under 'seems odd' though, that is the type of constant little aspersions that make things so difficult. You underestimate what it does to an editor to have to deal with a constant innuendo of being pro fringe. If you're not going to make a case before a noticeboard, you should not be making such implications about conduct. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why? I'm not the complainant here. Personally I think holocaust deniers, medical quacks, scientific racists etc. do spout a lot of "nonsense" and it's fair on Talk pages when discussing it to use that word. Attempt to tone police this into more "respectful" vocabulary is a form of WP:PROFRINGE behaviour, yes. I'm against it. Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• +1 to Black Kite on Le Marteau and, as Nutez calls it, his crusade. My every interaction with them has had toxicity. In this incident, they WP:HOUNDed a user around, disrupting a very fragile discussion by letting disputes leak onto other pages. They then cast WP:ASPERSIONS on the other editor and instigated a WP:BATTLEGROUND:

• "yes I know I need to assume good faith, but I don't do it with you" [132]
• "I'm not following you, but I am going through all of your contributions to see where I disagree and then replying/reverting to limit your impact on the project, because I think you're damaging to it." [133]
• "Nor am I harassing you, although I am sure you feel like I am" [134]
• "You seem to have a habit of selectively enforcing policy when it suits your agenda, and ignoring policy when it does not. It seems to be a pattern, and I consider such editors a liability to the project. The community needs to address the issue, and I relish the potential opportunity to make you a test case" [135]

It was a pretty clear policy violation back then, but I didn't bring it to ANI since this board is already pretty overloaded and they seemed to back off. Despite this, they kept a pretty heavy WP:BATTLE attitude, targeted especially at one user:

• "I am just getting started in my fight to get policy and guidelines added to the encyclopedia to address selective enforcement of policy and guidelines to further an agenda." [136]
• "It needs to become policy that editors who have demonstrated an obvious pattern of selectively applying policy and guidelines based on whether they have a dog in the fight or not, need to be sanctioned. I will look forward to you being first in line." [137] (emphasis mine)

It seems from this discussion that the user's attitude to these issues was relatively unrepentant, and they're exhibiting many of the same issues here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed a sort of Tu quoque situation, seeing as Bon courage accuses me of initiating a pile-on (citing WP:KNIT) – when the opposite is actually the case: I have been bombarded with unpleasantries from you lot in this very thread, with only two editors defending me (one extremely disruptive, and one very sympathetic). As noted, there is a bit of an issue with self-proclaimed "skeptics" who think that normal rules don't apply when discussing "alternative" or "fringe" individuals, and consider biography talk pages a free-for-all in terms of personal attacks. Or to quote Bon courage: " [They] think it's okay to behave like **** and say whatever they want with impunity." Note that this user keeps doubling down on their PAs, not content to call me a "pain" and "nuisance", now calling me a "shit". Nutez (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"from you lot"? That's going to need some serious explanation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

you lot, as in "you, plural". An informal, British way of speaking. I could have said y'all instead, but the meaning is the same. I am questioning who is actually participating in the pile-on, by simply counting the participants on either side of the debate. Nutez (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm just a random stranger passing by and you are making a personal attack against me and appear to have a massive failure of WP:AGF. If you have diffs against specific editors and how they are outside of policy, please present them. Shouting "Everyone is out to get me" won't get you very far. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

An editor above cited WP:KNIT and accused me of participating in a pile-on. In response, I simply noted that most of the editors in this thread were chastising me. Hence, I wonder who is actually doing the knitting. Nutez (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

My only participation before you made that comment was to try and assuage Le Marteau that their comment wasn't censored, and add a balance statement to the original thread about how editors should be careful with their language. So I get lumped in knitting, that essay is a bad idea even if it did come from a good place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Misquoting the other party isn't doing you any favors. We're all reading the same discussion here, people are noticing. MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Paraphrase, rather. Nutez (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The distinction between paraphrasing and quoting in discussions like these is extremely important and exactly how we avoid going off on tangents like this. Please remember that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• At a minimum, those editors need to be blocked from drama boards. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Berkeleysportscars

This seems like a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy, also does seem to be interesting in only editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Cars. I do apologize if this is the wrong location. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheShammingMan: This is indeed the wrong place, the correct place to report a user with a username vio like this would be WP:UAA. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Tagged the article/editor as CoI, images also uploaded at Commons so clear cut.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Turning Red

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please look at the edit history of this page. It looks like someone created a farm of sleepers, that they got auto confirmed, to vandalize this page and bypass the protect. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• That's how it goes. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Angryskies refusal to communicate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Angryskies is running around changing country infobox fields from England to England, UK. The editor knows this is controversial with multiple editors reverting, yet any attempts to discuss are ignored, just deleted without response and his reverted post reinstated. I have asked editor multiple times, both on their talkpage and in the comments to engage, but no success. Editor was previously blocked in August 2021 for the same thing after edit warring with Velociraptor888 and again deleting attempts to communicate without response.

Not technically a breach of WP:3RR so haven't taken to that noticeboard, but by way of example has reverted five times in a bit over month on the Ernst & Young article. Zoumestein (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Zoumestein, I do see some slow edit warring, and I thought I'd probably block the user after reading your description above: "any attempts to discuss are ignored, just deleted without response". But looking at the history of User talk:Angryskies, I became very hesitant. Edit warring templates are not "attempts to discuss". Neither you nor anybody else has in fact reached out and talked in humanspeak on Angryskies' talkpage after Bbb23's block in August 2021. (Before that block, it happened just once, and that time Angryskies did respond.) Have you done it elsewhere? Diffs for where you attempt to discuss, please. Preferably of actual discussion posts on article talkpages, but I'll take edit summaries in a pinch. Bishonen | tålk 22:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. I will try that. In the meantime am happy for this to be closed with no further action. Zoumestein (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spammer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Frenchfrye99 (talk · contribs) is a lovely case of NOTHERE. Their sole objective seems to be to promote some non-notable individual named Scoop Malinowski. – ².O.^Boxing 22:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor for relentless self promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting for merge accounts.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello sysops.

This is a confirmation of lemonaka (talk · contribs) who made a request to user:Antandrus to create an account for editing on English Wikipedia. Due to current IP-block of my IP-range, I couldn't create an account here. Could any sysop help me create an account of that name and give me IPBE or just merge two accounts? Lemonaka1 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Account mergers are impossible if both have edits, if I recall right. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• That's correct, we can't merge the accounts. If you wish to request IPBE that needs to be done via WP:UTRS. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I believe what lemonaka needs is for someone to go Special:CreateLocalAccount (a new feature which apparently Antandrus didn't know about), create a local account for them, then assign IPBE to that account. Then they can abandon Lemonaka1, which has only ever made three edits globally. They also already asked for help on UTRS but did not get any response. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I knew about basically none of this, but what SOY says makes sense. I've created the account locally, Lemonaka should be able to access it right now. They already had global IPBE and local IPBE at meta, so I gave them local IPBE here for the same duration. SOY, I don't know how you know all this stuff, but it worked, so thanks for the step-by-step instructions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure if Lemonaka will get pings at the new account before logging on, so pinging both @Lemonaka and Lemonaka1: to let them know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for following up on this - you are correct, I did not know of this new feature, which is why I created User:Lemonaka1. Hopefully this will work now. Thanks again. Antandrus (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you all for following this issue, I'm really gratitude. Lemonaka (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sonny mcbullshit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Indef please: by username and by 100% of their four edits, Sonny mcbullshit (talk · contribs) is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aigurland: POV pushing

Previous :

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User%3AAigurland_%3A_edit-warring_academic_boosterism_for_Paris_1_Sorbonne
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Aigurland_again

Aigurland just edited again the page while implicitly admitting in talk page that the sources say what the consensus says (that it is considered as the top law school). They just say they have nothing more to say but go ahead editing anyway : [138]

More explanations in talk page: [139]

--Ransouk (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ransouk spends his time making ANI rather than talking to me, so I have nothing to add to what I've already said in the others (none of which have been successful. It might be time to stop this anti-Wikipedia behavior no?) Aigurland (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Aigurland, this is excessively snarky and uncalled for. As you know from editing this page an editor has an obligation to notify you if a discussion is opened about you here. Don't be snarky and snap at other users for doing something the rules tell them they have to do. Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by JudgeJudyCourthouse25

• JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk · contribs), edit warring to restore unencyclopedic prose at Judy Justice, and restoring unsourced and promotional content as payback at Erode. In short, this is what they're fighting to keep in the encyclopedia [140]; [141]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The current dust-up suggests a measure of WP:OWNERSHIP. There may be broader concerns re: npov and original research at Judy Justice and related articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• I've blocked the user for one week. The block was straightforward, but the duration was not. I thought about blocking indefinitely, but the number of edits they've made - almost 8K, the vast majority of which have been to article space - without being blocked before this held me back. Their attitude, though, is very troubling, both before the block and after. They seem to have a rather inflated sense of their own abilities and a very negative view of some Wikipedians, including right now the IP who reported them. They have a "permanent retirement" screed at the top of their Talk page from March 2022 that, among other things, attacks an individual editor. Their unblock request and other post-block comments are largely a personal attack against the IP and otherwise passive-aggressive. In the edit-war at Judy Justice, they insisted on adding material that I would expect to see added by a new user promoting the show. Considering how SPA-like they are, I don't see how they've gotten away with almost continuously editing that article and related articles for so long. Normally, I would just close this thread with a note about my block, but I'm still wondering if the sanction is sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • If this thread is still open later today, I'll add a thought or two. Thank you, Bbb23. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 covered this well--it's difficult to justify an indefinite block, given there's no block history. But there is a history of troubling exchanges, a tendency to feel persecuted by anyone who copyedits what they've done, and a quickness to accuse other editors of conspiratorial activity and socking, as done with me [142] and earlier, here [143]. The edits at Erode, which were done solely to troll, don't weigh favorably, either. If behavioral concerns are front burner, they ought not distract from the tone of editing, per the recent revisions made at Judy Justice. A history of constructive edits doesn't provide a free pass for disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

122.58.105.122

They have been warned but they keep doing vandalism. 178.120.71.230 (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Although cases of clear vandalism are best kept to WP:AIV, it's true, 122.58.105.122's edits are disruptive. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 00:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 178.120.71.230. I blocked 122.58.105.122 for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Vital articles and Cewbot

Some scientists claim that hydro­gen, because it is so plen­ti­ful, is the basic building block of the uni­verse. I dispute that. I say there are more edits tinkering with whitespace and categories and vital article des­ig­na­tions than hydro­gen, and that is the basic build­ing block of the uni­verse.

–Frank Zappa (via EEng)

Can an admin please temporarily block User:Cewbot? Something weird happened to the WP:Vital articles list, and Cewbot has been sent into a tizzy. CMD (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Bot has been blocked. A mass rollback may be needed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If someone could figure out why Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People shows numbers while Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History shows 0s then ideally Cewbot will be able to rollback itself. CMD (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears for whatever reason the bot decided to change it to 0. @Kanashimi: Pinging here as well even tho you were already notified via your talk page about this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis and Kanashimi: I dug through Cewbot's diffs to see where this started. It may not be 100% correct since I told it to exclude the talk mainspace, however it appears that all of this started with this diff. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit prior to this (this edit by CactiStaccingCrane which made the page use TrebuchetMS) might be why Cewbot freaked out as it appears to be the common edit made prior to the bot having a mental breakdown. Cacti is there a specific reason you were doing this? Cause I'm wondering if the bot saw that and freaked out since it wasn't in the format it was familiar with. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It's my fault, sorry. I just changed the font for stylistic purposes and I didn't know that it broke the bot. I tried to revert my changes but somehow the (0 article) is not reverted... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: You only reverted your own edits, not the edit by Cewbot changing the list to 0 articles. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Guess it's time for another revert... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: If you wanted the pageto display in a different font then why did you change it on the page itself and not your CSS? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

So, how can I make a separate CSS page? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It should just be your common.css ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed your edits to the vital articles pages. Can someone unblock the bot for a minute or so and see if it fixes itself? – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: See above. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've unblocked, let me know if a reblock is needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

it restarted right away. don't know what it's actually supposed to do. is this ok now, or should i reblock? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: It's still malfunctioning, changing lv4 VAs to lv5. Please reblock for now pending response from Kanashimi. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I checked its contribs and it immediately changed Talk:Trombone from Level 4 (which it should be) to Level 5. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've reblocked. I assume I don't need to rollback the edits, because once it's fixed it will go back to the correct number itself. If that's wrong and i should rollback anything, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of edits to revert... sitting there clicking rollback thousands of times is probably not a feasible solution. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that will take a lot of time to revert the bot's edits. Sarrail (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@K6ka: The WP:MASSROLLBACK script can revert hundreds of edits from Contribs in just a few clicks. Should it be used here? – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've just downloaded it, but right now, I am uncertain if this should be used. Sarrail (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

OOH, shiny new toy for me to play with!! I totally won't do something silly and end up in the hall of shame! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't revert all of the bot's edits, really. Sarrail (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sarrail: The script only reverts the edits currently displayed on the user's Special:Contribs, so it won't revert more than 50 by default, but the number of contributions displayed can be changed. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, time to test this thing out. Sarrail (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that rollbacks are rate-limited to 100 edits per minute. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

At first glance, the mass rollback looks uneasy... Sarrail (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll start with only the bot's most recent 250 edits, which are all bad. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say all of the bot's edits to talk pages after the first diff by the bot that caused this mess are all bad. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Dudhhr, K6ka, you beat me! Sarrail (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

My poor watchlist has been flooded. Curse you bot! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

proceeds to accidentally revert every single one of my edits ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Nooooooo... Sarrail (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh... @SpinningSpark: Why did you unblock it? The fix didn't work. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

SpinningSpark didn't unblock, I did. You can't tell whether a fix worked or not until you try it. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No he's right, I undid your reblock. I took too long reading the request to unblock for test and didn't see your posts. SpinningSpark 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Spinning Spark and I stumbled over each other's toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

AAAAAAAArrrrgh my watchlist has gone mad. -Roxy the dog 17:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll find more. The rampage isn't over, sadly. Sarrail (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(Makes cup of tea) - Roxy the dog 17:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

All of the bot's "Malfunctioning errors" have been reverted. It's the aftermath of a disaster. Sarrail (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All bot edits have been reverted. The first edit to revert was Special:Diff/1121242625. That's nearly 6,000 edits we had to revert. And I managed to cross the 100,000th edit mark today! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(Tea. The answer to every problem) - Roxy the dog 17:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(I second this.) Lalaithan (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Finally, Finally. Now we can take a break. Congratulations, K6ka. I've only added 10... Sarrail (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest we add hidden text somewhere in the lists warning other editors not to make changes like this, no matter how well-intentioned. This might be WP:STOCKS worthy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  What if the hidden text causes the bot to malfunction again? :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Kanashimi could probably make it so the bot won't fall apart even with the hidden text. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Trainsandotherthings: I would say this is stocks worthy, although there might be some other reason why the bot is freaking out. Regardless we should Kanashimi responds here ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot somewhere with rollback that does this to avoid flooding watchlists? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Not that I"m aware of. The only bot i know of with rollback capability would be ClueBot NG ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If it was the font change, that leaves one thing unanswered. Why did it analyze Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People correctly? They also had the font change, but they were not affected by the error. And for reverting the changes, the bot should go back and re-sort them automatically once the error is fixed and it recognizes that the articles are in the lists. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the distress. I have stopped the bot and am starting to investigate what happened. Kanashimi (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is because the whole list is wrapped up with <div>. I'm working on fixing this. Kanashimi (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Solved. Now the bot should be able to handle wrapping all the lists with <div>.

Also I added an edit limit to prevent similar mass editing. Kanashimi (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Since the issue is solved, would an admin unblock Cewbot? Sarrail (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kanashimi, would you like us to unblock the bot now? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I will do a test edit after unblocking. After that, the robot will run according to the original schedule. Kanashimi (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Kanashimi: I've unblocked Cewbot. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm testing it now. Kanashimi (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say this whole incident would be worthy of inclusion at WP:STOCKS. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If no one here has any objections to it I'll go ahead and add this incident to the village stocks. (as long as CactiStaccingCrane is ok with it) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

:) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done It seems to be working properly now. Kanashimi (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kanashimi, CactiStaccingCrane, and Blaze Wolf: we have a template {{Bot use warning}} that can be added to all these pages to warn editors to be careful about making changes. The mass rollback is already done now, but for future, there is revertbot.py that could have been used by Cewbot to self revert without flooding watchlists. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In fact, in the case of this task, the robot will correct all the wrong edits in the next execution. --Kanashimi (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

TCG and their one-account restriction

Mellk has noted that TheCurrencyGuy seems to be evading his block with an IP (which Cullen328 has blocked). I would like to note that there is concurrently a one-account restriction regarding TCG, as evidenced here:

Additionally, in light of the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy, TheCurrencyGuy is indefinitely restricted to the use of a single account. Editors encountering suspected socks of TheCurrencyGuy are required to log their suspicions at the aforementioned SPI page for documentation in addition to reporting them at WP:ANI for breach of this editing restriction.

Therefore, I would like to formally note this breach of restriction here. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked the obvious (self admitted) IP sock, but was not aware of a requirement to log. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will remember this in future. Mellk (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't a one-account restriction sort of meaningless when it is followed by an indefinite block? Evading a one-account restriction and evading an indefinite block are both sockpuppetry. If the indefinite block is lifted, the one-account restriction remains, but this block evasion makes it more unlikely that the indefinite block will be listedlifted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The one-account restriction was imposed when TCG was only topic-banned. (By the way, did you mean "...will be lifted" instead of "...will be listed"?) NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I knew that the one-account restriction and the topic-ban preceded the indef. So the one-account restriction is sort of overtaken by worse events. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

CLCStudent (for the 10,000th time)

98.46.108.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Showed up shortly after 98.46.108.229 was blocked by Blablubbs. Given it is on the same /24 and the editing pattern is identical, I'm calling this a DUCK. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that whole /16 is him going back to the start of October, beginning in earnest on Oct. 25. Gave it 2 weeks for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

They're still editing? I thought they were blocked. Does WP:3X apply to IP sockpuppetry? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 16:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not, although he's CUblocked, so it's not like an individual admin can unblock regardless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

IP block evasion and disruptive editing

For several months now there have been IPs in Bayern region, Germany, where they remove Russian-language names as well as other languages aside from Ukrainian from articles (also other POV edits and unexplained removals on typically Ukrainian topics but also Russian ones). They have never responded to any warnings and the edits usually get reverted but they eventually return to make the same edits again and again or edit war under different IPs in an article, and this just repeats. Some of the IPs have been blocked (by Ohnoitsjamie and Ymblanter from what I can see) but they still evade the block by editing under different IPs and edit war. The IPs geolocate to Munich (IPv6 ones) and Wuerzburg (IPv4 ones) but the edits are the same and on the same articles so it looks like maybe one person or meatpuppetry (I have not looked into this yet). There are too many different articles they edit to page protect but there are a few ones they return to most such as Administrative divisions of Ukraine, Ruthenia, Tsardom of Russia and Old East Slavic. The last two were page protected because of them but they have still continued after expiration. I am not sure if a range block is possible but here is a list of some of the IPs I have collected:

• 93.224.161.167 (talk · contribs)
• 91.58.83.18 (talk · contribs)
• 93.224.168.169 (talk · contribs)
• 91.57.184.180 (talk · contribs)

• 2003:D2:5748:D438:588:2B00:F286:40FF (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FBB9:D4C6:F77B:F3A6:4898 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5726:85E:8027:A196:4DD8 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:57C2:D54D:17E9:C2EA:95E3 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5704:5CC:5D9D:85CD:AF (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5725:79CB:F1EB:FA93:BDF7 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB8A:353D:3FE6:A7E3:827F (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB36:2170:12DA:93E0:F1FD (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB36:19F6:2AD0:80B0:BF3 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB36:9D46:A2F7:9502:40AC (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB37:398F:8939:9399:7E21 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB2D:D871:766B:ED52:42CB (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB37:A4E2:2A29:17A9:3381 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB08:8122:58B2:4E36:14FA (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:57FD:FC41:D121:7C55:6CE1 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5725:A532:680F:5EEC:A0E (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:57D8:109B:F10D:3EEF:576E (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5726:81C7:89D:5FB3:4B27 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5730:A40E:C9DB:DB62:3BF3 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:574D:3562:4074:3ADF:D1D2 (talk · contribs)

Mellk (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Also noticed that User:Dav2ry7 and the IPs were edit warring on Administrative divisions of Ukraine and Tsardom of Russia to restore the same edits at the same time. For example this revert 8 minutes after the IP was reverted. Mellk (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dav2ry7 probably should be blocked indef, the whole contribution is disruption, I do not see a single good edit. Probably one of the LTAs who are plenty in the topic area. Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I can only conclude that Dav2ry7 is related to the IPs. For example one of the IPs fixed a change the Dav2ry7 account made 2 minutes earlier[144] and he was already warned about potentially sockpuppetry[145]. So not only disruptive editing but also block evasion and sockpuppetry. Mellk (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

For reference all those IPv6 IPs fall under 2003:D2:5700:0:0:0:0:0/40. All the edits from that range appear to be part of this disruption, someone might won't to look into the ranges unreverted edits. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that Materialscientist blocked the range for the IPv6 IPs (thanks). I am wondering if the evidence so far for sockpuppetry by Dav2ry7 (like [146]) is strong enough for a block or if this is something for SPI. Mellk (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The recent edit history of Old East Slavic has brought me here. It appears that @Dav2ry7 is the account used by the disruptive IP editor once the page has got semi-protected. –Austronesier (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal:Indefinite block of Dav2ry7

• Per above (generally bad contribution plus sockpuppetry).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Note that the user was notified of this topic and edited Wikipedia after the notification, but apparently has chosen not to respond here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Mellk (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:David C. S.

• David C. S. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

David C. S. has engaged in a slow paced edit warring for months now in articles related to Bolivian elections (specifically 2009 Bolivian general election, 2014 Bolivian general election and 2019 Bolivian general election) and about Venezuela (Venezuelan presidential crisis and Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis). This takes place after he was blocked for six months from editing in the 2019 Bolivian election and Venezuelan presidential crisis articles for edit warring (es:Usuario discusión:David C. S.#Bloqueo parcial), as well as completely in Wikimedia Commons for a month twice for the same reason (commons:User talk:David C. S./Archive 5#AN/U), insisting in a preferred version of a map despite opposition and being explained of the reasons in talk pages, while refusing to engage in discussion.

In the case of the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the user started editing by blanking he has created an own version of a map in Commons (fittingly titled "uncensored"), insisting in adding it to the English Wikipedia ([147][148][149][150][151]). The user has already had his edits challenged in versions such as am.wiki, is.wiki, it.wiki and zw.wiki, to name some, but has continued with the edits in most cases ([152][153][154][155][156][157]), including in the English Wikipedia. In the Bolivian election articles, the editor has repeatedly replaced an image of candidate Evo Morales in the infobox for a preferred version, being reverted several times ([158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167]).

David's point of view regarding the project arguably can be best summarized in his block's appeal in the Spanish Wikipedia, describing complaints against him as "lawfare" and his main goal in editing as "fighting censorship", something that is also reflected in edit summaries and is probably a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY. Likewise, he describes discussions as "a useless resource to endlessly dilate issues"; indeed, in the English Wikipedia David has never used articles talk pages (besides moves) or engaged in discussions. The editor has also been warned several times against disruptive editing and edit warring in his talk page[168][169][170][171], to no response. As a response to one of the last messages left by P Cesar Maldonado, David opened a complaint against the user in this noticeboard, accusing him of "defamatory accusations and personal attacks" and without notifying him, which can be read above (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User-reported).

I don't know which administrative measure is more appropriate in this situation, if any, but at the very least I think it's important to notify about these developments after the complaint left by David against Maldonado. Regards. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Notes

• I just closed the report that NoonIcarus filed at WP:AN3. I see no reason to have this reviewed at two different noticeboards. At the same time, without looking at the details, I'd like to note that NoonIcarus has been pblocked (two pages) at es.wiki until March 28, 2023, while David C. S. has also been pblocked (three pages) at es.wiki until March 28, 2023, both users for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Since it has been brought up, I'll link the original thread in the Spanish Wikipedia that resulted in the blocks, to anyone that might be interested in consulting it (es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/3RR/2022/09#David C. S.), as well as provide more context: at the time the complaint was filed David had violated the three-revert rule twice under a 24 hours period; the first time, the admin decided not to block him, warning him instead. Without administrative action, I restored the stable version of one of the articles over the course of the year. Due to the backlog in the Spanish Wikipedia, the thread was closed after over three months when it was opened, and the closing admin opted for a long-term measure over a short-term one, giving page blocks in the involved articles. My appeal here can also be read here: es:Usuario discusión:NoonIcarus#Solicitud de desbloqueo. I'll also remind that this disputes have not only been with me, but also with other editors, both in the English Wikipedia as well as in other projects.

By seeking administrative mediation here, I wish to prevent further escalation of the dispute. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern about behaviour during an ongoing RfC at Republics of Russia

The talk page of Republics of Russia has been turned into a mess by Jargo Nautilus and Cambial Yellowing during a delicate RfC. The diffs:

• At 23:44, 28 October 2022, Jargo Nautilus (JN) made a totally unprovoked and incomprehensible personal attack on Seryo93, an editor who had not even posted anything in that RfC: I caught him blatantly lying … he was gaslighting me and other editors on purpose.[172]
• At 00:01, 29 October 2022 JN stood on a soapbox: If it comes to the point that Wikipedia actually ends up endorsing some of Russia's criminal actions, then I will boycott this website,[173] Russia has brought its downfall upon itself by electing the criminal Vladimir Putin,[174] Russia ... a lawless wasteland of bandits[175] while also being unnecessarily rude to me:Gitz's logic regarding sourcing is a bit nonsensical.[176]
• I noticed but didn't particularly mind JN's soapboxing and rudeness. However, three days later I noticed the personal attack on Seryo93 and I thought it was unacceptable. I replied to it [177] and I also collapsed the off-topic and soapboxing remarks.[178] I contacted JN on their talk page to address these issues.[179] JN denied any wrongdoing and deleted the whole thread becauseThis is ultimately a waste of time, so I am wiping it clean.[180] Waste of time notwithstanding, JN stared a long conversation on my talk page (this one).
• Immediately before starting that conversation, JN removed from the article talk page both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it.[181] JN also removed the collapsible box I had applied to their remarks, and heavily edited their remarks or removed them altogether from the article talk page.[182] Note that these comments had been posted 3 days and half earlier and I had already reacted to them by applying the collapsible box.
• I reverted JN’s removal of both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it, and I explained You shouldn't delete comments! And collapsing off topic comments is fine. Have you ever read WP:TALK?.[183]
• JN made a partial revert of my revert: they deleted their personal attack on Seryo93 and left my reply to it in a collapsible box with the title "off-topic."[184]
• On my talk page Deepfriedokra commented Jargo Nautilus Please do not edit other people's talk page contents. Please do not change your own talk page comments after they have been responded to.[185] While they were probably meaning "article talk page" rather than user talk pages, the message was clear.
• Encouraged by this, I restored the status quo ante - both JN's personal attack and my reply to it. I also restored JN’s soapboxing comments in their original drafting. However, I didn't restore my collapsible box on them[186]. So this was now the talk page as it used to be before my intervention and before JN edited and removed both their old comments and mine.
• However, Cambial Yellowing (CY) restored JN's edited version of their own comments and explained restoring unreplied comments to version by the editor who wrote them[187]. CY also left a warning on my talk page (vandalism)[188] and commented on the article talk page that It's generally acceptable for an editor to amend their own comments to which there has not yet been a reply. So your editing of another editor's comments is not acceptable[189].
• I believe that JN should not have edited and removed their comments because it had already been three days (not a "short while" per WP:TALK#REPLIED) since they had posted them, and because I had already reacted to their comments by putting them in a collapsible box. CY doesn’t agree and we had a discussion on this here, where CY speaks about my inappropriate refactoring and pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy. CY was trying to justify JN's disregard for WP:TALK by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved.
• CY has been both uncivil and tendentious in that talk page since the beginning of the RfC. They had tried to modify the opening sentence without consensus in a way that strongly affected the ongoing RfC[190][191] and had engaged in edit warring on a related issue[192][193][194][195]. Once I had expressed and argued for a view different from theirs in the RfC, they replied that If you're not keen on that policy [WP:OR] this may not be the website for you[196] provoking the reaction of a fellow editor Furius, it comes across as rude and patronising.
• Apart from restoring JN's edited comments and reproaching me for not respecting talk page guidelines, CY provided JN with "good advice" on their talk page[197]. CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again because your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor. Worse still, CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar because of WP:IUC: you may find this section - part of WP:5P4 - of interest (note point 2(d)). Obviously CY was wrong: even if Seryo93 had lied in the past (which none of us have reason to believe) it would be entirely inappropriate to call them a liar in an RfC where they have never posted.
• I think that this is just battleground mentality, disregard for talk guidelines and lack of civility on CY's part. I contacted CY on their talk page[198] and they reverted because Not of interest[199]. So here we are.
• Final note. I'm not a Putin supporter, but I find JN's view that Putin supporters should be permanently prohibited from editing Wikipedia simply appalling. Wikipedia does not discriminate editors on the basis of political views, as I tried to explain to them in this conversation on my talk page here. IMHO these two editors should be prevented from editing in the EE area.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement Jargo Nautilus

Firstly, I have not replied to the RfC in days. Secondly, I am not in "cahoots" ("you and your pal") with User:Cambial Yellowing. I have had no direct contact with that user (except very recently at my talk page). Thirdly, I am very busy at the moment and probably can't reply to this thread for the next three weeks. Fourthly, I would hardly describe your own behaviour as appropriate, including the fact that this dispute was started by you when you collapsed my comments. And also, for over a day I believe, I didn't actually respond to you. You spent a considerable length of time arguing with Cambial Yellowing in my absence, and that isn't my fault because I didn't ask him to argue with you on my behalf. So, even though you may view Cambial Yellowing's actions as an escalation on my part, they actually had nothing to do with me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, your logic yet again does not track. You originally collapsed my comments on the charge of being "off topic" and "soapbox" (charges which haven't been verified by a third party, I will add), so I deleted the parts that I thought might have caused my comments to be flagged, since I was under the impression that you wanted me to remove the offending parts. However, remarkably, after I did this, I was only met with more outrage from you. Apparently, you actually wanted me to keep the information there, perhaps in order to make me "look bad". I'm not sure how it makes sense that you are angry at me for simultaneously "writing inappropriate things" and then subsequently deleting those things after I was told that they might cause offence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The first edit (deleting my comments) was my original attempt at conflict resolution. Gitz has highlighted this as a "crime" or an "escalation" for unknown reasons. Clearly, with that edit, I was attempting to improve the situation, not to worsen it. I deleted the parts that I thought might be considered "soap-boxy". My comments hadn't been replied to yet, so I figured it was okay to delete them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have not commented in the "Republics of Russia" article ever since I deleted some of my comments on November 1 (it's now November 4). Ever since then, I have only been interacting with Gitz at his user talk page. As I've said, my time is limited at the moment. | Update: I have commented on the talk page again after three days of absence, on November 4. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement Jargo Nautilus #2 - In light of the fact that no administrators have commented in this ANI discussion after two days and yet it is already impressively lengthy, I'm going to have to conclude that this ANI discussion has only served as a platform for derailment rather than as an actual attempt at conflict resolution. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

This extremely verbose comment from Gitz6666, which I have skimmed but not read, is I assume occasioned by reminders to both Jargo Nautilus and to Gitz6666 of the importance of observing WP:TPO, and especially so during a contentious RFC. The template used was Template:Uw-tpv2. Both editors edited each other's comments. Gitz6666 first hid Jargo's rather prolix series of comments, citing OFFTOPIC but neglecting to err on the side of caution.[200] Jargo then removed two of his own comments, to one of which Gitz6666 had responded, and removed Gitz6666's response.[201] Gitz6666 restores; Jargo then removes his own comment and collapses Gitz6666's reply.[202] Gitz6666 then removes the collapse, and changes Jargo's other comments to an earlier version.[203].

The only reason any of my comments about this are on article talk, is that Gitz6666 insisted on responding in a thread on article talk. The content of that discussion, in which Gitz6666 merely seeks to justify ignoring WP:TPO, is relevant context.

I reject Gitz6666's specious accusations above, including a fabricated charge of "edit warring" and the claim that I suggested Jargo was "justified in calling a fellow editor a liar" - a phrase and a notion of his own invention. The charges he makes are refuted by the diffs he purports to adduce in support of his claims. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please explain what did you mean when you said note point 2(d) (per WP:IUC) in your conversation with JN quoted above? Who was the liar you were referring to? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I made no reference to a liar: that's yet another example of the complete fabrications you've made in your comments on this noticeboard. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, I would advise to avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You have accused me and Cambial Yellowing of collaborating, which is not true aside from what can be seen publicly (which is not that much; I've interacted with you -- Gitz -- more than I have with him). This comment of yours was especially direct in this accusation -- "you and your pal". And the phrase "your conversation with JN" in your statement above is seemingly suggestive of this accusation. It certainly wasn't much of a conversation; Cambial Yellowing left two medium-length messages at my talk page, and I left one medium-length reply, and that's it. It's more of a brief "chat" if anything. Indeed, Cambial Yellowing's messages to me are not strongly relevant to the statement that he has made above, which means you are going into WP:TALKOFFTOPIC territory. | EDIT: Also, what is this quote -- "good advice" -- in the segment at the top here a reference to? Is this another accusation? I have been searching through the history of this three-way dispute and I can't find that precise phrase anywhere else but here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In terms of Seryo "lying", you can see what I am referring to in the most recent discussion on his talk page. Effectively, he repeatedly kept misquoting another user by changing the wording of a phrase that they had said -- specifically changing "in Europe" to "in the world". This incident occurred in a discussion on Talk:Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now had time to go through Gitz6666's bullet points above. The level of obfuscation, distortion, and outright fabrication in Gitz6666's post is so extreme that I am left with the impression Gitz6666 is unable to edit in this topic area without resort to totally inappropriate conduct. I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG for Gitz6666 in the form of an indefinite article ban and a twelve-month topic ban in the Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict areas.

Re: the above -

Gitz6666 claims that I left a warning on [Gitz] talk page (vandalism)[119] and commented on the article talk page. This gives the false and inaccurate impression that a) my warning was for vandalism and b) that I commented on article talk right away. In reality my warning was the normal template for "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments" personalised with "It's always best to strictly observe WP:TPO, and particularly so in a formal RFC. Where comments have not been replied to it is generally acceptable for an editor to make amendments to their own earlier comments." My comment on article talk was made later and only in response to Gitz6666 starting a thread on talk after he had first responded on his talk page.

Gitz6666 claims that I was trying to justify JN's disregard for WP:TALK by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved. Gitz6666 gives no evidence for this groundless, dishonest claim. Leaving reminders on two editor's pages for the same thing - editing each other's comments - would be no way to "muddy the waters" were that someone's aim, but Gitz6666 does not let mere logic get in the way of his fabrications.

Gitz6666 claims comments on talk were uncivil and tendentious. The only talk diff they refer to in this paragraph is this one, a response to Gitz6666's suggestion that rather than requiring RS that support southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, I ought to have RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation. Gitz6666 is at this point moving into sealioning territory. My response pointing out the absurdity of approaching sourcing this way (assuming something is true until RS deny it) remains accurate. The part Gitz6666 says he objects to is justified and objectively true, and I'm happy to repeat it here: "Content must be reliably sourced. If you're not keen on that policy this may not be the website for you."

Gitz6666 claims that CY provided JN with "good advice". He puts the phrase "good advice" in quotes, despite that the phrase is entirely his own invention. Gitz6666 claims that CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again. In reality I pointed out to Jargo that I had restored his comments to the last version created by him, and to check this was the right version.(see here)

Gitz6666 then claims that CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar. This is not a distortion, but an outright fabrication, as can be seen from the diff. I began Regarding the comment in this edit summary, linking to where Jargo says Indeed, as far as I can tell, it's not a crime on Wikipedia to tell a fib on a talk page, but it's definitely very annoying.. I pointed out to Jargo that lying is considered uncivil in Wikipedia conduct guidelines. I made no comment about another editor, Seryo, whom I know nothing about, nor about whether anything is "justified" – a word and a phrase of Gitz6666's own invention.

Gitz6666 says he contacted CY on their talk page, which is true, but they neglect to mention that I already indicated in the thread Gitz6666 started on article talk that I was not interested in attempts to justify ignoring WP:TPO in a contentious RFC. Given that Gitz6666 had seen that, it should be unsurprising to him that I had no interest in his doing so at even greater length and with even more specious arguments on my talk page. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm involved at the RfC, I'm not going to add anything here. I feel the situation would best be served with less heat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have not actually edited any of my statements in the RfC at "Talk:Republics of Russia" after Cambial Yellowing messaged me on my talk page, so it's a bit of a moot point how Gitz is suggesting that Cambial Yellowing was inviting me to cause more trouble when I basically haven't caused any further trouble over there. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Close this complaint without action. The discussion at the RfC does not seem very problematic, given the contentious nature of the subject. I did not check a lot (tl;dr, sorry), but few first diffs by the complaining contributor are not convincing, or at least it is not clear why they would warrant any administrative action. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite article ban and twelve-month topic ban for Gitz6666

Given the extensive degree of distortion, omission, and outright fabrication that Gitz6666 engages in in his OP here, some kind of WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate in this instance.

I note that Gitz6666 is already indefinitely blocked on both the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias for incompatibility with the Project, irredeemable violation of Wiki etiquette, and block evasion (Italian), disruptive edits, and edit wars (Spanish).

On the article talk, Gitz6666 has pushed a POV that is a common talking point for the English-language editions of Russian media: that Russian constitutional law has established southeast Ukraine as part of Russia. Gitz6666 does so

• here, saying the member states of a federation are determined by the federal constitution, not by international law or international consensus
• here, saying In fact it is obvious that the constitutive elements of a federation are determined by the federal constitution rather than international law or international consensus
• here, suggesting sourcing policy ought to be turned on its head in saying Do you have a RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation?
• here, saying I have been asked to provide sources to support the claim that, according to Russian constitutional law [the regions of southeast Ukraine] are federal subject of the Russian Federation [emphasis added]. In fact Gitz6666 was asked for sources which directly support the notion of southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, which of course do not exist.

Gitz6666 has previously been civil, and his pushing of this "Constitutional law establishes fact" line can best be described as WP:Sealioning. As he has now escalated this POV-pushing to a crass attempt at WP:SANCTIONGAMING in which he fabricates actions and quotes by other editors, I propose an indefinite article ban on Republics of Russia and a twelve-month topic ban on Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict articles. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - At this point in time, I don't support banning Gitz outright. Requesting him to get banned would make me no better than him, who has just recently requested to get me banned. I believe that the best course of action right now is to de-escalate the dispute between the three users involved. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I am an uninvolved editor who does not wish to become involved in this matter. I would like however to point out the very similar threads here and at Arbcom in late June 2022. I *was* involved in those, and still believe that Gitz misrepresented a source, as I discussed there (and do not have the bandwidth to re-litigate). As above, Gitz was filing a complaint about someone pushing back on his inevitably prolific pro-Russian spin. Perhaps that may shed some light on the matter. I will find and post links. Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Links:

• AN/I

• Arbcom Elinruby (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article. I'd be happy to oblige, but this is not the place to do so. Therefore I've just posted this comment on the article talk page. I hope it will help create some interest in an RfC that is languishing for lack of contributions. So far we have had no less than 18 comments from Cambial, 23 from Jargo and 20 from me, thus bludgeoning the discussion and hampering the participation of other users: everybody's contribution is welcome. From now on, I'm abandoning that RfC. I suggest that Cambial and Jargo do the same.

Instead of replying to Cambial about contents, I'd like to ask them the following:

1. Are you sure that it was appropriate for Jargo Nautilus to edit their off-topic comments, remove them and remove the collapsible box? It had been more than three days since they had posted them, and Jargo did not used any <ins> or new timestamp when they edited them. Most importantly, I had already reacted to their comments by putting them in a collapsible box titled off-topic and soapboxing comments. In the edit summary I had explained collapsing off-topic and soapboxing comments per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.[204] Are you sure that, in doing so, I hadn't already replied to them (per WP:TALK#REPLIED)? I gave you my reasons on this[205] and you replied that No-one is interested in pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy.[206] Are you still sure you were right in point of policy?
2. In a conversation with Jargo on their talk page you said the following about editing their own comments in the box: if no-one has replied to them by all means remove/edit them. After you had restored Jargo's edited comments, you wrote to them Please check that this is the version of the comments you wish to remain, as your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor.[207] If I understand you correctly, you were encouraging them to further edit their comments. Or do you have a different explanation for your suggestion?
3. You quoted our policy on "lying" as incivility per WP:IUC on Jargo's talk page. You also chose the subject "Fibs" as the name of the section you opened there.[208] Let me understand your reasoning: Jargo deletes from the talk page their personal attack and my reply to it, and in the edit summary Jargo writes that it's not a crime on Wikipedia to tell a fib on a talk page, but it's definitely very annoying.[209] You then feel the need to contact Jargo on their talk page to let them know (my words) "no, look, it's not just annoying: if Seryo93 was telling fibs that would have actually been against policy!" Does that make sense to you?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Brief answers to questions: 1. Yes. Your editing of Jargo's comments does not fit any of the exceptions to WP:TPO. 2. I was neither encouraging them nor discouraging them. Your interpretation of that sentence is sufficiently removed from usual English meaning that one has to assume that either a. your level of English is insufficient to edit this wiki or b. you are WP:GASLIGHTING to try to make another editor's actions appear utterly different to reality. If Jargo had edited their own comments, that would have been acceptable given that no-one had replied to them and your immediately preceding inappropriate editing of the same comments. 3. If an editor lies that is considered uncivil. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment #1 - Gitz, your comment would make sense if I hadn't already abandoned the RfC four days ago. I haven't commented there since November 1 (except for a brief comment on November 4 saying the same thing I'm saying now). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to highlight the fact that Gitz wrote a 2,427‎-character essay within the RfC merely seven minutes before writing above that he is planning to abandon the RfC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment #2 - Based on what Gitz has written above, it seems that they are unwilling to resolve the dispute. Some of their claims just don't make sense. For example, they unilaterally (i.e. without approval from an admin or another experienced third party) collapsed some of my comments in an "off-topic" template, and they told me on my talk page that the comments were inappropriate (according to Gitz). So, I deleted around 70% of the comments that had been collapsed by Gitz, leaving only the parts that I thought were core to my point. I don't see anything wrong with this particular action. It doesn't make sense that Gitz views the deletion of these parts as some sort of a crime, especially since he was the one who told me that those parts allegedly did not belong on the talk page and needed to be hidden/removed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it would be very much appreciated if some admins and/or experienced users were to help us clarify the point of policy here above addressed (point 1 of my last comment, comment#2 of Jorge's reply). 1) Do involved editors have the right to apply a collapsible box to an off-topic discussion/off-topic comments? 2) Once the collapsible box has been applied, has the author of the off-topic comments the right to modify them, delete them, and remove the collapsible box from the talk page? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) P.S. Note that there is no real dispute between us about the off-topic/soapboxing nature of the comments: the point under discussion is how best to react to these kinds of situations, which I imagine are recurrent, per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.; edited 12:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, it would be appreciated if you would stop rehashing points that haven't been verified by admins or experienced users. That would be a good start. Indeed, if you are wrong about some of your points, that would not be a good look. So, I would advise waiting until experienced users arrive and letting them tell their opinions, rather than predicting the things that you think they will say. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite amazing, but not surprising, that in response to my pointing out the fabrications and distortions in your original post you respond with more of the same. You claim, Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article. You provide no evidence for this whatsoever: nor could you, given that it's a fabrication on your part. This is about you trying to push a completely inappropriate, Russian-government-centric POV. It's also about your pointless, unhelpful (bordering on uncivil) contrariness towards another editor and your inappropriate editing of their comments. It's also about you making things up here at ANI.

On the pushing of a Russian-government-centric POV, I've already provided diffs above where you directly state that what we include as Republics of Russia should be determined entirely by the Russian Constitution (e.g. [210][211][212] Another editor has pointed out above that you have been pushing this POV on other articles. I also note that you have pushed a similar Russian-government POV at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, suggesting we don't need a source saying that [alleged Ukrainian killing] was a war crime[213], and that the representatives of the Luhansk People's Republic called it a war crime[214] (you cite TASS); editors Volunteer Marek,[215][216] and Adoring nanny[217] have had to remind you that the opinions of Russian or Russian-puppet politicians do not establish fact.

On the contrariness towards another editor, you really shot yourself in the foot on this one. Having read Jargo's comments, I see quite how absurd your actions actually were. To wit (and for the benefit of admin):

• Jargo writes a series of posts. [218][219][220]
• You respond to one of them (about international vs constitutional law). [221]
• Jargo gives his view on Russian constitutional law, and writes another series of posts. [222][223][224]
• You reply to an earlier, unrelated post. [225]
• You then collapse Jargo's comments about constitutional law (but not your own), claiming they are "soapboxing" and citing "off-topic". [226]
• Jargo, having seen that you hid his comments about constitutional law (but not your own), and your citing of "off-topic", deletes the parts he thinks are not directly relevant and condenses the rest. [227]
• Jargo then deletes the earlier, unrelated post and your reply to it. [228]
• You restore the earlier post to which you had replied (and your reply). [229]
• Jargo deletes his earlier post (and collapses your reply). [230]
• You uncollapse your reply and restore Jargo's earlier post. You also change the series of posts by Jargo, that you collapsed citing off-topic, to their earlier version (the version that you hid saying off-topic soapboxing). [231]
• I remind first Jargo to observe WP:TPO and WP:REDACT,[232] and then you to observe WP:TPO.[233] I also stress to Jargo that with his own comments he should edit only if they have not been replied to.[234]

That you chose to first hide a series of comments as off-topic soap-boxing, and then, when the editor changes them to try to be more on-topic, you edit their comments to the version you claimed was off-topic, shows a level of contrariness that suggests you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. Your series of fabrications in your original post here suggest the same. I have therefore struck my proposal above and propose an indefinite block. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Behaviour during the ANI discussion

Gitz, what is this? With this edit, you have amended a comment onto the end of Cambial Yellowing's comments, and you have not signed it. At the moment, it looks like something that Cambial Yellowing has written, rather than you. Please explain your edit below, and if there has been a mistake, then please fix it promptly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's a weird mistake - I had intended to add that "post scriptum" to my comment. I'm now moving it to where it belongs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666 is NOTHERE

Gitz6666 has been pushing common talking points of the Russian government public relations machine at at least two, possibly more articles. A number of editors have also indicated POV-pushing on Gitz6666's part at this noticeboard and at Arbcom. Gitz6666 has also collapsed replies to their comments citing off-topic; when the editor who wrote these replies tried to focus them on the topic, Gitz6666 insisted on changing them back to the version Gitz6666 had claimed was off-topic: this shows an extraordinary degree of contrariness or editing other's comments just for the sake of it – highly disruptive. They have also made a series of fabricated and unsupported claims about other editor's actions here on ANI. Together, these strongly suggest Gitz6666 is not here to build an encyclopaedia. They have already been blocked on the Italian and Spanish Wikis for similar reasons.ITES I propose a similar block on this wiki. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, for the reasons summarised above and outlined in detail in the previous section. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This proposal looks like Battleground retaliation and raises questions about Cambial Yellowing's ability or willingness to collaborate respectfully with good faith contributors on complex and controversial subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

While your input is always interesting Specifico, your own inability to collaborate on far-less controversial topics, even though you claim to have expertise in that topic area, indicates you would be a poor judge of the nature of other editor's actions. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently Cambial has serious problems with civility and is incapable or receiving the slightest criticism without overreacting, attempting to undermine the interlocutor's credibility and making personal attacks. The topic of this discussion is Cambial's, Jargo's and mine "inability to cooperate", not Specifico's. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: The topic that you started this under was in fact "concern about behaviour". Much of the behaviour you went on to describe turned out to be fabricated, to be sure, but the ostensible subject was different to "inability to cooperate". Neither Jargo nor I have had a problem collaborating or discussing, despite contentious disagreement, with each other or with other editors on the page. It is only you that has caused extensive problems both at that page and others, which have led to your complete ban on two other wikis. It is only you that has been difficult to collaborate with, continually pushing a notion that "Russian constitutional law establishes fact" without regard to the content policies of this website. It is only you that has moved from a simple reminder to respect the talk page guidelines, in a series of bizarre escalations, to the extensive series of fabrications about other editor's actions that you make on this noticeboard. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So far you've used the word fabrication, which implies intentions, no less than 12 times in the course of this discussion, yet you have failed to share even one single diff showing a lie on my part. My account of our interactions was correct and, I believe, it shows your disregard for our policies and guidelines (TALK, CIV, NPA, AGV) and your battlefield mentality (NPOV) meaning your inability to cooperate in the EE area. Moreover, your remarkable behaviour during this discussion (I propose tban! - I support tban - silence follows - I propose nothere! - I support nothere - silence and coughing from the audience – more personal attacks, more accusations) is verging on the bizarre and suggests that it's time for an admin to handle the matter, possibly with some consideration for the high level of distress and discomfort shown by all editors involved.

Finally, since you mentioned my history on it.wiki and es.wiki, I intend to publish a short explanation (with diff) of these events, which I will post on my user page, so as not to burden this discussion with other irrelevant materials. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I referred to fabrications, not lies. You have made various statements above which are demonstrably false. I make no judgement about intention, but it would be interesting to see you try to explain how some of these statements were not intentional. It is again unsurprising that you exhibit such a degree of unselfconsciousness that you inaccurately accuse others of having failed to share even one single diff, after making an OP in which you make accusations for which you offer not a shred of evidence. Given that the diffs you appeal to above are your comments on this noticeboard in this section, linking them seems redundant, but for completeness they are your OP (I detail the fabrications in a post below it); your response to another post (you ask Who was the liar you were referring to? – given the number of times you've linked to my 2 comments at Jargo's page, you cannot be unaware of the fact that I made no reference to any "liar"); and this post (you claim Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article - again you offer no evidence). Your bizarre speculations about an imaginary "audience" speaks to the performative nature of your posts here, which suggests they are designed largely to waste editor and admin time. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Audience" refers to the community and to the admins who will read and hopefully see through this better than you and me, including the semantics of "fabrication" (as distinct from lie and not implying ill-intentions) that you've just... fabricated![235] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I referred to fabrications, not lies.

Let's not play rhetorical games. If you accuse someone of fabrications, you are accusing them of making up something they know is false, aka lying. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It is possible to say things that aren't true, and also believe them. Gitz for example firmly believes that Wikipedia is unfairly portraying the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He also believes that Ukrainian territory is part of Russia, apparently, and that a Russian law proves that this is so. He is now complaining that these assertions weren't received as he thought they should be, shrug. As civilly as I can, I would like to say that a thing does not become true merely because Putin said so and Gitz believes it, and has posted wall after wall of text about it. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 04:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

this thread is now turning into a workshop on the notion of "fabrication". As the discussion is quite long and few editors will read it carefully, I'm forced to rectify Elinruby's claims: I've never said the things they attribute to me. It's pure (intentional? unintentional?) fabrication. Some of them are too generic (Wikipedia is unfairly portraying the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and others are entirely false (He also believes that Ukrainian territory is part of Russia), not to say insulting. They are not a reasonable interpretation of my claim that the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Why would Russian public law make Ukrainian territory part of Russia? For purposes of the Russian secret police, perhaps, but for purposes of the English-language Wikipedia Putin's flights of fancy are not RS for our encyclopedia. I was mercifully uninvolved in the original dispute here, and don't know who did what to whose hatnote; frankly I don't care and think you should be ashamed of yourself for whining about it here. It's hilarious that you complain, in an utter lack of self-awareness, about the length of a thread largely made up of your own walls of whatever. You routinely post torrents of legalese that exhaust those who disagree with you into just wanting you to go away. And yeah, by the way, by your own definition, you just accused me of making stuff up. But never mind all that. My point is that if you are going to maintain that the massacre at Bucha was exaggerated (see also All Russian war crimes are only "alleged") or that children taken from their parents aren't *really* kidnapped (see "interests of the child" 22:13, 5 June) because Russia passed a law that made it legal to take them, then any reasonable person would expect you to meet with a certain amount of exasperation. However "civil" you may be in your utter certitude that you are correct, you insert stupefying amounts of spin into the encyclopedia. I have dealt with hundreds of editors on dozens of highly contentious topics, and you're the only one in all these years that I have ever had to instruct to stop speaking either to me or about me. Rectify, my left foot. Obviously, it is no longer reasonable now to expect you not to answer me here, which is why I have tried so hard to stay out of this, but kindly refrain this time from the dissertations on my talk page. I have watched you intimidate or discourage one good editor after another and am unlikely to change my opinion that you are a serial bully who for some reason truly believes in irredentism, and a net negative to the project who should at a minimum be topic-banned from anything to do with Russia. Now if you will excuse me, I feel the need for a shower. Elinruby (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

When does a crime ever stop being alleged? Even some people who were historically sentenced to death in the United States eventually became rectified of their convictions decades later. Crimes are never 100% proven nor disproven. Even the court of law's verdict is merely an opinion. Hence, placing the descriptor "alleged" before every Russian war crime is semantics. The Russian war crimes will never be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (unless captured in video footage). Most war crimes never get proven or punished. | Clarification: This is an argument against Gitz's suggestion that the Russian war crimes haven't yet been proven, so we must describe them as "alleged". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, this formulation is much better than Reading through some of the comments left by Gitz here, I think I am losing brain cells by the second, so I'm going to stop now before I need to be placed in an intensive care unit.[236][237] It's a pity you don't understand the notion of personal attack. This, for instance, is another recent one: Hopefully, you can help yourself on how to become a better person and find your way onto the right side of history.[238] You have no right to write things like these on this platform and I hope the closing admin will not let them go unnoticed.
• I also hope the closer will uphold WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and provide some clarity on how WP:TALK#REPLIED should be interpreted in a case like this.
• Shouldn't Cambial's funny headings be removed from this thread per WP:TALKHEADPOV? Or is it better to leave them there because they are another sign of disregard for WP:TALK?
• Regarding the off-topic stuff mentioned by Elinruby and Jargo (Bucha, kidnapping, "alleged", etc.) if asked by a good-faithed editor I can provide diffs showing that my comments have been grossly misrepresented here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't let him goad you, JN. It's true that you need to find another place to vent; we talked about that. But don't answer him here or he will request clarifications and diffs and claim to be misunderstood until you're suddenly the mean one because you "hate Russians". Or are "fooled by Ukrainians" or whatever. Gitz, it's a pattern with you and the diffs are right there, but as far as this particular thread goes, I ask again, *Why would Russian public law make Ukrainian territory part of Russia?* it's the mind-bending nature of this conviction of yours that is the heart of the issue here, I think. Can I declare myself a country and pass a law that says that your account no longer belongs to you? How about if I appropriate the International Space Station, let's say because a legend in my country says that its inhabitants have always been destined to rule from up in the sky??? I would almost be ok with you believing this stuff. But you keep dragging people to AN/I for supposedly being rude to you when they won't let you convince them how right you are. Elinruby (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course, this is not the appropriate place to respond to Gitz. He is clearly trying to start trouble. My previous response was merely about the one point he was making. Meta discussions are neither needed nor wanted. Indeed, my original point still stands... at which point do we draw the line between something that is "proven" versus "unproven"? As I said, even people who get executed on death row can eventually be deemed not guilty fifty years or so later. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, you would benefit from acquiring a sense of humour. That's the great thing about the country where I live; humour abounds. In that sense, I see nothing wrong with "funny" headings per se. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby, the question you asked twice in bold, as if you were shouting something very topical, urgent and conclusive, actually makes no sense, neither here (where we discuss behaviour) nor in the RfC at Republics of Russia. It is obvious that Russian public law cannot make Ukrainian territory part of Russia: no one has ever argued otherwise. But Jargo, Cambial and I were not discussing about Russia–Ukraine border nor about Borders of Russia: we were discussing about Republics of Russia. And it is precisely Russian public law that regulates the constitutive elements of the Russian Federation by determining, among other things, which republics are member of the Federation and how they are called. Analogously, Provinces of China lists Taiwan Province despite the fact that the People's Republic of China does not rule on that territory. So your argument is irrelevant and in any case it does not belong to this discussion. I suggest you continue to discuss in the user talk pages with editors complaining about your sanctimoneous insults[239] and long rant[240] instead of bringing them here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 8 November 2022 (UT

Well it certainly made no sense to me when at 07:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC), in this very thread, you said I was "insulting" and my remarks were "not a reasonable interpretation of (your) claim that the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law.". So....if nobody let alone you ever said that Russian public law was our RS for whether or not Kherson and the Donbas were of Russia, which one of the other words in that sentence did you say or not say? The man on my talk page is not part of this and perhaps he misread or misspoke. Or perhaps you did. I am all AGF over here just waiting to hear how it is that "the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law" actually clearly means "Russian public law cannot make Ukrainian territory part of Russia: no one has ever argued otherwise." and yet-- didn't you just now draw a parallel to Provinces of China, where you say that Taiwan is listed? Maybe *you* should go talk to the man on my talk page, and the two of you can put you heards together....shrug. You can withdraw your complaint at any time, you know. You're the one that wanted other people chastised. If there is some sort of language or medical issue here I am happy to help. I told you that before. But from here it really does look like you are denying that you said something that you clearly did say. 13:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

If there is some sort of language or medical issue here I am happy to help. OK, I'm done with this, I'm out. I will no longer reply to these editors. I'm not withdrawing my complaint: I'm still asking for administrative oversight and action, and I'd like them to include also the behaviours held here during this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I've participated at the RFC-in-question, over a week or so ago. FWIW - So far, nobody has tried to push me into changing my position there. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

180.251.44.33

All edits by 180.251.44.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appear to be changing numbers to deliberately incorrect values, this diff being just one example. There are more than I can revert, so it needs someone with the power to do a mass revert. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I've used mass rollback on all edits. IP still needs to be blocked though. NonsensicalSystem^(error?)_(.log) 10:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked 180.251.44.33 (talk · contribs) one month for vandalism. The IP has made fifty edits that all seem to have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Stefanowski IP

There's an IP address Special:Contributions/200.69.80.131 that's posting a giant POV wall of text [241] about Bob Stefanowski across multiple pages. It appears to be the same person as Special:Contributions/179.19.61.228 which was doing this yesterday. Could an admin block the 200 ip? It's getting tiring playing whac-a-mole and I've warned the first IP twice already. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

No idea what that's about, but since it's a mass spamming of external links and copy paste info across irrelevant pages I've reverted everything and blocked the IP for 31 hours for disruption. It may be partially relevant on one or two of those pages, but this seems more like a hit job of pre-prepared text. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also struggling to figure out why an IP geolocating to Colombia would've sought to publish this kind of spam. It's pretty weird. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: VPN. Very unlikely to actually be in Colombia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

They're back at it again today as Special:Contributions/190.145.199.225. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. DanCherek (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Nope. From what I can tell, it's not a proxy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Seems to probably be someone using several different networks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Defamatory content at Carla Esparza

Mostly slang, but enough to merit rev/deletion as sexual innuendo. Please block the IP, too, of course. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Done and user blocked by Kinu. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotection might be a good idea, in case the unregistered editor comes in via a different carrier. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Long standing POV pushing by MiltenR on Bulgars

• MiltenR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bulgars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user constantly removes the term Turkic from the page.

1. 27 April 2020: There are relevant theories about the Iranian root of the bulgars, as is stated in the article Removed: Turkic
2. 7 November 2020: Improvement - this is not the only modern theory Removed: Turkic
3. 13 November 2020: Improvement - that’s uncertain, it’s stated in the text below Removed: Turkic
4. 14 November 2020: Added content: Added: presumably Turkic
5. 14 November 2020: Improvement Added: or of mixed origin
6. 24 November 2020: Improvements, added content and relevant reliable source Removed: Turkic Added: of controversial origin
7. 30 September 2022: Improvements Removed: Turkic
8. 10 November 2022: The origin of the Bulgars is uncertain, stressing Turkic elements is not correct. Added contents, improvements and reliable relevant sources. Removed: Turkic
9. 10 November 2022: Undid revision 1121157410 by Beshogur (talk): Removed: Turkic

This user claims Bulgars not being Turkic, however this is a fringe view, and outside mainstream. I listed all his edits. It's up to admins to decide. Uh now personal attack: This guy Beshogur is a real vandal and Turkic nationalist, this is clear. Tries to keep page filled with inaccuracies, unsubstantiated claims. The article is not Bulgar oriented, but Turkic people oriented. Beshogur (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I left a warning on MiltenR's talk page regarding the personal attack. Perhaps an Admin could persuade them to remove or strike through said PA? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, this editor is pushing the thesis of the Bulgarian nationalists according to which the Central Asiatic invaders as Bulgars were not Turkic people, and today's Bulgarians are their direct descendants. Those views that are marginal are based only on Bulgarian sources. But this view is only partially supported even in Bulgaria. Apparently, he decided by force and through an editorial war to impose this fringe view in the article. From what I can see some troll who hasn't been active in years has jumped in on the talk page and is now supporting him. The whole story seems pretty set up and pre-arranged to me. The goal is to replace the entire previous main line in the article at the cost of an edit war and without discussion on the talk page. He periodically tries to push this line on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, but without success. Jingiby (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Transphobia from InverseZebra in Talk:LGB Alliance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's definitely not as high-profile as the last time I reported a transphobe here, but InverseZebra has been using vocabulary such as [a] male claiming to be trans, saying TERF is a slur, and other transphobic stuff on Talk:LGB Alliance. As a trans woman, I think such phrases are unacceptable, especially in the case of a touchy subject like the LGB Alliance. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Less than 100 edits over two years and every single one being on a talk page (or their user talk page) arguing essentially the same things as pointed out by LilianaUwU, such as wanting to put dead names into trans peoples' articles despite that not meeting name notability requirements of MOS:GID (which was pointed out to them and they refused to understand it). They basically disappear for a month or more at a time and then jump back in to pushing anti-trans things on various article talk pages. Seems like a blatant WP:NOTHERE case of an editor not here to actually edit and build an encyclopedia. Silverseren^C 02:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As you both correctly point out, their main shtick is to bore on offensively about trans people, and closely related topics, but they do have a very few other edits and looking at those is also instructive:

• They have edited Talk:Race and intelligence to advocate for using Quillette as a source for something or other related to a racial theory of "Ashkenazi intelligence".
• They have also edited Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, seeming to advocate for the "lab leak" conspiracy theory for the origin of the pandemic.
• They have written what is essentially an essay or manifesto on their talk page in which they ascribe all the well justified warnings that they have received to "political interference", "capture", "scolds" and "discussion killers".

Taken together, we see a pattern of POV editing, on contentious issues, advocating for far-right talking points and refusing to engage with other editors in good faith. Having initially noted their unhelpful editing on trans issues, I expected to come here to suggest a topic ban from sexuality and gender related articles. Instead, looking at these other edits, particularly the "essay", has persuaded me that this is indeed a case of WP:NOTHERE with quite a bit of WP:TRUTH and WP:RGW on the side. DanielRigal (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've stuck to discussing sources in talk pages for hot-button articles I see in the news. Everything I've discussed I've first seen being discussed off-wiki. I suggest weak sources be replaced, or that edits be made to better reflect sources. You're looking at my lack of interference and trying to spin it as disruption when I've never engaged in an edit war, etc. NewImpartial was fishing for offense and that's all this brave group here is doing. Like Liliana's "other transphobic stuff" comment without naming a single transphobic thing in the first place.

• ) Race_and_Intelligence was arguing that a Quillette article couldn't even be discussed as an indicator of Quillette's leanings. Not just not used in an article, but not even discussed on the talk page.
• ) On COVID-19 I called out an editor for not being able to separate the sources from the people, and going into a multi-page rant about fake information without citing meaningful sources or explaining how he selected them - it was simply my cites vs your cites, but with an assumption of trolling for anyone who disagrees. Again, all on talk pages and all about sources.
• ) In the LGBA case I'm arguing, again on the talk page, that all of the sources misrepresent LGBA's actual words before they criticize them, and as such are criticizing some straw man instead of the group's actual feelings which the article entirely sidesteps.

I asked about some of their stated concerns, such as single-sex spaces, and was told that it was so transphobic it warranted not honestly reporting on it. How could their concerns be raised, even just to ask about, without this crew seeing it as transphobic?

I don't believe that Wiki needs to lie to write a good article.

> They basically disappear for a month or more at a time and then jump back in

You're fishing, if I was here too much you'd complain about that, if I'm here too little you complain about that. If this account edited primarily math articles and made these same comments you'd use that to demonize me. If I have an account that hasn't edited a single article you use that against me.

> what is essentially an essay or manifesto on their talk page

A graveyard of fake warnings by people who can't handle having their sources called out. Each one is common in that it alleges some wiki crime has been committed by simply calling out weak sources and lack of editor consistency. All they have to do to not end up in the list is make a valid argument instead of trying to report me.

> Having initially noted their unhelpful editing on trans issues,

I intentionally don't edit. Stop misrepresenting. InverseZebra (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Editing Talk pages is still editing. It takes up people's time and effort to deal with your obtuse and disruptive contributions and none of us is getting paid for this. DanielRigal (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. NewImpartial didn't have to ask me questions that they didn't want answers to. I thought I'd explained myself clearly in the initial post. NI went out of their way to fish for explanations that they could try to make into transphobia. InverseZebra (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: I'm arguing, again on the talk page, that all of the sources misrepresent LGBA's actual words before they criticize them, and as such are criticizing some straw man instead of the group's actual feelings which the article entirely sidesteps - I believe an argument that all the independent WP:RS are wrong so we should base WP article text on editors' own interpretarion of WP:SELFPUB/mission statement material is a pretty clear demonstration that one is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia (as is charging in to WP:RGW in articles I've first seen being discussed off-wiki).

Re: I asked about some of their stated concerns, such as single-sex spaces, and was told that it was so transphobic it warranted not honestly reporting on it - this is a typical example of this editor's "creative" WP:STRAWMAN construction of argument no editor has ever made, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors while playing for sympathy against arguments no editor has made, while misstating their own prior argumentation. This editor refuses to provide diffs or supporting sources - by explicit design - and seems to regard Wikipedia talk pages as a WP:FORUM to construct original arguments while demanding satisfaction from other editors. Rather clearly WP:NOTHERE while only checking in to argue about a few hot-button WP:ACDS topics towards which they have been canvassed off-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> I believe an argument that all the independent WP:RS are wrong so we should base WP article text on editors' own interpretarion own WP:SELFPUB/mission statement material is a pretty clear demonstration that one is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia

I never claimed we should write the article based on my feelings. I specifically showed sources to be inadequate or biased and said that they should be replaced with other, actually reliable, sources. Ones that don't slur and lie about the subject more than they engage with their words.

> This editor refuses to provide diffs or supporting sources - by explicit design

Quit pretending you can read my mind. I don't supply diffs because I'm talking about the source, not the article (yet). There's no sense suggesting a change if you're still stuck on the bad source.

> which they have been canvassed off-wiki

More nonsense. I originally saw these articles in news and referenced elsewhere so I came to check them out. Nobody called me here. But I'll note that you convened a panel of like-minded people using your alt-right transphobic labels. You're doing everything you accuse me of. InverseZebra (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: But I'll note that you convened a panel of like-minded people using your alt-right transphobic labels - this is a great example of why the WP:TPG requires editors to back up accusations with diffs. I haven't done anything remotely corresponding to this.

You say of the authors of peer-reviewed academic work that they slur and lie about the subject more than they engage with their words, but all your comments on the source have actually demonstrated is that you are (voluntarily or involuntarily) misinterpreting the article in question and DONTLIKEIT. And all this in service of an attempt to remove an attributed statement about a group that is identified as anti-trans not only in these two academic articles but in the vast majority of independent RS in which it is discussed. You may not recognize your own POV crusade here, but I trust that other editors/admins can and will do so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> You say of the authors of peer-reviewed academic work that they slur and lie about the subject more than they engage with their words

That's absolute fact. The Monque link didn't engage with their words at all, only their purported goals, and it did so while specifically denigrating the LGBA by calling them TERFs. Hardly the marks of a reliable source. (Monque would be a good self-evident source to point to in saying "LGBA has received much nearly incoherent criticism" but not for the actual criticism itself.)

> but all your comments on the source have actually demonstrated is that you are (voluntarily or involuntarily) misinterpreting the article in question and DONTLIKEIT

I'm not misinterpreting the article, I'm saying it's too obvious biased on the surface (TERF TERF TERF...) to be worth engaging with at any deeper level. And yeah, I don't like that, but I don't think anyone should.

> service of an attempt to remove an attributed statement about a group that is identified as anti-trans not only in these two academic articles but in the vast majority of independent RS in which it is discussed.

No, to remove a bad source that makes meaningless or biased claims, and replace it with someone willing to dig into the substance. If LGBA's female and homosexual-first platform is transphobic then find someone who explains why, not who simply screams the entire time. As for multiple sources agreeing, that's why I called out multiple sources. They've become a circularly reinforcing echo chamber, not serious academia or reporting.

Your sources are so biased in this context, that they're laughable. It'd be like quoting only Trump in an article about Hillary. Sure, the source is verifiable, but it's meaningless. InverseZebra (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to hold the mistaken opinion that, when you disagree with a sourced statement in a wikipedia arricle, that you can demand that the source include evidence for what it says that will WP:SATISFY your own "unique" requirements, or that otherwise other editors must provide a better source. This is not the way anything works. The LGB Alliance article offers carefully attributed statements about its "anti-trans" activity along with extensively documented RS descriptions of that activity. Your objections to this because "all the RS are biased against the LGB Alliance" aren't really relevant, in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> You seem to hold the mistaken opinion that, when you disagree [...] that you can demand that

I have demanded nothing. I didn't edit contentious text. I clearly stated my opinion that the sources were weak and didn't support that they were being used to support, but I made no demands. Only suggestions - find a less biased-seeming source that you feel says the same thing. You asked about my suggestions and why, but nobody forced you too. The posts you're complaining about are direct responses to your questions.

> "all the RS are biased against the LGB Alliance"

I didn't say that because I haven't reviewed them all. But I did point out two sources that were useless for criticism because of their bias. In this case those over-the-top sources mean that the entire article appears biased.

Wiki expects, and relies upon, editors discussing the quality of sources. Your links even directly say so.

WP:RS_CONTEXT "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article"

WP:RS_BIAS "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." InverseZebra (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Funny that trying to get better sources is NOT THERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA to you. As for verifiability over truth, a biased source can be used to verify anything. I'm not here to right wrongs, I'm here to suggest better sources. Ones that aren't so clearly biased that they make a mockery of the article. I'm suggesting that we have criticism that reflects the words and views of our subjects.

TERF may not be a slur, but that source was throwing it around as if it was and that's what made it worthless in that context. InverseZebra (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What better sources are you claiming to have produced, or even suggested? You have shouted loudly that a peer-reviewed academic source is not appropriate for an attributed statement in our article, and what have you proposed to be less biased? Your own tendentious readings of sources, mostly self-published ones. This is absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> What better sources are you claiming to have produced, or even suggested?

More misrepresentation. I haven't suggested any sources because we haven't established the problems with the current ones yet.

> You have shouted loudly that a peer-reviewed academic source is not appropriate for an attributed statement in our article

And you've honestly fought back, saying that a clearly biased source is still reliable.

> what have you proposed to be less biased?

My only concrete suggestion so far is to make sure that we only use criticism that at least quotes the subject, and ideally refrains from simply insulting them.

> ... Your own tendentious readings of sources, mostly self-published ones. This is absurd.

It's not a tendentious reading to notice that the first word is terf and they make no effort to include, let alone engage with, anything that the LGBA has actually said - only their interpretations of those words. InverseZebra (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting this comment from DMacks a year ago: Your recent edit at Talk:Rachel Levine could be seen as disruptive enough to result in a block per this discretionary-sanctions standard. I suggest you find some other topic-area. (For those unfamiliar, Levine is a trans woman, and our article on her is something of an obsession in some online circles.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How else can I explain the concept of a non-trans identifying male, just some guy, who makes a claim to be trans, without saying something like "male who identifies"? This is one of LGBA's issues which is why I raised it, asking if another editor could make a distinction between pro-female and anti-trans policies.

As for TERF, it is used as a slur in the source, which is one of the reasons I'm calling the source out as being low quality - they feel the need to denigrate LGBA before even examining their words, yet they're being treated as a "reliable" source.

There's nothing in that discussion that is transphobic, and I challenge you to try to find even one real example. InverseZebra (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The correct way to refer to a man who is not trans, when it is necessary to make it clear that he is not trans, is to say "cisgender man". I am pretty sure that you know this already. DanielRigal (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is this correct? Who says so? Genuine question. - Roxy the dog 16:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What kind of question is this? Was Google abolished? The definition of "cisgender", from Oxford: "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex." — VersaceSpace (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> whose sense of personal identity and gender

Many people say they do not have this. If someone identifies as cis-gender then sure, use the term. But if they do not you're likely going to be "misgendering" them, if such a thing matters to you.

Also, again, I was trying to draw the largest distinction between a trans woman and a man claiming to be trans. I specifically tried to explain a female sex-based issue without using any gender terms. Again, damned if I do and damned if I don't. InverseZebra (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the first time I encountered the proposal that many people say they do not have a gender identity was from an editor who was subsequently indeffed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Re a male claiming to be trans: if you object to this, you are saying that no-one ever lies. The comment was A male claiming to be trans won't be stopped when following girls into the bathroom, or have the police called on him for loitering in the shower, so of course any male aggressor - and there are enough to warrant the creation of single-sex spaces - is going to use this defense. This obviously refers to perverts who are pretending to be trans in order to gain access to women’s toilets.

And TERF is commonly considered a slur: see TERF Though it was created as a deliberately neutral descriptor, TERF is now typically considered derogatory.

I propose a trout for the OP.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I see our other anti-trans editors that have been hanging around Wikipedia are popping in here now. Silverseren^C 16:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:CIVIL and stop gaming the processes here. People can just honestly disagree with you. InverseZebra (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller - does this look/smell familiar to you? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not necessarily correct because it implies that he's happy/congruent with his gender - a construct he may not even feel he has.

Also, I said 'non-trans identified' because I wanted to keep that point as separate from trans as possible. The point was to discuss the millennia old female/male risk dichotomy and how it was being lost under the assumption that everything is a transphobic dogwhistle of modern identity politics. InverseZebra (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Rigal: The correct way to refer to a man who is not trans is "man", when it is necessary to make it clear that he is trans, you say "trans man", because it is not reasonable to expect the >99.9% of all people who are cisgender to change their ways of speak to accomodate the <0.1% who are not. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me if I am misinterpreting, but it sounds as though you are trying to articulate - and enforce on others - the WP:FRINGE view that trans men are not "men" and should not be referred to or treated as such. Please let me know if I have misinderstood. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say that you are totally misinterpreting what I wrote, and not for the first time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Then why do you say, The correct way to refer to a man who is not trans is "man" as though the two were synonyms, and trans men were not also "men"? Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You really and truly are misinterpreting everything: my comment was a direct reply to what DanielRigal wrote above, nothing else, i.e. you can not expect people in general to start referring to the >99.9% of all men who were born male as "cisgender", so if there's a need to point out that someone is trans, and not cisgender, you'll have to say "trans man". And everything beyond that is your own (mis)interpretion of ~what I wrote. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

But that wasn't the issue. The issue was to determine the correct way to refer to a man who is not trans, when it is necessary to make it clear that he is not trans. If you were saying that the way to make it clear that he is not trans is to refer to him as a "man", then I'm afraid I've been understanding you correctly along. The term "man" can include both trans and non-trans men - at least where I live - but you seem to be arguing that only the latter are strictly included. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious that I'm seeing things, and interpreting things, through the eyes of the >99.9%, and you're seeing things, and interpreting things, through the eyes of the <0.1%, which means that you're constantly seeing things and meanings that aren't there in what other people write. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: That sounds very dangerously close to "You're wrong because you're trans." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

C'mon, no reasonable person could interpret it that way. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Your demographic percentages are not correct for the context where I live and work, first of all.

Also, and more importantly, you are refusing to answer Daniel's question by essentially saying that the speech community does not need a term for cis men because almost nobody is trans. This seems to me like a very silly non-answer to the question, though you are clearly very sincere in your position. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

My percentages are a rough estimate for humankind as a whole. I interpreted what Daniel wrote as that in their opinion everyone should use "cisgender male/man" when referring to a non-trans male/man, which IMO is unreasonable, and also unneeded, because people in general, that is the vast masses, don't care if someone is cisgender or transgender, if someone looks, walks, talks and behaves like a man they assume it is a man, and treat that person like a man, and if someone looks, walks, talks and behaves like a woman they assume it is a woman, and treat that person like a woman. The only opposition to transgender people I have seen was people, both male and female, being opposed to biological males (with the term used to denote persons who were born male and have gone through male puberty, no matter what they identify as, so don't even try to misinterpret it...) competing against women in sports, since they have an unfair physical advantage, and people, almost exclusively females, being opposed to people who were born male and then transitioned to women claiming to speak for or otherwise represent all women. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What part of Daniel's when it is necessary to make it clear that he is not trans did you not understand, then? The whole of this comment seems quite irrelevant to the original question (and your the only opposition to transgender people I have seen comment seems absurdly sheltered, given the precarious of access to trans healthcare in much of the US and the UK, but I digress). Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't even asking a question. I was trying to point out that the correct terminology is already well defined and hence that the argumentation was unnecessary. Unfortunately, what I had hoped would be a helpful comment has led to even more off-topic argumentation. If I had foreseen that I would not have made the comment. DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Cis and non-trans are subtly different, as are non-cis and trans. Someone you might label cis may never have heard of gender and may be best referred to as simply not-trans. And someone who does not feel that their AGAB is right for them may not identify as trans, though they would be non-cis. (NBs who don't call themselves trans, for example.)

I was trying to use the broadest term because I'm discussing all males, those who have heard of gender and those who have not, and female worries about sexual assault. InverseZebra (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

So you are including trans men's concerns as female worries about sexual assault while excluding trans women's concerns - a group that is much more likely to be sexually assaulted than non-trans women? How are things in your doublespeak Bizarro world? Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about females and males, and showing that the female need for single-sex spaces goes back as far as there have been males.

> trans women's concerns - a group that is much more likely to be sexually assaulted than non-trans women?

Even if that were true it wouldn't negate the non-trans female's worries about males.

> How are things in your doublespeak Bizarro world?

Just dropping this here as an example of your unwillingness to engage in good faith. InverseZebra (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you expect, NewImpartial is the definition of someone here to right great wrongs. 47.160.161.90 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Does everyone see what I have to put up with? Unrelenting, evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS just because I uphold Wikipedia's fundamental content policies in a contentious area. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think our anonymous friend is just trying to wind you up so maybe the best thing is to try not show annoyance, even though they are annoying.

IP, there is nothing for you here. The user reported has been blocked and you have missed the party. It was not a fun party and I doubt that it has left anybody in a good mood. So... maybe don't be seen gratuitously trying to wind people up in front of all the admins? DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• No comment for the moment on InverseZebra's editing history which I am still looking at. However, they are correct on one point. "TERF" is a pejorative. Its use is, at the very least, rude and arguably insulting. It should be avoided in discussions or debates and should never be used in reference to another editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  The Zebra wasn't discussing the use of the term "TERF" by editors but rather was using its use in an academic article to discredit the source.

  Also, the highest quality RS do not agree that "TERF" is a slur (please see the sources cited in TERF). Why should we take your opinion of this over the WP:RS? Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I did not say that TERF is a slur. I said it's a pejorative. There is a difference in degree. That said, the Oxford English Dictionary clearly states the term is considered derogatory. A quick online search shows the term is widely regarded as offensive. Some have likened it to hate speech. And on a purely anecdotal level, I have never seen the term used in anything other than a highly negative context, usually with the intent to belittle or insult. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that you're ignoring how the term is used as a self-descriptor of groups and individuals and has been for years, but also this discussion is irrelevant. Are you here to discuss the ANI post? Silverseren^C 17:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > you're ignoring how the term is used as a self-descriptor of groups and individuals and has been for years

  The N-word and other racial slurs have been reclaimed by some people but that doesn't mean they aren't or weren't used as slurs. If you read a source on American race politics and it unironically used race-based slurs for the groups you'd quickly determine that it wasn't a serious or reliable source. Ditto when we read an article about gender-based poliitics and it spend more time attacking its subject with slurs than examining their purported beliefs and actions.

  As for TERF being a slur, it fully became one when Twitter users and Antifa started using the term in calls for and threats of death and violence towards women. The proof is in the use, which is demonizing and threatening.

  > Are you here to discuss the ANI post?

  Discussing the misrepresentation that got us here is also on topic. InverseZebra (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for making comments that continue to showcase precisely why this ANI post was made in the first place. Ranting about Antifa now. Silverseren^C 17:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > "Ranting about Antifa now"

  No, showing proof that TERF is used as a slur, to call for violence against a group of political enemies.

  > Thank you for making comments that continue to showcase precisely why this ANI post was made in the first place

  NI asked for details they didn't want so they could scream transphobia to avoid examining the bias of "reliable" sources. How is that not what you're doing? InverseZebra (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Fine, AdOrientem. But how much weight do you expect other editors to give to your view that Its use is, at the very least, rude and arguably insulting when it comes to the evaluation of peer-reviewed academic sources? Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  For that source it's absolutely damning. You can't scream pejoratives and be taken seriously, no matter what your academic pedigree. Reliable Sources were never meant to be guaranteed reliable in all contexts and the RS and Bias articles call out that editors need to raise and examine these issues. It's not a one-and-done election result as you seem to suggest.

  You claim that Monque is well supported by the other "reliable" sources. If so, replace it with one of them which uses less invective in trying to make its point. InverseZebra (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  But we use it as an academic source showing that some academic articles describe the LGB Alliance as anti-trans. Why, in terms of Wikipedia policy, is it not a reliable source for that statement? Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  That's what I said about the Quillette article, that it was reasonable proof of the attitudes of Quillette editors. If you used the Monque source only to show the prevalence of academic papers slurring of GC women then it would be relevant.

  > Why, in terms of Wikipedia policy, is it not a reliable source for that statement

  Because you're trying to use it to examine and explain LGBA's opinions and its bias prevents it from even mentioning LGBA's words. InverseZebra (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  It is only used to show that some academic papers describe the Alliance as "anti-trans". The rest is your lurid inagination. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not reliable sources, only ones that rant at slurs. They didn't identify anything the LGBA said or did, so their opinion on the topic is irrelevant.

  If showing academic disapproval is important, find one that actually makes it clear which words and actions it's criticizing. InverseZebra (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that I am discussing at least one aspect of the ANI given the issue with the term was raised by the OP in their opening statement.

• A lot of terms have appeared in academic sources over the years that are no longer considered to be polite, i.e. negro, colored, homosexual, & etc. Social attitudes evolve. The article clearly states that the term was originally considered to be neutral in its nature but is now considered to be derogatory. Any source, academic or otherwise, that continues to use descriptive labels regarded as offensive by a significant number of people they are intended to describe, would raise serious questions in my mind regarding possible bias. I would hope that academics and institutions that care for their reputation, if not the feelings of other people, would exercise restraint when using terms now widely identified as objectionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t see why the use of that term in a recent peer-reviewed source would be a reason not to use that source to back up an attributed statement in article text that does not use the term. But hey - whatevs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  So, for what it's worth, I voted for that line saying TERF is pejorative in its article and I think you're fairly clearly wrong on this point. "TERF" is pejorative for the same reason and to the same degree that "transphobe" is pejorative. But the title of this section accuses another editor of transphobia. I agree it's generally best to avoid terms like this but, especially at ANI, sometimes you have to refer to another editor's bad behavior and there's just no non-pejorative way to do that. Loki (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Even if TERF would be a fair descriptor of certain views, the label wasn't being applied to LGAB's words or actions. In this case it was simply being used to imply that the LGBA had bad thoughts. Much as my views were labelled as demonizing trans despite explicitly not talking about trans people.

  The source wasn't wrong because it used the word TERF, that was simply the red flag that made the rest of its failures and non-reliability apparent. InverseZebra (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You were not explicitly not talking about trans people. If you wanted to specify, you could have specified. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I had specified - "non trans-identified males". That's pretty clear. InverseZebra (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I reviewed your entire contribution to the Talk page, and you never gave any such specification there. This is something you made up here at ANI, for wherever reason. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• I would disagree that TERF is a pejorative - it's descriptive of the views of that minority. Obviously, people in that group attempt to disguise their transphobia by using terms such as "gender critical" (which is a wider bloc of people), but if we blocked every "gender critical" editor here I can think of at least half a dozen regular editors that it would apply to. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > the views of that minority

  One, you haven't shown it to be a minority, and two the source in question said "TERFs are not feminists" which is wrong - TERF stands for "radical feminist". They're using slurs and trying to widen them to apply to everyone they disagree with. InverseZebra (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Are you trying to claim that TERFs are not transphobic? Because it's literally in the "TE" part of the name. And if you believe that it's not only a vocal minority of people that fall into the TERF part of the Venn diagram, you are clearly delusional. Much as you would like it not to be the case, the vast majority of people are not bigots. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > Are you trying to claim that TERFs are not transphobic?

  I'm claiming that the source in question did not attempt to show that LGBA's words were transphobic before throwing around the TERF slur. If you throw the label TERF at everyone then yes, at some point it loses all meaning, except as a way to to signal in-group rage. InverseZebra (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Excellent avoidance of the question. You should be a politician. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Do you really want an answer, or are you just doing what NI did - fish for something you can claim is transphobic and shout about it?

  I'm claiming the term TERF is applied to people without any concern for them being radfems or feminists at all, or even female, and without any examination of their words for trans exclusion. It's a slur and its used to avoid the truth, not examine it.

  > the vast majority of people are not bigots

  What would make them a bigot in your eyes, wanting single-sex spaces? InverseZebra (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  TERF has its place in academic discussion of the feminist movement. That's literally where it was born. People can shout anything as a slur. There was a US president who used the term "mainstream media" as a term of abuse. The article talk referred to descended into transphobic tropes about perverts in bathrooms. It doesn't appear that InverseZebra appreciates this is a problem. Though I do think some participants at that page should learn more when not to feed the trolls. -- Colin°^Talk 18:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > The article talk referred to descended into transphobic tropes about perverts in bathrooms

  How is the discussion of males sexually abusing females transphobic? It happened for thousands of years before anyone said the word 'trans', and it still happens.

  If you call all of women's sex-based concerns transphobic then you're just proving the point that nobody is engaging with LGBA's words before criticizing them. If you don't examine the line between pro-female and anti-trans policy concerns you can't make any useful claims about which side of the line people who make those arguments are on.

  > learn more when not to feed the trolls

  Certainly, if you're going to call me a troll then don't engage. I'm looking to talk to editors who want to improve articles, not for PoV pushers who support any source that supports their views. If you know you won't argue in good faith then please don't. InverseZebra (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Everything in this thread—picking arguments, splitting hairs, and otherwise sealioning—solidifies my view that InverseZebra is not a constructive presence in the GENSEX topic area. The only real question, I think, is whether they're able to be constructive elsewhere—i.e., whether it's better to topic-ban or to block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Bullshit. I called out a source as unreliable for throwing around slurs and epithets and backed that logic up at every step of the way. Picking arguments is and splitting hairs is simply being specific about an issue. Sealioning doesn't apply at all because NI is harassing me about my claim, not the other way around. They're asking for details and then pretending to be upset at the volume of replies.

  If anyone needs to be banned explain how it's not you, being called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in. You're jumping on the bad-mouthing bandwagon specifically because you can't refute anything I say. InverseZebra (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Re: harassing (you) about your claim - do you have a diff for that? Objecting to your unsupported IDONTLIKEIT WP:OR objections to a peer-reviewed source is not generally understood as harassment, btw. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  @InverseZebra Tread carefully. I realize this discussion involves hot button subjects, but AGF and CIVIL still apply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  No, they only apply to me in this case. NI and others have been impugning my motives since the beginning and when they don't get the answers they like they immediately start a show trial. Like me or not, my points about sources are reasonable and I have been attacked as transphobic because of them. InverseZebra (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have never attacked you as transphobic. More unsubstantiated chaff and nonsense. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You and TheTranarchist said raising female's sex-based concerns was transphobic.

  "demonizing trans people as rapists" were your words, and I wasn't talking about trans people at all. InverseZebra (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, where did I "attack" you as transphobic? What you just VAGUEWAVED to doesn't even resemble your prior accusation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You said I was demonizing trans people as racists when I didn't even mention trans people. That's pretty damn attacky, and is the core of your calling to have me blocked. InverseZebra (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I said that you were recycling transphobic tropes and demonizing trans people as "rapists", and anyone looking at Talk:LGB Alliance can verify this. However, I never called for you to be blocked; I merely noted that you were WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  @InverseZebra: I don't know which I'm more offended by, the completely unsubstantiated accusation of brigading (I was handling the request below before I commented here, if you didn't notice), or the shocking insinuation that being trans somehow disqualifies me from commenting on your suitability to edit in the gender topic area. I have, literally, received death threats on Wikipedia that were more respectful of my trans-ness than that comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic. You joined the topic not because of my arguments on the talk page, but because of what was said about my arguments here, that's brigading. InverseZebra (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  TIL that you don't know what brigading is. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's going a little too far (if IZ hadn't already). I'm now also coming round to the view that a GENSEX topic ban is probably needed here. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  My motives are open for examination, people are going through old threads of mine to prove over-interest in a topic, how is it not equivalent to me calling out Tamzin for the same? They aren't engaging with my comments on sources - they're simply doing that NI did - labelling all discussion in the area as unreasonable. InverseZebra (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, you're asserting without evidence that I did something (which I never did). Pure, disruptive WP:ASPERSIONS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You didn't say my point bordered on transphobia, you said I was demonizing trans people. Assuming my motives and using personal attacks. The WP rules you quote apply to you as much or more than anyone else in the thread. InverseZebra (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I said you were recycling transphobic tropes and were demonizing trans people as rapists - which any reader of Talk:LGB Alliance can see for themselves. I did not speculate about your motives or offer personal attacks. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  InverseZebra is trying to make this about Tamzin and yourself as a way to deflect attention from the issue at hand, which is their behaviour. I suggest trying not to take the bait any more than you have to in order to defend yourself from any substantive allegations. DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Liliana and Tamzin have said here with regards to InverseZebra.

In just the past week alone InverseZebra has described a peer reviewed journal article as clearly an opinion piece, not factual ([242]), then later described it as a source that goes into lala land ([243]), a sign of tendentious editing per WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. Despite these arguments failing to achieve traction in the room, InverzeZebra continued to press the point that we should discount the source because it was unreliable ([244], [245], [246], [247]), a sign of tendentious editing per WP:REHASH. They have tried to discourage an editor from being active in the topic stating You're getting way too involved in sensitive topics and should probably step back for a bit. after claiming the editor was lying ([248]), a sign of tendentious editing per accusing another of malice and disruptive editing per WP:DAPE. And that's just the editor civility issues.

With regards to other problematic GENSEX contributions, they have called trans women not the traditional kind of woman. You know, who birthed you and me. You can see how they, females, being smaller and weaker and at risk of sexual attack would feel strongly about this. They might feel that feminism implies female-ism, for, by, and about females. ([249]). They have claimed the masked mob which assaulted the women protesting at the Wi Spa and later at the Port Townsend YMCA were largely antifa despite reliable reporting (detailed at Wi Spa controversy#July 3) stating that this assault was carried out by the anti-trans protestors and not antifa. Used a variation of the transphobic dogwhistle non-trans identifying male ([250], [251]) (see DAME Magazine and an article by Gemma Stone for definition and origins of the term TIF/TIM). They have claimed that an admin who was not involved in the underlying dispute was called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in ([252]) at ANI. And then claimed that same admin was using [their] trans status as a reason why [they] and [their] opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic ([253]).

As there's now specific specific remedies below, I'll comment on those separately there, referring back to this reply as appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is also not a new thing for InverseZebra. In their fourth edit, they accused RandomCanadian of perpetrating a cover-up of the COVID-19 lab leak theory and that they were hurting Wikipedia by pushing partisan politics as if its scientific consensus. ([254]) In November 2021, after having a problematic edit ([255]) reverted by an uninvolved administrator on a BLP article talk page, InverseZebra then accused that administrator of lying because it offends [them]. and that they were committed to promoting bad sources as reliable. ([256]). They also accused another editor, who issued a warning for the same edit, of arguing in bad faith and abusing wiki processes ([257]) before adding an accusation that the same editor was part of a cadre of false accusers that were making Wikipedia a dangerous place, where I don't feel safe. ([258]) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Direct personal attacks in this thread on the basis of transgender status

I'm going to highlight these comments from above:

• If anyone needs to be banned explain how it's not you, being called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in. You're jumping on the bad-mouthing bandwagon specifically because you can't refute anything I say. InverseZebra (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic. You joined the topic not because of my arguments on the talk page, but because of what was said about my arguments here, that's brigading. InverseZebra (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Admin hat off, everything hat off, just speaking as an editor who feels she is entitled to be addressed civilly in this collaborative project: This is not okay. A colleague is saying to me that because I am trans, I am not entitled to comment on their behavior. And when asked to justify that position, they say that it is because a) I was somehow canvassed here (using a definition of "brigading" that would apply to everyone in this thread but for some reason they've only seen fit to apply to me) and b) because I am trying to use my trans-ness to my advantage somehow. That is a lie. It is a fabrication. I have not said one word about myself as a person in this thread.

These are personal attacks, motivated by my status as a trans person. We would not stand for them about an editor's Jewishness, or their blackness, or their being a woman. We should not stand for them about an editor's transness. I am requesting an indefinite block. We don't even need to get into WP:HATEDISRUPT territory here: These are just plain old personal attacks and lies, ones that show that this editor will never be able to work collaboratively with any trans person. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears that it is time to gauge community consensus for a topic-ban from Gender & Sexuality for Mr. Zebra. Zaathras (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose to Tamzin's call for an indefinite block. We've been through this kind of situation before, with Tamzin calling for sanctions against someone whose opinions they disliked. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"[C]alled in to brigade", "you're obviously personally invested", and "You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic" are not opinions. They are an aspersion, a personal attack, and a bald-faced lie respectively, all with the intent of discrediting my opinions simply because I am trans. Don't forget the call to ban me for being trans. I'm sure you're as outraged about that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of your ability to identify disruptive Talk page advocacy directed against trans people, to be completely honest. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this and other similar cases is that everyone who is active on GENSEX pages seems to have an agenda, for or against this or that, but it's always the ones whose arguments go against the views of the current majority group (I write "current" majority group, because it could quickly change if enough people of an opposing view started to show up here...) who are sanctioned, or have sanctions against them called for, while people in the current majority group seem to get away with not even a slap on the wrist, no matter what they do or say. Wikipedia should stay neutral also when it comes to sanctions. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you show me people with a transphilic POV engaging in a similar level of personal attacks to IZ and Athaenara, or a similar level of POV FORUMposting to Wefa? That's a genuine question. If you can show me them, I'll readily !vote to sanction. Personally, the only time I've encountered someone with edits even sort of like that, I indeffed her. (June Parker, very aggressive and incivil pro–social justice edits in GENSEX and several other topic areas.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to rise to the level of Athaenara's comment at RFA (a case that I'm staying far away from...), but can you explain why you felt that IZ's quotes above were personal attacks at a level that merit an immediate indefinite block? I may be more thick-skinned than you, but I don't see them as meriting more than at most a stern warning, heck, I've been the subject of faaaar worse personal attacks than that here on en:WP without even blinking an eye. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever had someone say that your being part of a minority group disqualified you from commenting on your peers' conduct? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have link to a post that says exactly that, or is it just your interpretation of it? To give a couple of examples of behaviour I have a problem with, an editor on your side of the aisle wrote, addressed to me in the recent ANI-discussion about Wefa, that I ought to be completely disqualified from taking part in the discussion because of expressing opposing opinions, and another editor on your side of the aisle seriously proposed that all oppose-!votes should be disregarded, the way it is done in totalitarian countries. Comments that are both as against the "spirit of Wikipedia" as anything could be. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

My side of the aisle? What, pray tell, is my side of the aisle? What, for that matter, is your side of the aisle? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's called "dodging" the question I asked. Your side of the aisle is pro-trans, as I'm sure you understood, while I'm standing in the middle of the aisle, observing the fight without taking sides, just like you, IMHO, ought to do a little more than you do, considering you're an admin (and yes, I do know that there's no formal requirement for that, but still; it could also give you extra credibility, if you're ever in a position here when you need that). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that I have, again, literally indeffed people on the pro-trans "side of the aisle", I'm not sure how much more I could be doing. Saying an editor's views are so wrong that they should be disregarded is permissible, if harsh. Now if someone says your views should be disregarded because you're cis, or a man, or above the median age on Wikipedia, let me know. Like actually, let me know; I have no problem blocking for that if uninvolved.

Still, I'm not sure what makes you think I'm on that side. Unless you think my gender identity dictates my ideological views... If you must know, in my private life, my views on gender align with neither side, and there's a lot of aspects of "gender-critical" ideology I tend to agree with, and a lot of pro-trans rhetoric I disagree with. None of which has any affect on how I edit. My on-wiki contributions regarding trans-ness have been confined largely to successive versions of the same three points: 1) we should call people what they want to be called (which has on three occasions brought me into conflict with pro-trans editors, believe it or not), 2) we shouldn't have poorly-sourced medical information about trans-ness (where I've removed content favorable to both sides' narratives), and 3) no one should personally attack people for being trans (which is consistent with my known hard-line views on all forms of bigotry). If you're casting me as a partisan here, I'd really like to know if there's a basis for that other than that I choose to live my life as a gender different than the one I was assigned at birth. (I do not meaningfully identify as a woman, so only even meet some definitions of "trans".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Question (note: I'm in a discussion with Thomas.W at my own talk and so I followed his editing which brings me here). Newimpartial. I hope you can appreciate that the two subsections are TLDR for any newcomer. Can I see if I have interpreted you properly. Do you submit that on en.wiki that we dispense with "male" sans qualifier, and permanently use "trans" or "cis" qualifiers? Or did I get something wrong? --Coldtrack (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, he was referring to the wording that would be used if you're directly trying to discuss someone who isn't trans in regards to that topic. Similar to how you also wouldn't refer to a trans person as a trans man unless it was relevant to the subject being discussed about them. Similarly here, if you're wanting to refer to a cis man specifically in regard to them not being trans, then you would say cis man and not just man. Descriptive adjectives are used as relevant to the subject being discussed. Purposefully omitting such descriptors when directly relevant to a discussion, particularly in this subject area, could be seen as trying to say the person is more of, say, a "man" than someone referred to with the trans descriptor. TL:DR, if you're referring to one person as a "trans man" and specifically another as a "man" rather than "cis man" in a discussion about being trans, it could be seen as trying to imply the former isn't an actual "man". Silverseren^C 21:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Silver seren. Thanks and I see your point. I presume this stretches to woman without it being stated. I don't really buy the "attenuation of the trans person" argument, but common sense would suggest that if two persons are having to be mentioned almost so near together as to juxtapose then yes, "the man and the trans man" doesn't sound right, any more than "the club and the London club" (e.g. former being Manchester City FC and the latter being Tottenham Hotspur FC). --Coldtrack (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You can think of cis as similar to straight in terms of classifying a group that previously thought of themselves as "normal". There are some people who still think of the world as divided into normal and perverts. They don't like being told what they thought of as "normal" was just a sub-group of "normal" which is divided into as "cis" or "trans" or "straight" or "gay". The objection to the term "cis" is a shibboleth for being transphobic in the same way as thirty/forty years ago, the objection to being classified as "straight" was a shibboleth for being homophobic. -- Colin°^Talk 22:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No it's not Colin. You can make plain references to one as "male" and not be transphobic. Transphobia begins when a person deadnames a transitioned person, old name and former pronouns. In most of the world's communities, people who came into being as a "he" and have been accepted a "she" have no further quibbles. Hereinafter, you don't get to impose sweeping changes on the rest of society, nor tell them what "phobia" they have for their blameless inertia. At the moment, my home country Ukraine is all over the news and I see my national flag raised outside every town hall in this country (Britain) and our people (chiefly because the west is ignorant just how many Ukrainians are pro-Russia and anti-west, and how many more are pro-neutrality and neither pro- nor anti- anything) are praised as heroes. I question whether the people will still be as well liked when it emerges how influenced they are by Christian values, be that catholic or orthodox. Don't worry about me. My parents are retired Soviet diplomats and we are as atheist as you can get. That said, my parents find the trans- world repulsive, though I have at least two friends in this world who transitioned (male to female in both cases; I have only known them as transwomen). But the indications I am getting (not just here but elsewhere) is that once again, a group of people driven by an agenda are seeking to appropriate Wikipedia as a springboard to hopefully impose their values onto wider society. No person to have edited on this thread is transphobic. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

? -- Colin°^Talk 23:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh and to be clear, that was a rhetorical "?" -- Colin°^Talk 23:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Support per everyone here. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support Claiming an administrator, at the administrator noticeboard, who has never edited the article or talk page that this dispute has spilled over from as being called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in is a personal attack. To then say You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic. is an egregious personal attack targeted against the characteristic of an editor. Add this to the accusations of lying against Newimpartial and the blatant attempt to discourage Newimpartial from contributing to the underlying article and its talk page (see my diffs above), this is very much a civility problem on-top of otherwise problematic contributions to a discretionary sanctions topic area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite block

• In the end, InverseZebra has made 97 edits here, with a total of zero edits to mainspace. Therefore, they have made zero contribution to the encyclopedia, whilst their talkpage and Wikipedia edits have simply been arguing (and therefore, wasting the time of those who are required to answer and refute their arguments). What is indisputable, therefore, is that they are a net negative to Wikipedia, and I suggest an indef block is the only way forward here. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree 100%. I respect those proposing a topic ban for holding out an olive branch but I can't see any chance of that going well given that InverseZebra has also edited on other contentious topics in a non-constructive manner. If they are forced to drop this stick then they are very likely to just pick up another one and start annoying some other people. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree. InverseZebra's behavior in this thread seems to spring from a type of heated defensiveness that would perhaps merit a short block but ultimately be forgivable for an editor who regularly contributes quality content. However, just editing talk pages on hot button topics without even intending to contribute disinterested content is almost always going to end up being disruptive. It's a type of WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW, even if InverseZebra's doesn't realize that and is probably acting in good faith. Yes WP sometimes is biased, but this cannot be solved by 'fighting' or 'correcting' the bias, it can only be solved by attracting and keeping onboard knowledgeable disinterested editors who (re)write content from a non-ideological perspective. InverseZebra's interests are therefore the opposite of what we need around here. I support indef and would also recommend making a TBAN on gender a requirement for unblocking. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support indef block as an obvious WP:NOTHERE. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to tell us all how wrong we are to call people the gender they "claim" to be. They have gone from talk page to talk page starting disputes about transgender people, mostly falling on the side of "trans men aren't men" etc. I see no way in which they contribute to the building of an encyclopedia. They have had multiple chances to change course on that, as evidenced on their very long and heavily dispute-ridden talk page. Indef as a community consensus, absolutely.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as I don't see any evidence they've ever made a genuinely good edit. Furthermore, their problematic edits go beyond just POV-pushing in a particular topic area and into personal attacks against trans users. Loki (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support this per my comment below. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Under my own undertaking, I've blocked InverseZebra as WP:NOTHERE to edit Wikipedia. I would have done this earlier today seeing their edits, however I wasn't home to do so. They are clearly here to fight a battle, and quite bluntly, we don't need that kind of editor here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Still leaving this here even with the above action taken. The editor is just not here to actually build an encyclopedia or do anything constructive. Their every talk page edit in the past two years has showcased that. Silverseren^C 22:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Per Loki. Their problems extend further than transphobia into medical disinformation generally. -- Colin°^Talk 22:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Significant net negative to Wikipedia due to behavior: treating editing as a battleground.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support because of InverseZebra being an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Propose Indefinite Topic Ban

• I propose that InverseZebra be indefinitely TBanned from all GENSEX related pages and discussions broadly construed. Their history strongly suggests someone with a WP:AGENDA that makes it difficult for them to contribute constructively on pages related to this issue. I would permit them to appeal the TBan after one year with the understanding that they will be expected to demonstrate a record of constructive contributions to the project and a grasp of our policies and guidelines relating to controversial subjects. I Oppose a block as being unnecessary based on their history at the present time. Where sanctions are concerned, we typically start with the least restrictive action required to prevent further disruption. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I would add to my above, that some of IZ's commentary and behavior in this discussion has influenced me in favor of this. There is no rule that says sources can't be questioned and terms of reference challenged. But the tone and tenor of their commentary here coupled with the dearth of any activity outside of this subject area combines to make me think the community would be better served by their concentrating their efforts in some other area of the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  IZ has been blocked indefinitely, rendering this discussion moot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis that a topic ban implies someone is at least potentially capable of editing constructively. IZ has shown that they are unable to collaborate with trans editors, who are a significant portion of our editorship, and do most of our work outside the GENSEX topic area. Also, @Ad Orientem, if you do want a topic ban, why not just impose it yourself? They're DS-aware. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am WP:INVOLVED in this discussion to a degree I don't believe I should be acting as an admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment. I'd just like to remind everybody that, in addition to the trans related stuff, IZ has edited supporting content advancing COVID conspiracy theories and racial theories of Jewish intelligence. (Diffs above, way above.) There are very good reasons to doubt that they can edit constructively on any topic. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support I explained above why I believe an indefinite block to be more appropriate. However, a TBAN on top may also be helpful, and would be a strict minimum in case there's no block. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support I have no doubt, based on their comments in this ANI thread and in their past talk page edits on non-GENSEX articles, that they will inevitably be back here at ANI anyways. However, since the user's primary disruptive focus is on GENSEX talk pages, I'm fine with this as the action taken for now. Silverseren^C 19:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer indefinite block It’s clear that this person, regardless of their personal views, is, by their actions, harming Wikipedia’s mission. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support This is the absolute minimum we should be doing here, and thankfully it's an action that is not exclusive with an indefinite block. I agree with what Ad Orientem has said, that InverseZebra's contributions history strongly suggests someone who is here with an agenda strong enough that it makes constructive collaboration difficult to impossible. However I disagree that a straight topic ban from only GENSEX will prevent further disruption. As evidenced above, IZ has attacked another editor for an innate and in many jurisdictions a protected characteristic. And as DanielRigal has stated, there is also problematic contributions in two other discretionary sanctions topic areas (WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBR&I) that display the same pattern of accusing other editors of gaming how we define reliable sources ([259]), and attacking editors who they disagree with ([260]). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support as 2nd choice, 1st choice for indef, as users' transphobic commentary renders them unfit for contributing here in any capacity. Zaathras (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I've filed WP:AE requests against InverseZebra, as well as TheTranarchist and Newimpartial. RAN1 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why? We're already discussing a TBAN and possible indef for InverseZebra. No editor who has contributed to this discussion thus far has pointed out any issues with either Newimpartial or TheTranarchist's contributions in response to the disruption from InverseZebra. So why have you filed three AE cases? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  That seems like a really dumb decision on multiple levels and a waste of everyone's time? Silverseren^C 22:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree, hence the filings. RAN1 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  RAN1, I don't know who you are, but I think what you did was foolish and may boomerang on you. I suggest you retract those AE cases and stop wasting everyone's time. -- Colin°^Talk 22:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Colin: "I don't know who you are". What's that supposed to mean? None of us know who anyone else is here (generally). What are you getting at? Is that WP:ASPERSION? DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am declaring that I have absolutely no prejudice towards this editor and somehow you think that is casting aspersions. I don't mean "who you are" in real life. I mean "who you are" on Wikipedia. Are you a jerk? Are you a wise owl? Are you pro-trans or anti-trans? Are you obsessed with railway stations? That's what I mean. I have never, as far as I know, interacted with this editor. DeCausa, when you display such great ignorance as you just have, it is usually wise to keep it to yourself, rather than make a fuss about it. -- Colin°^Talk 23:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, right. Great "ignorance" of what? You made a rather dumb comment and you get called on it. Don't lash out with a WP:PA because of that. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Unambiguous support - Overall support indef block, but a TBAN is a good start to prevent disruption here. This user has been nothing but trouble in this space since it started, now reading back through the interactions I have had with them (very limited, but see their talk page re: Rachel Levine), they have been WP:NOTHERE from the beginning. It seems their axe to grind is to make sure we all know that trans people aren't really the gender they say they are, and we are all wrong. This user is here to grind some axes and go on some crusades, from each and all appearances.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support as lesser alternative to siteban. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban and support indef block. Notice how all of their edits have been comments on talk pages and user talk pages? A topic ban doesn't seem enough and this appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE; we don't need users giving random analyses. (I mean yeah, if you can add the topic ban to the site ban, then I support it, but it's still a case of NOTHERE) Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to siteban: I think that they definitely are disruptive in the GENSEX topic area, but that their problematic edits extend further than that, and also that they don't seem to make clearly good edits ever. Loki (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to siteban per Loki. Their problems extend further than transphobia into medical disinformation generally. -- Colin°^Talk 22:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support - In addition to siteban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Since they're clearly speedrunning the All DS% category topic-banning is completely and utterly pointless as they'll just go to a different topic area that has a tangential connexion to their main points of interest and throw rhetorical grenades into discussions there. We emphatically do not need to be giving cranks who're only here to rile people up the benefit of the doubt. 86 the blackguard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

43256ds - possible AI-in-training?

• 43256ds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been watching the edits of this user for the better part of a week and something tells me this is someone trying to train an AI to edit Wikipedia, given their exclusively editing in their own mainspace (minus an excursion to Wikipedia: space) and their edits mostly being non-sequiturs or otherwise disjointed/disconnected. In any event, it doesn't seem like they're actually here to edit Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks more like meatware than software to me. In any event, fails WP:CIR. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is, but see also WaheedRathore. ST47 (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case, then both accounts should be blocked as WP:SOCKs per WP:DUCK. 2601:647:5800:4D2:98E6:C606:B7CF:D59D (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

.....and it continues, as it has after all previous warnings. Time for it to stop I think.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the original account for WP:NOTHERE and also turned off TPA as all of their edits seemed to be there. As for WaheedRathore, they have not edited in 4 years, so I'm not ready to block just yet. If they do come back to edit and the editing continues, then a block is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No, but now that I'm looking, a version of their sandbox that I'd deleted mentioned Waheed. I'm going to SPI them. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

See also User:Dehaw Malia and User:Constitutionabc. They seem to have been creating similar word salad articles and promoting Dehaw Malia, like User:43256ds and User:WaheedRathore. Both accounts are stale though. 2601:647:5800:4D2:38A9:46E2:DC17:D4DD (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz, @Spicy: User:Dehaw Malia is globally locked, would it be worth requesting glocks for the others too? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001, sure. Feel free to request it at meta:SRG. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Troll user, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nomorepolandonearthhhh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User is vandalizing political pages, such as changing the prime minister of Poland’s photo to a swastika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamNHarvey (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User already blocked by Blablubbs. Sarrail (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Already blocked as a vandalism only account. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent posting of original research and pointless chat at Talk:Gravity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Colnago2253 (talk | contribs) has made useless posts to Talk:Gravity several times and has been warned several times (for example, [261], [262], [263], [264]). Would it be appropriate for an administrator to intervene?—Anita5192 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It may not be original research, but it is pseudoscience. Weird pseudoscientific theories of gravity have been around as long as there has been a scientific theory of gravity. I've given them a discretionary sanctions alert for pseudoscience. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There are two ways to do this. Either wait until they post one more time, and then take them at Arbitration Enforcement and topic-ban them from all physics topics, or the community can topic-ban them from physics topics here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, they posted another Special:Diff/1122079348. Weird as all the rest. Who will take them to AE? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I will.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completed the form at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Colnago2253 properly. I have never done this before, and I don't know what to replace Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION with.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I fixed that line. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Why bother with arbitration enforcement? This isn't even pseudoscience - it's meaningless verbiage. Block as WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Indeffed as a regular administrative action. Acroterion (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I tag their userpage for speedy deletion per G3? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I just deleted it as WP:NOTWEBHOST Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

A lot of pseudoscience is meaningless verbiage. This was both. Good block. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aarp65 disruptively creating categories and pages about names

I became aware of User:Aarp65 just a few minutes ago when they added "Category:Surnames of Vanuatuan origin" to Jimmy. I noticed that this category page was also added to David (surname) and John (surname) which are of biblical origin, and George (surname) which states that it has many origins, none of them Vanuatuan.

I then noticed that Aarp65 had put "Category:Surnames of Marshall Islands origin" on Joseph (surname), Peter (surname), Philip and Samuel (name).

The next thing I noticed is that for the past two months, User talk:Aarp65's talkspace is filled with at least 25 mostly successful speedy deletion nominations for creating categories and other pages. More pages have been moved to draftspace as suitable and several disrupted editing warnings posted by User:Uricdivine, User:Leschnei, User:Joy, User:Pppery and especially User: Liz.

As far as I can tell, Aarp65 does not state reasons or cite sources for the creation of so many of these pages. Probably because they are factually incorrect. In my opinion, this user is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. Warnings have already been given, so if the consensus agrees, I propose a discussion about the possibility of a WP:TBAN on creating categories and pages having to do with names and surnames, etc. for this user. The exact topic could be decided later. I hope this makes sense. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, Aarp65 knows a lot about this topic and most of their contributions are very productive. I take back my WP:NOTHERE accusation but these categories and 25 warnings in 2 months are genuinely concerning. I'm going to try to talk to them more about it in their talkspace. Nothing urgent needs to be immediately addressed by others here, but I don't think it should be closed until a response can be had. Again, suggestions welcome. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Jimmy is a DAB page. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of adding such a category to surname pages, it should not be added to a DAB page per WP:DBC. Narky Blert (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC) It's either too late or too early. Origin-type categories are fine (indeed, recommended) on DAB pages also categorised as surname or given name pages. Narky Blert (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted a whole bunch of their recent edits, as they were indeed bizarre and non-constructive. Things like this, this, this, or this are just some samples of the type of edits. If they don't or inadequately reply, a topic ban from categorisation (or name categorisation) may be needed. I mean, on a long disambig where none of the entries are for Samoans, they still proclaiml that the name "Meredith" is of Samoan origin.[265]... Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering that this is continuing while this section is open, with Raisi (disambiguation) created today and added to e.g. Category:Zimbabwean surnames despite nothing on that page relating to Zimbabwe; can please some action be taken? Letting someone continue to add such fake information to Wikipedia while this iss being discussed at ANI doesn't look good (on us, and even less on them). Fram (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've DABified Raisi (disambiguation) (which was a needed page) and deleted the Zimbabwean category as unsupported. Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Any suggestions on how to avoid or minimize further such issues? The editor involved seems unwilling to join any discussion about it, giving little hope of improvemeñt. Fram (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

For a specific problem like this, the time-honoured solution is digging through contribs, and if necessary following the usual escalation procedures aimed at persuading or forcing nuisances to stop. I have no solution to the more general one of under-, excessive, or over-precise categorisation of DAB-with-surname and surname pages other gnomishly than fix when found. (A moderately common case of over-precision is labelling a Germanic surname as specifically Jewish/Yiddish when it is not specific to that community. Bernstein and Kahn (an unusual case with two distinct etymologies) are models of how it should be done.) Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Another strange DAB creation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wodarz&oldid=1118543166 (current version) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a weird one; notably in the mismatch between title (Wodarz) and lede (Holetschek). It has already, and correctly, been WP:BLARed into an {{R from surname}} page. Holetschek exists, and is another recent creation by Aarp65; a good one, which I've minorly tweaked. Narky Blert (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I just added a Level 3 warning before I noticed Fram's proposal below. He's definitely been warned. Kire1975 (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And another bizarre edit: Ranseier was redirected to Karl Ranseier, which itself is a redirect to RTL Samstag Nacht. No reasons given. Kire1975 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And this: why does "Category:Malagasy given names" exist? Even if it had more than one entry, Aarp65 should at least give a reason for it? Every new page gets added to his impressive list of "Written pages" created on his username. Kire1975 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like User:Joe Roe granted Aarp65 the autopatrolled status. And a quick review of Joe's talk page, it looks like he has a history of ignoring ANI discussions as the discussion on his talk page from 18 days ago indicated. There is an active ANI discussion right now that has User:Bishonen pinging Joe Roe to find out why he hasn't responded. Perhaps we should be exploring possibility of removing Joe's ability to grant autopatrol status. Kire1975 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Kire1975: A "history"? Please don't be ridiculous. I am one of the most active admins at WP:PERM/A (at times I've been the only person responding to request there), and I've granted autopatrolled to about 100 editors. As far as I know, the three incidents you mentioned are the only problems that have arisen. I participated fully in the first ANI thread. I had no way of knowing about this one, since I wasn't pinged and I don't have ANI on my watchlist. The third thread, below, was started on Saturday evening in my timezone, and autopatrolled was pulled by Sunday morning (also when Bish pinged me). I have no problem with that "error rate", and in any case, I can only grant or refuse to grant autopatrolled based on the criteria agreed by the community, which I have been trying to get tightened for years. – Joe (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Unless evidence can be provided that the three editors were demonstrably problematic at the time the permissions were granted, I don't think its fair to point fingers at the admin who granted a right for any issues that occurred after the right was granted. Lots of editors don't demonstrate problematic actions until well after permissions have been granted, and that says nothing about the person granting the permission. - Aoidh (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban (user:Aarp65)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Aarp65 is topic banned from all name-related pages (articles, categories, templates...) broadly construed. Their recently granted autopatrolled right should also be removed again. They have been warned about their problematic edits in the past. During the above discussion, they created Lipovsky (disambiguation), with 4 completely unsupported categories, created multiple unnecessary name disambiguation pages (with only one bluelink), added name categories unrelated to the contents of the page they were placed on ([266]), and so on. They show no indication of changing their approach or participating in this (or any) discussion. Expecting other editors to check all their edits and revert this many of them is not useful. Fram (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Their recently granted autopatrolled right was removed once before? I'm not sure what that is or where to find evidence of that. Can you put that in the discussion please? Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, originally they (like everyone else) didn't have it, it was granted in June or so, and should now be removed again. Fram (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The "again" is the problem, it suggests that it has been removed before. 66.44.22.126 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a colloquialism in some American regional dialects. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know -- Kire1975 misunderstood Fram, and Fram didn't understand the nature of the misunderstanding, but at this point I'm pretty sure everyone understands everyone else or doesn't care. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Support: Aarp65 does seem to have some expertise in the field, or at least a lot of experience working on this topic, but the prominence of the multiple "Veteran Editor" badges in their infobox makes me think they might be just trying to create so many tiny little name pages and DAP's so they can bulk up their numbers to increase their "rank" like this is a video game. Of course, all we can do is speculate on what they're doing because they are ignoring so many warnings and invitations to participate in this ANI discussion. I don't want them to be TBAN'd but what else is there left to do? It's disruptive, not productive and makes a lot of work for other editors to fix. Kire1975 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• No opinion on the topic ban at this time, but I see enough valid concern from editors in the section above that I've gone ahead and pulled the autopatrol permission. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - They have not responded on their talk page or here about the valid concerns raised, and are instead continuing to create these articles with the same issues, for example Nganga (surname) was created just a few minutes ago, and these categories were added to an article that in no way supports those categories. Since this discussion has opened they have not used a single talk page of any kind, but have updated their user page well over a dozen times since then. There's absolutely nothing wrong with displaying pages you've worked on, but it's not okay to ignore the basic concepts of collaboration and verifiability in that pursuit. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

...and it's still going. No discussion or addressing the issues, but they're still adding to their trophy case. - Aoidh (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

They're still adding categories that make no sense and aren't supported by reliable sources. This edit added Category:Surnames of US-American origin, a category they created that seems to be full of names that did not originate in the United States. It seems like they're seeing if someone with that last name lives in country X, and adding "Surnames of X origin" without actually checking to see if that name originated in that place or not. - Aoidh (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Aarp65 has also created many navigation templates about names. He clearly just dumped names in there, without checking where the links were going. Request to fix links to disambiguation pages went unanswered and seeing that he is still doing this, something has to be done. I can't see if (s)he ever responded on talkpages. The Banner talk 12:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Still ongoing, [267]. Not only the randomness of the cats, but even the bizarre placement of the two cats, all creates extra work for others from an editor who has absolutely zero inclination to adjust their approach or to discuss the concerns. Can this please be enacted? Fram (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support ongoing problematic behaviour, with no intention of stopping or listening to other editors. A topic ban would seem very much necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support this has become disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support - total non-compliance and repeated disruption. Why have they added Krautheimer to Category:Surnames of US-American origin? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Qasimisa222's account compromised

Discussion at User talk:Qasimisa222#November 2022 suggests that the editor's account is compromised, with "many people" having access to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Well it looks like they’re not saying their account is “compromised”, but they left it logged in on their computer that is used by other people. That’s a problem and they need to take steps to ensure it never happens again, but not a “compromised account” per se. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that the user be blocked for allowing vandalism. When the user says, in an unblock request, that they have learned that they should logout whenever they step away from the shared computer, they can be unblocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not a compromised account, but the principle is similar and the admin action is similar. The user has negligently allowed little brothers to use their account. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, a block would be justified until the user has provided assurances that they have resolved the issue. If the user is “away”, we have no guarantee that the account will not be accessed maliciously again at any given time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as per WP:COMPROMISED. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Yamla: I hesitate to comment on this in case I'm overlooking something, but it doesn't appear that the editor has actually been blocked? The block notice was placed but their contributions page doesn't show the blocked banner and their block log is empty. - Aoidh (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Easily done (I've done it a few times). Blocked now. Black Kite (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeesh. Thanks, Aoidh and Black Kite. :) --Yamla (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Minahatithan and bias in article Slavery in Afghanistan

Hello. Please excuse me if I go about this process incorrectly. There is one user who appear to have bias in regard to a specific article, and I think there might be a reason to block them from editing this article. Is this possible? Please let me explain.

1) It concerns the article Slavery in Afghanistan. The article contains the information that some of the Hazara people were enslaved during the Hazara uprising in the 1890s. When slavery was abolished in the 1920s, many of the slaves excisting at the time were of Hazara origin. This is referenced.

2) User:Minahatithan have now criticised the article for a long time. The discussion can be viewed at the talke page Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan. User:Minahatithan have stated that he is himself an Hazara, and that he considers it "shameful" and "dishonorable" that some of the Hazara were enslaved, and that this is bad for the reputation for an "honorable people of Afghanistan". He has questioned that information about this is mentioned in the article.

3) He has accused me of having bias against the Hazara for mentioning this information about Hazara slavery in the article. He accused me of claiming that all of the Hazara in Afghanistan were slaves, despite the article never aving claimed this. He also engaged in an edit war about the issue. His comments in this issue is to be found both in the article talk page, as well as in the comment summaries.

4) I have explained that things such as honor, dishonor, shame and the honor of an ethnic group has no place when discussing what should or should not be in an article. I have also noted that it is rude to claim that people have an ethnic bias agenda.

5) All of this has already been raported once to this Noticeboard. That dispute was closed only about a week or so ago. User:Minahatithan would not participate fully in the discussion because of his habit to leave wikipedia for weeks at the time, and then return to the very same article to engage in a dispute about the Hazara content again. The moderator closed the discussion because User:Minahatithan would not fully participate, and because he accused me of having a persona agenda against him and the Hazara people. The moderator advised User:Minahatithan not to edit the article Slavery in Afghanistan.

6) User:Minahatithan is now again engaged in an edit war in the article Slavery in Afghanistan in regard to the Hazara slavery. He has expressed that he is willing to discuss on the talk page of the article. However, I freely admit I am not willing to. I do not have the impression that a discussion with User:Minahatithan about this article can lead to anything constructive. Because of the bias they appear to have, I find myself incapable of taking their critic seriously. The attempts so far the previous weeks have been time consuming and exhausting. I admit that I am not sure I would be able to conduct such a discussion myself in a correct manner, because of the history and behaviour of User:Minahatithan.

6) User:RPI2026F1 would, I think, be able to attest this development, but I respect if they to not wish to contribute to the discussion. I am myself deeply tired of this issue.

7) This is not about a particular issue in the article content anymore. This is about the fact that User:Minahatithan appear biased in the content of this article and therefore does not appear to be a suitable editor of this article. They have already been temporarily blocked once before from editing this article; a discussion on the noticeboard have been closed with the advise to them not to edit the article, and they have themselwes clearly explained that they have, what I would intepret as, bias on the talk page of the article. Can they be blocked from editing this particular article?

Please excuse me if I am doing something wrong in making this request, or if I am going about it incorrectly in some way. But I am simply deeply tired of having to deal with this issue week after week, and I do not consider myself capable to try anymore. I am requesting that this user be blocked from editing this particular article because of the bias they appear to express on the talk page of the article. Is this possible? I thought I should at least ask. If it is not possible, then I appologize. I ask you to please look at the discussion page (the first discussion) of the article. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram: You have failed to notify Minahatithan (talk · contribs) of this report, as both the red box on top of this page and while editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Slavery in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a recurrence of a dispute that I tried to mediate at DRN at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_223#Slavery_in_Afghanistan, between 24 October and 2 November. Users User: RPI2026F1 and User:Aciram filed the mediation request, and disagreed with User:Minihatithan (the subject user), who removed content from the article, stating that it was incorrect or unsourced. The effort at moderated discussion (mediation) was a failure, because Minihatithan:

• Edits intermittently, taking breaks of up to a week.
• Does not discuss their edits in a meaningful way either at Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan or at DRN. Their comments are too cryptic to be useful.
• Did not respond to my question of what was a schedule so that they could discuss their edits (either on the talk page or at DRN).

I closed the mediation with a recommendation to Minihatithan that they either find time to discuss their edits, or expect that their edits will be reverted. I advised RPI2026F1 and Aciram that they should edit normally, but be sure that the article content is supported by the sources, which is always required in Wikipedia. I told them to avoid edit-warring.

I don't think that this is a conduct dispute. This is a content dispute, but it is a content dispute where discussion has failed, not because one editor is disruptive, but because one editor is intermittent.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Aciram's report is too long, but the basic issue is as I summarized above. I didn't tell User:Minihatithan not to edit Slavery in Afghanistan. I told them to expect their edits would be reverted if they didn't discuss them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, TheDragonFire300, I awknowledge that and appologize. I rarely report anything to Wikipedia and mostly only write articles. I have said my piece and I hope someone can view the discussion page of this article and perhaps the previous discussion here on the Noticeboard on this issue and judge whether it would be best if this user can be blocked from editing the article because of edit warring and bias, otherwise I fear this will just continue forever, and I am no longer capable of managing the matter. I have already, I have no doubt, not always been the most constructive, because I am simply tired of this and I do not have the confidence necessary in this users ability to discuss this. I am sorry to admit it, but I am afraid this is the case.

To me, this is not a content dispute. Of course, User:Minihatithan dispute content, but this is not the main issue in my view. It is a problem that he cannot conduct a discussion without being rude and emotional and, of course, absent for long periods of time. He has stated that he views the enslavement of Hazara as a damage to the reputation of the Hazara. Certain content he questioned earlier now has so many references that he can no longer remove them, but now he has started to demand that everything is spelled out exactly in the sources or else he will remove it. His criticism appear to be motivated by bias, and thus I cannot take his criticism seriously. It just appears that he would like as much as possible removed for any excuse possible. This is a problem.

Attempts at discussion has proven fruitless. I cannot do so anymore. This state of affairs simply cannot continue for weeks and weeks and months and months until other editors lets him do as he wishes simply because they no longer have energy left to deal with it. I am very sorry to express myself like this, but this is very tiring.

If you read the talk page of the article, then it will perhaps be more clear that this is more about conduct than content. --Aciram (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 has partially blocked User:Minahatithan from editing Slavery in Afghanistan, indefinitely. I agree that this action is for the good of the encyclopedia, although I wasn't sure that their editing was considered to warrant a partial block. Partial blocks are sometimes very useful to maintain quality. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor is free to propose and gain consensus for well-referenced, neutral changes at Talk: Slavery in Afghanistan. It seems to me that this editor has repeatedly violated WP:NPOV. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I see now that my request has been granted. I was sorry to ask for this, but I do think it was the best solution. It became clear from their own statements that they had bias to the subject, and without this action, this affair may never have ended, so I agree it was for the best of the article. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I am always neutral, but I am opposed to false and unsourced content. This opposition of mine does not mean that I am not neutral. I am neutral because I have never deleted true and correct content. These are all the beliefs of User:Aciram about me because they call me rude, racist, and biased for no reason. You say to reach a consensus in the debate, how can you reach a consensus if your opponents do not discuss it with you? He/She told me several times not to discuss it with me, don't answer me, and said that I don't want to discuss it with you. regards respected Admin. Minahatithan (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I don't know about User:Aciram why this issue is heavy for them that they can't find a solution for it. They are not willing to discuss and do not want me to edit the article. From the first discussion with me, they have accused me and use harsh and sometimes insulting words. Check the discussion page. I want to correct some false and unsourced contents, but instead of discussing the issue, they use insulting words. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Minahatithan - You write: They are not willing to discuss and do not want me to edit the article. You are mistaken. They want to discuss their edits and yours, and they asked me to facilitate that discussion. You did not answer my questions within 48 hours. They do not want you to edit the article without discussing with them. I asked you what schedule you could agree to so that they and you could discuss the article with my help. You did not answer. When you did explain your edits, your explanation was too brief to be helpful. You are mistaken if you say that they did not want to discuss. They wanted to discuss, because they asked me to help them discuss, and you did not answer in a timely manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, unfortunately in ( Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard) I was busy with university exams, I couldn't. But user:Jen didn't give a convincing answer either. Anyway. But now it's about the discussion on the main page of the article (slavery in Afghanistan) where they didn't answer my questions in the discussion. If they did, all their words were judgments about my character and not about the article. Instead of suggesting resources, they accused me. For example, they said that this information is true, but you are biased, bigoted, rude, and a lot of insults. And they told me several times, don't answer me and don't discuss with me. Minahatithan (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I said several times that the article should be edited because it has no source, in my opinion this is the best answer. User:Aciram Instead of discussing the issue, they call me rude, racist and biased. The use of these types of words should be taken seriously and be a warning to block them. Minahatithan (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Minahatithan - I have reread the article talk page, Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan to see why I could not remember that User:Aciram called you racist and bigoted. Neither the word "racist" nor the word "bigot" ever appears on that talk page or at the DRN discussion. They did try to discuss bias with you, which is a subtle matter and is not a personal attack. They then did say that you were being rude. In my opinion, both of you were rude to each other. Remember that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. They did say that they had stopped discussing with you because you were not addressing the issues, and were focusing too much on the honor of the Hazara people. Because you and they were not able to discuss, they requested moderated discussion. You agreed to the moderated discussion, and I stated that one of the rules was to respond to my questions within 48 hours. Discussion at DRN failed because you not only did not respond to my questions in a timely manner, but you then did not answer when you would be able to answer. But to go back to your original claim that they have called you racist and bigoted, they have not. You are mistaken about what is written. And that makes it hard to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: it's true that they didn't call me a "racist" directly, but they called me a racist by using the word "bias" and words like honor and dishonor, shame, and etc... about an ethnic group. I wanted to make it very clear so that this is taken seriously. They have made personal attacks on me since the beginning of the discussion. I explained to them several times the reasons for the lack of sources and incorrect information in the article, but instead of talking about the issue, they accused me. I agree that I focus on the dignity and respect of an ethnic group, that's why I don't want false and unsourced information to be written as truth in the article, but this doesn't mean I'm biased or racist. They used the word "rude" at me several times in a personal attack. I never used abusive words to them, I don't know why they called me rude. Where have I been rude that they call me rude many times. Later they told me that you don't have the right to edit and you should apologize. If mistakes have been made by them, then why are they not condemned?

- It's not fair that I get blocked. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Minahatithan - No. No. When they called you "biased", they did not mean "racist". That is not what they meant. They meant that your writing was non-neutral, and so that claim was not a personal attack, but a content issue. You misinterpreted it as a personal attack because you misunderstood what they meant by "biased", in spite of their long effort on the talk page to explain. At this point, rather than continuing to attack them, you should be appealing your partial block, but should be doing it respectfully.

User:Cullen328 and any other administrator: May Minahatithan appeal their block here, since the discussion is here, and since they are not blocked from this noticeboard, rather than going back to their talk page? (If so, I don't think that they have made a good unblock request here, because they haven't addressed any of the reasons for the block.) Robert McClenon (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, in my opinion, it would be best if a formal unblock request was made on Minahatithan's user talk page. So far, they are repeatedly complaining about being blocked, blaming the OP, and venting theur emotions. That is not the way to get unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Follow-Up Question by Mediator

I have a follow-up question. If I encounter a similar situation at DRN in the future, should I do anything differently? I became aware, from the history and from the statements by the filing editor, that this was an editor who takes long breaks, and then edits and does not discuss, and does not respond usefully to requests to discuss. Should I do anything differently, such as telling the filing editors that they can go to WP:ANI? I didn't say that, because I wasn't sure that the editor's conduct was disruptive, although I knew it was problematic. Should I adjust and expand my concept of what sort of editing is disruptive? I would appreciate advice on how to handle such a case differently in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon

• Non Admin opinion: (Till this moment I have not visited article or dispute but slavery topic is area of my interest)
• I do not think any thing needs to be changed @ WP:ANI process for such cases.
• IMHO basically it is RFC before support requirement @ article talk where in we ask both sides to summarize there point of views and help them in writing a proper RfC question. (IMHO We (WP) lack such support system and many discussions seem to go haywire)
• Bookku (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Atchoum

User:Atchoum has been adding Copyrighted material to Probiotic, Type 2 diabetes, Proton-pump inhibitor, H2 receptor antagonist, And Colorectal cancer The User continues to add copyrighted materials to articles. He has already been given a warning for adding copyrighted materials to Type 2 diabetes.

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

Chip3004 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Well Atchoum continues to add copyrighted material to wikipedia and at this point it is definitely an WP:COPYVIO Violation. A indef block for Atchoum is needed since he continues to add copyrighted material to wikipedia Chip3004 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You assume you are absolutely right to revert Atchoum, tag them and report them for an immediate indef block, as you have done at WP:AIV, at my talk and here. Meanwhile, I was about to block you instead for edit warring and biting newcomers. Please read WP:CLOP#Substantial_similarity and other Wikipedia policies before tagging and reporting users. Materialscientist (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just noticed this same editor is making illiterate and badly-sourced edits at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. (e.g.[268]) WP:CIR block needed in my view. Bon courage (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Atchoum doesn't use talk-pages or respond on their own talk-page. They have been making bad edits on many nutrition articles with poorly formatted references. Whilst they are adding reliable sources i.e. umbrella reviews in decent journals they seem to be ignoring the fact that some of these have concluded weak evidence (GRADE) and are offering speculation. It's worth citing stronger reviews with significant results not citing weak or no associations like Atchoum is doing. I think this user seems to think adding any old review will do, they are not really reading through what they are citing. I am also concerned about some of the copyvio they have added. It's probably worth blocking this account if they continue to ignore warnings. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears Atchoum is now misusing talk-pages [269] Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User-reported

• P Cesar Maldonado (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – SPA, defamatory accusations and personal attacks on my talk page. David C. S. (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This complaint takes place after Maldonado warned David against edit warring in his talk page ([270]). I have offered more context in a complaint below (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:David C. S..) Next time, you should likewise notify the user regarding the report. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment:Take into account: The user reports without notifying, this gives rise to many interpretations and intentions. Second: The user was warned on multiple occasions, because this activity of substituting photographs comes from Wikipedia in Spanish, where he was put in context that he cannot modify the images to his liking and under political positions. The user dragged this attitude to various Wikipedias where it was reversed, not by one or two, but by several users. In addition, the user already has multiple warnings and similar cases in his main language where he edits (Spanish) and even in this one. P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by Wankanda69 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Karan_(caste)

Diff: [271] MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's just some sock causing trouble. I blocked both Wankanda69 and Wargod699, who are confirmed to each other and are both probably AuthenticSources2546. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ron Karlos L. Castillo

Ron Karlos L. Castillo has a long history of disruptive editing, persistent vandalism, blanking his own talk page (WP:BLANKING), adding red links, and "never ending trolling" by violating the MOS:CIRCULAR rule, even after numerous warnings. (For evidence, see user talk page and its revision history.) -112.210.224.225 (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

112.210.224.225, the only diff you've provided is them blanking their own talk page, which is permitted. In the future, when you report someone to ANI, please explain more and present more diffs. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy

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

---

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy. NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Please note that, in accordance with a discussion that resulted in TCG being sanctioned, editors encountering potential TCG socks are required to log their suspicions both here and at SPI. Therefore, I am leaving this comment here to alert ANI to that discussion. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I have inquired with the sanctioning admin at SPI as to whether this was his intention. It does seem correct from a plain reading of the sanction, but also seems beyond the scope of what a sanction can impose, and thus I would tend to see it as unenforceable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that any sanction saying that editors encountering an issue are required to report it is unreasonable. We can't require editors to do anything. We can forbid editors from doing things that shouldn't be done. We can request and encourage editors to report suspected sockpuppetry, or any other offense. That particular instruction is too strongly written. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There's probably a lot of history here that I'm not up to speed on, but two things are obvious. First, I don't understand the "You are invited to join the discussion" statement. SPI is not a general discussion forum, and let's not try to turn it into one. Second, you can't require people to report suspicions. If they don't, then what? They're guilty of heresy by omission? TomStar81 I assume you had good intentions with your close, but I think you might want to publish an amendment deleting the "requirement to report" clause. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'd imagine the intention is to ask that editors report socks to the SPI page in addition to reporting them here if they so choose. i.e. A dual-listing of sorts. The grammar of the restriction isn't very clear. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

more than 1,000 possibly bad edits

The last 1,000 and more edits by experienced editor User:Dicklyon used an automated editor to impose their view of comma treatment, which in at least some cases is completely wrong grammatically, and which also changes bluelinks to existing articles into redlinks, disconnecting them. I noted one such bad edit at their Talk page, but now I see they have made more than 1,000 edits in their campaign, and there may be a huge number of errors implemented by them. I don't happen to have "rollback" feature so it would not be convenient for me to roll back all of their edits, and it is a bigger cleanup problem than I can tackle right now myself. Could others please speak to this situation and how it can be fixed, please? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC) P.S. Please see this diff at their Talk page, in which I notified them of this ANI section at their Talk page, and where I see they had quickly replied to my first posting, and I requested they to continue here. There, they stated that they would fix all the problems, but I pointed out that without some further discussion showing understanding of the multiple types of problems caused and/or willingness to roll back ALL of the edits, that offhand I would rather expect they might fix some but not all of the errors introduced. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of us have fixed a good number of articles in this series of edits where they showed up in a maintenance tracking category. I'm sure we can get through the rest without a mass rollback. Dawnseeker2000 06:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, now I see (but did not just read in detail) a discussion section on their page. I'm not clear if Dicklyon is making fixes, as their edits all show the same type of edit summary as the bad edit I noticed. Are they using the same edit summary??? Why would they not change the edit summary to indicate they are fixing their previous mistaken edits???

But, anyhow, which kind of errors are you "fixing"; would you be catching all the situations where disconnections were made? I understand that two-comma treatment "Bob Smith, Jr., House" or zero-comma treatment "Bob Smith Jr. House" is grammatically okay, though currently many editors prefer the latter. And I understand that "one-comma" treatment "Bob Smith Jr., House" (which is what Dicklyon was implementing instead of two-comma treatment) is completely wrong. But simply changing the bad treatment into zero-comma treatment does not address the disconnection issue. This applies to numerous NRHP list-articles which were set up with "two-comma" treatment, linking to both bluelink articles and to redlink articles. The linked pages would have to be moved to zero-comma names, first, before perhaps changing two-comma links to zero-comma ones. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

There were some articles in this situation that were listed at Category:Articles with missing files and myself and at least one other editor took care of it. I did not roll back any (just fixed manually) but I see that Sumanuil rolled back about 10 to 15 articles. Dawnseeker2000 06:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

That category would not identify any of the problems I am talking about. So their editing spree must be causing even more kinds of problems than either of us know about. I scrolled back by 1,000's in their edit history 12 times and did not reach the end yet... they have made more than 12,000 edits with a faulty process! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Don, the faulty process (not reviewing the semi-automated edits closely enough to catch these errors) was limited to 1200 rapid edits on Nov. 8 as far as I know. On the previous rounds of case cleanup and comma cleanup edits, there were some transient issues that were discovered, discussed, and fixed. If you have reason to believe there were any significant number of unaddressed errors before that, please point out one or two so we'll know what you're talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem with automated or semi-automated edits. When it works, it's great. When it doesn't, it can introduce hundreds of new errors in minutes. Is speed really worth it?Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I introduced "hundreds" or errors, and it took hours, not minutes. But yes that's a risk of not careful enough use of semi-automated edits, and it's a slower process to fix. Sorry. I'm on it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Another problem is that they change the name of the linked-to article in one place (e.g. a NRHP county-level list-article, but not at other places (at disambiguation pages showing the place as either a bluelink or as a redlink with a supporting bluelink as required by wp:DABRL) and at other list-articles such as a list of rectories or Elks buildings or other building-type-specific lists.

And, now I recall, this editor's doing something very similar to NRHP pages has caused problems before, which were discussed out, and they promised NOT to do it any more without following a procedure to list all the pages changed at a work page set up specifically so that the second-level problems introduced by their zeal could be monitored and fixed. That work page is Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Hyphens vs. dashes issues, created specifically because Dicklyon had been charging ahead changing hyphens to dashes. Now, their charging ahead with changing two-commas to zero-commas creates the same problems. (Because existing bluelink target pages need to be moved, leaving redirects behind. And where target pages are redlinks, a redirect would need to be created, too, but those would be deleted automatically, so the workaround was to create that worklist which would allow for one to go back later and create the necessary redirects.) I doubt this is easy for others to immediately understand. But Dicklyon once did understand, and agreed to cooperate in a workaround process, which they are not doing here.

This is irritating. Could they be enjoined not to do any edits of these types? Or any mass-editing campaigns, or what? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Don, I've continued to list redlinked articles with dashes there in case you or someone creates the articles with hyphens. Did I miss something? Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's not draw & quarter him. Yes, there were some errors introduced, but these can be taken care of. As an AWB user, I create similar situations, and that is why I monitor the various tracking categories. If you're an editor with a goal (commas) then speed can become paramount, and I see he was saving pages at a rate of around 20 per minute on at least one occasion tonight. If you're an editor with a goal (typo-fixing, for example) and you also are focused on not populating those categories, the edit rate drops dramatically. Based on the article about him, he's 18 or 19 years older than I am, and I know my eyes fail me here and there. Dawnseeker2000 07:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"these can be taken care of"??? by whom, how? Some/many/most of the errors introduced do not show up in a tracking category which could be addressed. You probably don't see all the types of problems caused, and I probably don't see them all either, because the edits are hitting completely different kinds of articles and situations (e.g. inside redlinks vs. inside bluelinks vs. outside links) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"Speed can become paramount". For heaven's sake, why? Are the Internet Comma Police hovering over our website, threatening to swoop down and send Wikipedia to Comma Prison if the "errors" weren't changed immediately? These kinds of mass changes can most certainly wait for a consensus before they're made, and if errors are introduced they should certainly be corrected before moving on with the grand project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic to what Dick is trying to achieve - the Jr. comma debate was settled many years ago, and most article titles now match that. But it does look like this mass edit was done without due care and attention, and most likely with the myriad different combinations of offsetting commas and other constructs, it isn't really possible to do a mass edit of this nature without verifying each and every one for breakages. Dick, you need to commit to slowing down and doing this task carefully, or else a topic ban on mass edits may be incoming.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Amakuru, it's not just that they would need to look for breakages where a bluelink was changed to a redlink. There also needs to be redirects set up from valid two-comma versions to also valid zero-comma versions, and that is different than a breakage. And they were doing neither, they were introducing completely bad one-comma errors!!! (This is not entirely easy to explain, sorry. But basically their approach (if they were actually making two-comma to zero-comma changes) is also setting up future disconnects/breakages which you can't see yet, so further action like the work page workaround is needed.) Their edits are not being part of any solution; they are the problem now, and IMHO they should not be allowed to be involved in addressing the Jr., and Sr. business at all (which would gradually be "fixed" naturally without them). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I see they have made more than 12,000 edits with a faulty process, causing multiple types of problems. Their very latest few edits included one more of the type I identified, too, it is not as if they have changed over to being a fixer. Can 12,000 or however many of their edits 20,000? 50,000? be rolled back, ASAP, before other edits are made to those articles and then rollback cannot be used? This is on the scale of a pretty big bot run, and they have been running an unapproved bot in effect. If one does that, wouldn't one get blocked??? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Kill-It-With-Fire (mass undo) is a thing now, so it doesn't matter so much if edits happen after theirs. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, is it appropriate to remove commas before Jr. or Sr.? (e.g. this edit) Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Nythar, it is not completely simple. In that edit, they made one change which is okay (in shifting to a now-somewhat-preferred form, but not really a necessary change), in a case where there was no comma following the "Joe Smith, Jr." But also they made one change that introduced grammatical error, where there was a comma following it. In the second change, in effect, they changed from "two-comma" to "one-comma" type, which is just absolutely wrong. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Not "absolutely wrong", but I agree I should have removed another comma there. I further fixed that article just now; it had quite a few missing and extra commas that nobody had cared about so far. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:JRSR: Do not put a comma before Jr. or Sr. (or variations such as Jnr). Ljleppan (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just interested to know the MOS for these. Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

But, User:Ljleppan, it does not follow that removing a comma before a Jr. or Sr. always constitutes an improvement. Instead it can be introducing a gross error. Changing "Joe Smith, Jr., House" to "Joe Smith Jr., House" is making an absolute error. (While changing "Joe Smith, Jr., House" to "Joe Smith Jr. House" would be okay grammatically and is, i guess, now somewhat preferred.) And there are the immediate breakage problems which can be caused if the phrase is part of a bluelink, and the implied problem that the bluelinked page needs to be moved and a redirect set up. And there is delayed/hidden/future breakage-type problem caused too, when the phrase is part of a redlink, esp. where that redlink is used in other articles too. So one partial fix to their type of campaign would be to prohibit them from making any change to a redlink, but rather allow us all to wait until the redlink is turned into a bluelink by article creation. --07:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Also they shouldn't be changing citations. This edit[272] introduced 2 citation errors (cites need to match sources, not WP usage) and also broke a link in V-12 Navy College Training Program. Given the quantity of edits, even a small error rate is going to throw up a lot of errors. Semi-automated tools should automate the data entry, not the editors judgement. This is very annoying. Jahaza (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yet more damage to citations[273]. This comma is in the title of the cited Senate resolution. There's also damage to sports articles.

• 2016–17 Pac-12 Conference men's basketball season
• 2020 Atlantic Coast Conference men's soccer season
• 2016 Mountain West Conference football season
• 2016 Atlantic Coast Conference men's soccer season
• 2016 North Carolina A&T Aggies football team
• 2017 Mountain West Conference football season
• 2019 Colonial Athletic Association men's soccer season

Here Jr. and Sr. are in reference to college player year and have nothing to do with postnominals. With thousands (tens of thousands?) Of edits, how many of these are there! Jahaza (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that Dick seems to have paid almost no attention to whether the commas in question were part of an offsetting pair, as well as removing them in renditions of titles of external sources, which I don't think should be edited that way, I'm starting to think a mass rollback may be necessary, unless Dick or anyone else is prepared to examine them one by one. I have to say I'm disappointed by this, as I consider Dick a good editor and while his zeal and determination to see through certain style issues is well-known, his heart is in the right place. What's happened here isn't good though, unless we really are dealing with only a handful of cases.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to be something of a repeat of an earlier automated mass edit campaign by Dicklyon a few months ago. (See [274].) Perhaps Dicklyon shouldn't be using automation to make edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

More than 30,000 uninformed/faulty edits with edit summary including "(via WP:JWB)", and many more thousands with a different mass editing error: I paged back 30 times 1,000 edits per page of their contributions, and am still amongst their automated edits.

And then I am seeing a bunch more different edits which I also disagree with, where they are willy-nilly changing titles of pages about proper noun things into mixed upper and lower case titles. Which seems completely wrong. E.g. this diff about a disambiguation page on the Sun Belt Basketball Tournament with edit summary indicating they are applying their view of what's proper for upper vs. lower case "norm" ("(Dicklyon moved page Sun Belt Basketball Tournament to Sun Belt basketball tournament: case norm)"). In this specific case it seems they did move the constituent pages (incorrectly, IMHO) already. I have seen them blithely making case changes to articles on proper noun places listed on, and formally named by, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) program of the U.S. government. (E.g. they would change "Bob Smith House", listed on the NRHP as "Bob Smith House" rather than "4125 E. 4100 Rd." to "Bob Smith house", which is just wrong: the formal name of the place in all usage by national, state, and local historic governing bodies, and in local tourist and information pages, and in pages of the local historic house museum etc., is the proper name "Bob Smith House"). I had noticed a few of those and regret now that I did not raise a general problem about those edits, which now I think number in the thousands, or many many thousands, as well.

Dicklyon has been notified of this discussion and directed here, and has not commented. Offhand I do not believe they understand the facts of the multiple types of errors they have been introducing, and I do not believe they could fix them all, even if they plausibly claimed they would revisit all 30,000 or more (60,000?) edits in the last few days, plus many thousands more of at least the case-change edits over a longer period. Their claim in immediate response to my first talk message to them was "OK, yes, I messed up and will review and fix that and other recent edits." I note they did not make any fixes since then, and it is certainly not just "recent edits", and this is a big mess. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed these case edits as well to basketball tournament names (when I was fixing comma errors introduced in some), but wasn't sure if there was a consensus about capitalizing the tournament names. --Jahaza (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• I find these mass automated edits to be problematic. It is putting the burden on the rest of us to try to catch and fix the mistakes. See, e.g., here, [275], here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Have to say that I noticed issues with some of Dick's edits related to the basketball tournament case moves mentioned above, most of which were done in September IIRC. When moving titles in various articles, he made case changes to reference titles that happened to be similar to the event titles. Examples can be found at [276], [277], [278], [279], and [280] among others, and I'm sure there are many similar instances I'm not aware of. As someone who cares about upholding MoS standards when possible, I can't tell you how annoying it is to have clear errors mixed in with legitimate changes and have to spend time looking at each individual piece of an edit for problems. My hope is that Dick takes this and the above feedback to heart and exhibits a little more caution with his editing, as he says he will do going forward. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Giants2008, it would be polite to let me know if you see mistakes I've made, rather than save them up for ANI. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Re the consensus on baseball and basketball tournaments and such, a good place to check for discussions is WT:MOSCAPS#Concluded. These all had clear consensus, enough to get a bot to do the hundreds of moves. I was pretty careful in the cleanup edits, but of course a few errors may have slipped through. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I screwed up

By going too fast and not reviewing each edit carefully enough, I did let quite a few errors through (that is, removed some commas that should have been left, and left some that should have been removed), so now I have to either revert all or review and fix all. I appreciate those who have already reverted or fixed errors that that they noticed. I'll get started today (but my editting availability comes in blocks, so I beg your patience). Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe we're talking about approximately 1200 edits on 08 November, which is when I was hurrying through. If anyone sees errors in any older edits, I'd like to hear about that, too, but that's not what any of the ones mentioned above are about, in spite of one user's comment that this problem goes back many thousands of edits. There were a few accidental edits of file names earlier, and I did several times thank Sumanil for noticing and fixing those; it's great that they are automatically flagged. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed I also got about 40 thanks for these comma fixes. It's good to know that some of these at least are recognized as worthwhile improvements. Again, I apologize for the ones that were not, and I'll be working on finding and fixing more of those. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Just out of curiosity, are you saying above that you were thanked about 40 times – via the "Thanks" notification – for the various comma-related edits that you performed on 8 November, or am I misunderstanding? DanCherek (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That is what I was saying, but checking again I see many fewer thanks than 40. Not sure what confused my count there. Maybe counted over a longer time span; looks like about 40 over the last month. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Checking again, I see most of my last 50 thanks were in early October, with edit summaries comma rm per MOS:JR (via WP:JWB) and fix Jr/Sr as last name (via WP:JWB). So, it Jr Sr comma related, but not the recently problematic batch, which only got 5 thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Going through the reverts first, to see how I messed up, I find three main categories: First, in names of historic houses I broke some links by taking out one comma instead of the two it would take to avoid the redirects. So I've got a JWB pattern that will help me find and fix all those; and I'll check them carefully. Second, I changed a few file names; glad to see those get fixed almost automatically by Sumanuil. Third, I was surprised to find that in sports articles, ", Jr.," or ", Sr.," after a name actually are non-restrictive, and need those commas since they are college years; probably would be better as ", junior," and ", senior,". I don't know whether those have all been reverted; I'll be checking for more. Again, sorry, I got in an inappropriate rush last night. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, several of the complaining editors above have complained in the past about my quantities of edits, but are generally unable to point out any errors, since my error rate is generally well below 1% (unlike last night's 1200 edits, where it may be closer to 10%). So let's focus on what I got wrong, and just acknowledge that I did about 100,000 other edits this year, with relatively few errors. I'm not doing this just for fun, but to improve WP, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I advised you in the past, to slow down. A speeding train, always runs the risk of causing destruction. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your advice, on commas. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm doing something right. Three different users thanked me for the above comment. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose lots, of people just appreciate good, comma usage? A humorous retort, always has the chance of inspiring thanks. Begoon 11:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Working through these is slow. What I rushed through at about 4 seconds each is taking about a minute per review and fix. So it will keep me busy for a lot of editing hours. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Given how much time it's taking, it's a wonder that you have time to repeatedly revert the use of the comma in Joseph P. Riley Jr. Park, when that's what the official city sources use. See: Talk: Joseph P. Riley Jr. Park § Silly comma in name --Jahaza (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I take time to fix errors. We don't ape the style of official sources, especially when they're agrammatical and most sources don't copy their errors. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I've got these three identified categories of errors all fixed (sports player years, houses, and file names). The rest are slow because there's no clear patttern to look for and because they typically have more comma errors to fix than the ones I created. So it will take a while. Plus, I have work and some other RL things (including a death in the family and the death of a friend) limiting my time on task. I've also got a big backlog of cleanup edits on the hundreds of page moves done after Talk:Mid-American Conference baseball tournament#Requested move 23 October 2022. I'd be happy to have help there, especially from someone good with AWB or JWB. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the "House" fixes are still in progress, not finished. I found the JWB tab working on that and did a bit more. And did some more of the random ones. Anyone feel like helping? Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Finished those, I think. If I missed any, I'll come across them as I continue to work through the whole list looking for errors to fix. I've been fixing lots of other comma errors in historic house/farm/etc. articles as I go, too. I think Don was saying that if I fix something in one place I should fix it in other places, too; but I don't see how that's possible, nor has it ever been an expectation laid on editors. I do try to move things in that direction, but there's really no good support for global consistency. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor can't hear us

Dicklyon has been asked MANY TIMES on their talk page to review their edits as they make them, not to depend on other people to find and point out their mistakes. Many of these edits resulted in clear, obvious red links, missing images, broken footnotes and other error messages, but Dicklyon is going too fast and editing without enough care. Continued advice and remonstrances, including the discussion above, have not worked. I recommend some sort of sanction at this point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

AWB/JWB enabling comes with acknowledgement that you are responsible for every edit made (WP:AWBRULES). Yes, mistakes happen, and Dicklyon has owned up to the mistakes and worked to correct them. I do not doubt their sincerity in that regard. But it is my opinion that they have (1) not considered the full impact of some of the regexes they were running while at the same time (2) operating too fast (when I ran across previous issues, they were running 30-40 edits per minute, which is considered bot-like editing). AWB & JWB come with significant responsibility because misuse can cause widespread damage very quickly. Simply slowing down would solve the problem, and that has been advised numerous times([281], [282], [283]) over the past six weeks; yet here we are. One possibility would be that if Dicklyon is going to continue to use JWB in this manner, they need to submit for a bot approval (see WP:MEATBOT). A more severe sanction would be removal from the AWB check page (as the aforementioned AWB rules indicate: Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled). ButlerBlog (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for you perspective. Let me summarize what I've been up to. First, I sought and obtained clear consensus, about 4 or 5 times this year, to get large batches of pages moved (mostly in sports, for case correction); and some in previous years (like a lot of these Jr. and Sr name articles). Then, to follow up, I took on the complete task of cleanup edits to use the same case in the text as we had decided for titles. Sometimes I'd take weeks to develop good enough regex patterns, going relatively slowly and trying to figure out what kinds of errors might happen. Sometimes others spotted errors that I missed. Eventually I got to where I could edit real fast, as you noticed, and sometimes a new type of problem would be discovered (like when I case corrected links that turned out to be redirects and so hadn't been moved, resulting in redlinks). I fixed a ton of those manually, while working with Tol on getting a bot to help (which he's about to finish up real soon). A few editors were annoyed by the shear volume of edits showing up on their watchlists, and complained about that more than about actual errors. That's mostly in the past, but a bunch of baseball tournaments and such are still awaiting case cleanups. When I get to it, I'll have had the redirects taken care of in advance, and I'll develop regex patterns carefully, and probably go real fast again; I'll seek bot approval for that, now that I see such a process exists. But what happened this week (1200 edits on Nov. 8 at a rate of about 10 per minute) was a big mistake on my part. I watched, checking previews, developing what I thought to be a low-error-rate regex pattern, before I started going faster, watching the diffs but not the previews. In retrospect, it's clear that no amount of Jr/Sr comma hacking is going to be low error rate, and I should have seen that at the time. The file redlinks were automatically found and kindly and quickly fixed. The "House" article redlinks took me a while longer, using JWB and careful checking; its hard when so many of the redlinks were already redlinks before my edits (that is, I edited redlinks more than I created redlinks). Got those all fixed. And the ones that looked right because I didn't see enough context to notice that were college player years, not postnominals, all got fixed (some by me, some by the editor who pointed them out to me). I've been going through what's left, now with the help of JWB, with a regex that can remove the commas I left after Jr. and Sr. For each such edit, I have to OK it or edit it back, or skip the file; and in the process I tend to notice and fix other commas and such. I need JWB for this. The alternative, since I have a good list now of which articles have not been fixed or checked or reverted by me or anyone else yet, would be to just revert all those; if someone has a bot that can take my list of titles and just revert my current edits, I'd go for that as an OK alternative to completing the fixes. Then I intend to pretty much give up on Jr./Sr. fixes except in new article titles, since I've decided there's no way to make it easy enough to make much headway. Anyway, I like your ideas of asking for meatbot approval when I think I'm ready to go fast on a big batch. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As someone who uses AWB/JWB, I would point out a couple of things. First: developing what I thought to be a low-error-rate regex pattern, before I started going faster. The end result has to be a zero error rate. You're running a semi-automated process, so ultimately you have the option to click "skip" (or manually adjust). I have worked on similar situations where there are simply too many variables to cover every possible instance. And to be frank, that's why those maintenance items are better suited to AWB than a bot - because you can't get to a zero error rate without oversight. Mass errors simply should not happen because you're running a semi-automated process that has direct oversight - like a bot that asks permission before every save. I don't doubt the sincerity of everything you've said along the way; but the fact remains that you were given a tool that is very powerful and can easily cause widespread destruction, so regardless of the contrition (which is certainly appreciated), you have to understand that the community has to ask itself if letting you keep a chainsaw is advisable. Since that's not up to me, I would simply offer this further suggestion: maybe you should use AWB instead for a while. It will automatically slow you down (JWB loads at a much faster rate - at least IMO). Second, it gives you some more advanced regex options. With the advanced settings, you can apply multiple regexes so that later patterns can pick up on changes previous regexes have made. That way you can build in some error checking of your result, or make additional changes based on previous patterns. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for User:Beyond My Ken on article Irvington, New York

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please review Talk:Irvington, New York as well as the revert history of User:Beyond My Ken on this article. This user has been creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND over this article for years. I propose this user be topic-banned from the article for a period of a year so other editors can make needed improvements. Skyerise (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think you are trying to win an argument over the word "affluent". Drmies (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Apparently starting an RfC over a disputed word is now a cause for being topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• You think wrong, that's somebody else's battle which I am using as an second example of unnecessarily obstructive editing. This first involves the discussion of applying MoS formatting to the unsightly list section, also thoroughly discussed on the talk page by multiple editors, all of whom were reverted by the user. I suggest responders really read through the talk page and really count the reverts by the user. The evidence in quite clear if you take the time to look at it, so I don't feel any need to further argue this case. Skyerise (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note ANI report filed by Skyerise in January 2022, closed by Black Kite with "Well, that was a waste of everyone's time." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Logical fallacy 1: smear the messenger.
• Logical fallacy 2: this case is the same as a previous case. Skyerise (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Having read the article talk page, I don't see a case either for a topic-ban or an interaction ban, but the next time the OP throws the boomerang, an I-ban might be worth considering, but not a T-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The OP is the one engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - making regular edits is no reason for a topic ban. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - All I see happening is an extremely low-level dispute over a single word, that is in the slow but decisive process of being settled via an RfC that BMK started. It seems disingenuous to assert that deleting sources for the word is unrelated to the RfC and uncontentious, and your doing so (prompting a revert and this report) gives the appearance of provocation or baiting. There is nothing wrong with an editor having an ongoing interest in an article they wrote, and BMK appears to be willing to engage in discussion and dispute resolution. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Can't think of a policy based reason to sanction BMK. -Roxy the dog 17:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As MiasmaEternal noted: making regular edits is no reason for a topic ban. The OP request is far to broad, expecting everyone else to do the work. If you're going to claim WP:BATTLEGROUND, then show actual examples of a pattern (in other words, a little more effort than "go look at the edit history yourself"). ButlerBlog (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The editor appears to be strongly opinionated on a particular content matter, but they're acting in good faith through ordinary dispute resolution processes. I don't see any recent evidence of edit warring presented here and I don't think a TBAN is warranted for a user who is communicating on the talk page in good faith to explain the rationales for their edits and to attempt to build consensus around it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all I'm seeing is a passionate content disagreement that does not merit sanctions of any kind. As a side note to the OP, please don't ask us to make your case for you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Sri Lanka and unsourced WP:RGW

The Sri Lanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Whilst this user has made some good contributions, they seem to be out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS when it comes to the topics of Sri Lanka, Buddhism and Hinduism. They don't seem to think that they need to provide sources (see their talkpage), and just edit war their additions in (see their contribs, clear patten of revert, revert revert going on), with summaries along the lines of "stop spreading prejudice" and "Erroneous" (yet hadn't provided any sources). They have continued past a final warning, and don't seem interested in discussing anything except for telling everyone that they are spreading prejudice and racism. A shorter block may bring them to their senses, and give them some time to read up on Wikipedia:Verifiability, as they seem to be (mostly, I think) WP:HERE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Mako's concerns (and several others') are justified - notably that after responding to an initial reminder to use RS, when they then started receiving warnings, they give such comments as Why are you so interested in inciting racism and religious prejudice? Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading prejudice.. A reasonable case could be made for a personal attack, but even AGFing that, the non-sourcing issues are legion. I'm not sure a temporary block is likely to work. Instead, I'd go for an indef block (not a ban), liftable by any admin who is satisfied when Sri Lanka engages suitably. Underlying that, I'd also impose a community 1RR restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Here, they just revert me to re-add their unsourced content, whilst claiming that my edit was somehow "Erroneous".

  Here they remove content, mostly to a single source (Lehr, 2019) claiming it "incites racism". Oddly, they make no challenge of the reliability of the source though, as they don't attempt to remove other content sourced to "Lehr (2019)". This suggests that the issue is more IDONTLIKEIT than believing the source to be unreliable. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

My last edit to Buddhism in Sri Lanka filled in a citation. The "prejudicial" content edit by The Sri Lanka is still in place. (edit - restored the sourced content Adakiko (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)) Adakiko (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@The Sri Lanka: Can you please comment here? I see you have edited since the notice was added, but haven't commented here yet. I would like to hear your side of this, as I note that your edits in other topic areas seem to be better than those in the topics of Sri Lanka, Hinduism and Buddhism. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Friends,

Buddhism is the Dharma preached by the Lord Buddha. Dharma is the way of life. Buddhism teaches what is right and wrong, just like other religions, and especially gives the freedom to question and accept the teachings by volition. Hence, it is free for everyone to accept the Buddhist teachings and take part in Buddhist religious activities, regardless of their ethnic or religious denominations. Buddhism values peace and harmony and advocates non-violence. No where does Buddhism justify violence in any circumstances.

Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka in the 3rd Century BCE, and the people of Sri Lanka embraced Buddhism at their own will. Since then, Buddhism has enriched Sri Lankan society and culture in many ways, becoming an integral part of the Sri Lankan identity. People belonging to different ethnicities and religions had lived peacefully and harmoniously in Sri Lanka. It is highly appreciated, if you would read the unaltered history of Sri Lanka, which will give you a clear picture of inter-faith and inter-communal harmony in Sri Lanka. The ethnic and religious diversity in Sri Lanka was exploited by the British colonial rulers, who concocted to create tension, following their policy of "divide and rule". So, sources from the colonial era, thus create a distorted picture regarding ethnic and religious diversity in Sri Lanka, which can be attributed to misunderstandings and also to fabrications.

However, the Buddhist culture and heritage was threatened under more than four centuries of colonial rule. As a result, Buddhist leaders like Anagarika Dharmapala, who intended to preserve the Sri Lankan Buddhist culture and heritage, educated the Buddhist community about their culture and heritage which was waning due to colonialism, and elaborated on the Sri Lankan Buddhist identity as distinguished from the the culture of the colonialists who attacked not only Buddhism but also Hinduism which was followed by the Sri Lankan Tamils. Unity in diversity was always the norm and racism was never encouraged, for it does not take violence to preserve the heritage.

The excerpts from a certain book, which were removed and subsequently created controversy, claim that the Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka is a driving force behind the ethnic conflicts. In reality, a great majority of Sri Lankan Buddhists disapprove of such racist ideology, and live in harmony with all other communities and protect victims of such racial violence. Since there is no ecclesiastical authority over Buddhism in Sri Lanka, there is no official standpoint of the Buddhist community. The author clearly explains this in his book the existent reality. But to understand that one must read the complete version. By providing a few excerpts that describes only the violence, it conveys a wrong message to the reader that Buddhism is behind the racial violence. It is a clear distortion of what the book says. Such misleading content can incite racism. Since Wikipedia adheres to the truth and values peace and also avoids taking a political stance, such content do not comply with the policies of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sri Lanka (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm discussing on their talkpage to work out a summary of this, I'll add it when it is available. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, they haven't commented on my proposed TLDR version so here it is:

Some people will find that too long to comfortably read, so I will attempt to summarise the points you are making here. Please let me know if you think that my summary isn't an accurate representation of what you were trying to say:

• Buddhism is a peaceful religion, and encourages non-violence and tolerance.
• Before becoming a British colony, Sri Lanka was a peaceful and harmonious land, with people of various religions amd ethnicities cooexisting peacefully.
• When it became a British colony, the divide and rule approach used in the British Empire caused divisions between these people.
• As a result, scholarship based on the colonial period doesn't accurately portray the relationship between these peoples in Sri Lanka.
• A revival of Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka took place, and part of its aim was to reunite these various groups, and to end racism and ethnic/religious violence.
• The excerpt cited to say that Buddhist culture was a driving force behind ethnic violence in Sri Lanka had been used out of context.
• The violence is the result of a small minority of Buddhists who ignore the teachings of Buddhism, and most Buddhists in Sri Lanka do not agree with these people, their views, or their methods.
• When the proper context was used, the book actually supported the point immediately above.
• Using the claim out of context could encourage racism and does not adhere to Wikipedia policy (WP:DUE and WP:NPOV).

Is this an accurate summary of what you are saying above? I've done my best, but, again, if I've misrepresented anything, please let me know. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Violent user pages in violation of previous ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Years ago, a pro-Hezbollah userbox was repeatedly deleted as WP:POLEMIC content that endorsed violence, and admin User:Sandstein confirmed that its removal would be enforced. In the resulting ANI dispute, User:eleland created a WP:POINT variant of the userbox. It seems that this has slid under the radar after the discussion was closed as stale. There are several pages that continue to use this box or variants of it despite consensus being against it. I would nominate it for deletion as a clear violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but it seems that these users are substituting the wikitext directly onto their userpages in an attempt to evade detection. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to notify all those editors about that discussion? a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 18:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The subliminal yellow/green Hezbollah colour scheme in many of the user boxes is certainly concerning. Per WP:NONAZIS, we don't generally tolerate support for organizations that engage in Holocaust denial. Ideology of Hezbollah#Jews and Judaism shows plenty of antisemitic remarks. Even setting aside this, we're talking about an organization that's been recognized by many countries and the vast majority of academics as a terrorist group.

I've seen this userbox before and I'm disheartened to learn the organization that it really represents. A fair compromise that would reduce the drama levels significantly would be a neutral colour scheme, especially one without images labelled as "Homeland security". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

One point - the discussion linked above was in 2008, but in 2015 the page User:Nableezy (which contained the same single userbox as it does now) was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Nableezy) and overwhelmingly kept. Unless I'm missing something, this appears to be the latest discussion on the issue. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

After reading through that, the existence of this userbox is significantly worse. It appears that the nominator in 2015, User:Sir Joseph, was unaware or did not make explicit that this userbox was part of a past issue and associated with Hezbollah specifically. It also seems that the subject of the deletion discussion, User:Nableezy, was deceptive about the nature of the userbox, denying its associations with Hezbollah and insisting innocence because it didn't explicitly say the word "Hezbollah". This is a textbook example of a dog whistle. The level of effort to insert extremist dogwhistles like this on Wikipedia is deeply concerning, and I worry it may be indicative of a larger problem on how Wikipedia addresses these issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a strong consensus to keep makes it significantly worse that it was kept. That makes perfect sense. The userbox is criticizing Wikipedia for allowing statements of support for one party to conflict and disallowing statements of support for another party. Your view on the validity of one of those parties is a personal problem. Your calling me being deceptive however is a straightforward violation of WP:NPA, and Id welcome an admin doing something about it. I havent exactly hidden my views, and calling me deceptive because you fail to understand the meaning of a userbox is so far the one thing worthy of ANI in this section. nableezy - 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The very discussion linked from 2008 found no such consensus against a box that named no parties. It did not slide under the radar, and that is a misleading statement. It is discussed at the section Note. Thanks again for proving the point of the userbox, that Wikipedia's systemic bias is alive and well. nableezy - 23:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• No beating around the bush. Just like blue is Crips, yellow and green is Hezbollah. The box is 100% obvious Hezbollah with its green and yellow. Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organization, implicit support for a terrorist organization is probably against Wikipedia's terms of use. Policy has moved on since 2008, WP:NONAZIS was written in 2018. A few months ago I was harassed (like including rape threats) by Lebanese IP addresses and accounts named after Hezbollah torture expert Aziz al-Abub and commander Khalid Bazzi. Editors shouldn't be allowed to fly banners suggesting support of Hezbollah. PrisonerB (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Nobody is beating around anything, the box is criticizing Wikipedia for allowing statements of support for Israel and disallowing statements of support for Hezbollah, when the two were engaged in armed conflict. As eleland said at the time, the day it is against Wikipedia's policy to make a statement of support for basic tenants of international law, eg the right to resist aggression and foreign occupation by racist and colonial regimes, is the day this user walks. nableezy - 16:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, given that the previous discussion was massively in favour of keeping the userbox displayed at User:Nableezy, I would suggest that your only option should you want it removed would be to send the page to MfD again, to see if consensus has changed. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It is pretty disappointing that outright supporters of extremist anti-Semitic organisations are allowed to exist on Wikipedia. If they had a userbox that implied support of a far-right anti-Semitic party, they'd be banned without much afterthought. Hezbollah shouldn't get a pass, and Holocaust deniers shouldn't have a place here. — Czello 13:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia should institute a Zionists only policy forthwith. Jfc, do you guys hear yourselves? Are you seriously claiming I have ever once denied the Holocaust? Diffs plz. nableezy - 16:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the only two options aren't "support Zionism" or "support Hezbollah". Just to clarify, though, can you confirm/deny whether you support Hezbollah, an organisation that engages in Holocaust denial? — Czello 16:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Czello, I guess, this diff will answer your question. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 17:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I support the right of all parties, including Hezbollah, including Israel, including Ukraine, including any individual or group of individuals, to violently resist aggression (a war crime) and foreign occupation by racist and colonial regimes. Sort of like most of the world does. And that diff above remains accurate as to my views on Hezbollah. nableezy - 17:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that WP:NONAZIS is an essay, not policy. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that WP:DISRUPTION is a policy, and if you espouse hateful views, you can be blocked for disruption. But, you would have already known that if you read WP:NONAZIS. Which explains exactly that. --Jayron32 18:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe cite the actual policy, not the essay? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I say leave the user page as-is, per "If someone tells you who they are, believe them". You have a user who plainly supports terrorism, so at least you know their character before you engage in a debate. I'd rather have it confirmed than have to surmise. ValarianB (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually like the box as an indicator of the reading comprehension of others tbh. nableezy - 16:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

)

Selfstudier (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I am glad that two editors have stepped forward to tell us who they are. ValarianB (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh ffs, if you are unable to distinguish between This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties and this user supports terrorism then you have problems with the English language, not the userbox. And if you think the terrorism of the party you support (eg the listing here) is somehow superior to others then you also have a problem with moral relativism. nableezy - 18:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

When the United States starts sending men wearing bomb vests into community centers to get their 72 virgins, you'll find that leg to stand on. ValarianB (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because killing civilians is only bad when Muslims do it? Thanks for making your view clear though, nice to know your character. nableezy - 19:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The obvious way to resolve this ongoing issue is to compile an exhaustive list of opinions that Wikipedia contributors are permitted to hold. In addition, all contributors will be required to submit a signed declaration as to whether or not they have stopped beating their husbands/wives/significant others... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, about the size of it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, another solution is to delete every single userbox out there. I've always found them pretty pointless. Nigej (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Or at the very least prohibit those organizations that are prescribed as a terrorist entity:

"Either the entire organization or only its military wing has been designated a terrorist organization by several countries, including by the European Union and, since 2017, also by most member states of the Arab League, with two exceptions – Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful political party, and Iraq. Russia does not view Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization" but as a "legitimate socio-political force"." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's really just best to let them fly their flags proudly, like Confederate flag-bearers who claim to be American patriots. We get to see them for what they are. ValarianB (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Smugness and moral superiority all in one. Definitely get to see you for what you are. nableezy - 18:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

And allowing it to persist means waving that flag in the face of people who are threatened by it. Not a great look for Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Close this and move to MfD

The OP did not open this up as a request for sanctions against specific editors, but as a problem with the user box. MfD can handle that discussion. If editors respond to an MfD closed as delete by claiming their copy-pasted versions are exempt from the consensus, I'd gladly support sanctions for disruptive consensus-dodging. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support this isn't a matter for ANI. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support as OP. I opened this assuming that it was just an oversight that an admin could quickly correct. It's clear that it's become a WP:BATTLEGROUND with questionable behavior from multiple users, and I don't see anything to be gained by keeping this ANI open. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromised account?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [284]. If the password is genuine (I've not tried it, obviously), the account is irretrievably compromised, and will need blocking. I thought about asking for a rev-del, but realised that doing so would be pointless, since the password has already been disclosed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The account has been globally locked by a Steward for account compromise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit posting the account's password has been oversighted. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• DRUnfiltered (talk · contribs)
• The World Tomorrow (radio and television) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Criminal harassment and civil filings are being contemplated if your behavior continues, but we believe that is exactly what you want - attention drawn to yourself."

For anyone who wants context, the "behavior" at question is me undoing this user's (and some IPs who pass the "this user" duck test) refactoring of other people's talk page messages in order to remove internal Wikipedia links. I've even tried giving the user advice about where he can go to address problems with the content being linked to. For some reason, this user is equating these restorations to me harassing.... someone, I'm not even sure who it is I'm supposed to be harassing (he has been described variously in edit summaries as a major celebrity and a non-noteworthy individual.) But restoring refactored talk page comments is well within my long history as an editor here, and is being done for no reason beyond that that is what one is supposed to do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Related, I've reverted this edit (which reverted back to a 2017 version) done by what seems to be a connected IP (as they also harassed Nat on the talk page and @Barek: before semi-protection was added) from a month back. Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Hasn't this World of Tomorrow nonsense been a chronic problem for years -- something about copyrights on the title cards (whatever a title card is)? EEng 04:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Involving the image in the infobox (an intertitle is the term here), which is some kind of memorial image to the original hosts it seems. This seems to be a subject that's attracted towards me; completely defunct things ending up as "zombie trademarks" being exhumed by people with nothing to do with the original thing to push something (usually some kind of weird Roku channel revival or pump and dump stock scheme), which is here a church schism. Nate • (chatter) 20:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Cumulonimbus and well beyond

Please see edit history by Unar64P (talk · contribs). Discussion and warnings have thus far been fruitless. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Add trolling of other editors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • See also El Cubano 153 (talk · contribs) for similar interwoven edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • ? See the Spanish Wikipedia, in the forms, El Cubano 153 (talk · contribs) 13. Nov 2022
    • El Cubano 153, what is your connection to Unar64P (talk · contribs), as at [285] as well as Cumulonimbus? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    • What we see on Spanish Wikipedia is that es:Cumulonimbus does not include the malformatted images which you added to the English article at Cumulonimbus#Cloud types. We also see that the users Unar64P and El Cubano 153 are both indefinitely blocked there. I'm not sure, therefore, why you wish us to look there. - David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm pinging you because you gave the user a level 3 warning ten days ago, and a cascade of final warnings have gone unheeded since. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That warning was from 2022–23 European windstorm season article where both of them keeps reverting a track map that did not meet Wikipedia Standards. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 15:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• • It a large history, i'am me no blocked, all ocurred on Spanish Wikipedia El Cubano 153 (talk · contribs) 13 Nov. 2022 10:50 Ch
    • Don't know what's going on here [286]. Please block both. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• I started looking at this but have run out of time today. Looking into their edits, I think the IP is correct: these two accounts are both blocked on es.wiki, both have such bad english skills that they are mostly unintelligible in english, both have edit-warred, and I'd bet $50 they're sock or meat puppets. An admin with more time can determine whether this is already enough disruption for indef blocks, or if an SPI needs to be opened to attack it from that direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Good idea: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/El Cubano 153.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Noting that Drmies has CU-blocked them indefinitely per the above SPI, which confirmed a connection. Thank you, Good Doctor. Heads up: this person's disruption has spread to Commons as well, uploading fictitious track maps to support the user's fictitious writings in their userpsace. I'll try to file a bulk deletion request over there, but I'm crunched for time and may not have enough to finish, so I wanted to make sure more editors here were aware of the uploads. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 22:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Dylan620, I'm not well-versed in Commons lore, so good luck with it. Imaginary weather? I'm marking myself safe from Sharpiegate. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just posted: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/El Cubano 153 uploads --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 22:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by way of RfPP (permalink). Sorry, have not reviewed the above at that time, so anyone should feel free to adjust the block as they see fit. Thanks. El_C 18:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for tracking down these threads. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If this user is indeffed on both en and es, and is being disruptive on the Commons, are global locks warranted? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: 24.196.8.129's bizarre music-related article vandalism

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#24.196.8.129%27s_bizarre_music-related_article_vandalism

Edit summaries and area of activity leads me to believe that Special:Contributions/71.86.75.107 is the same user.

--Frogging101 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

IP hopping climate color vandal

Someone who has nothing better to do then mess with color coding.They seem preoccupied with adding or removing green. Obsessions come in many colors.

• 207.35.210.51 (talk · contribs).
• 129.100.107.85 (talk · contribs)
• 129.100.255.32 (talk · contribs)

Perhaps there are many more. Requesting mass reversion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This has been going on for more than four years with multiple block evasions of long-term IP blocks. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/24.68.2.110 and User:CrazyBoy826/Target pages of recent IPs. Meters (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A, I have reverted some of the edits by the first listed IP. I think they've been socking for some time now, see here. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. Why am I not surprised? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Threat/Personal Attack for reverting a edit because it was unsourced.

Ths user accusing me of working for a terrorist group all because he refused to add a source for the article Ardi Musa. Additionally, this user wrote a personal attack in Arabic. Please block this user for WP:NOPA and WP:NLT.

• Mealth (talk · contribs)

Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 06:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit in question: [287] One edit to the article, [288] which wouldn't really belong there even if sourced, and then this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It is Persian, and they are accusing you of being Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which is part of the Iranian government. I agree this is block worthy. --Mvqr (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

And blocked for NOTHERE and making threats. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 14:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Attacks on my talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• • (I can't notify the IP users noted below because they don't have talk pages.)

IP users 106.69.121.63 and 110.174.9.234 have posted the same snide, mean-spirited message on my talk page, 106.69.121.63 on 11-12-22 and 110.174.9.234 on 11-22-22. Their posts said: 'Hi, have you seen all the comments about everyone who misses you at ITN? Yeah, me neither." It seems obvious that some user is trying to harass me, and possibly vandalize my pages, due to the partial block imposed on me on 10-26-22, blocking me from ITN/C – which I appealed twice, to no avail.
Furthermore, on 11-13-22 I received an Alert stating: "There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password." – Sca (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• They do have talk pages, but there's no need. I've semi-protected your talk page for 2 weeks. Don't worry about the failed login attempts; as long as you have a good password, it's nothing to worry about. It's another way of pestering people that we can't really do anything about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. -- Sca (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Also, if you do have a good passwrod, you can turn off those noticiations by going to preferences --> notifications --> failed login attempts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Tell us your password and we'll let you know whether it's strong enough. EEng 04:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  It's "PASSWORD1". Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  I thought "PASSWORD2" is more secure? To the others that are reading this, please do not use this as your password as it'll likely be cracked within 5 mins haha. Dulcetia  ^🗩  12:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Everybody knows that "hunter2" is the most secure password, as it always shows up as "*******" to everybody else. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  not having a password is the ultimate password--85.98.18.193 (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that's possible since every website that has any sort of login requires a password. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  The joke is that they are an IP editor, and thus don't log in. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oh. Well that joke went right over my head lol ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  On the Internet, no one knows if you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  I prefer "Matlock" [289] [290] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not comfortable with revealing my new password here. – Sca (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  To clarify, EEng is joking. You should never share your password. You've passed the first test of cybersecurity I suppose. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Très amusant. -- Sca (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  I keep typing in my password you guys, but it's not working! Why can't you see it? It's just coming up as ********** — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stale revert war and refusal to discuss at List of warez groups

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Back on October 27, I removed a Non-free screenshot from List of warez groups and marked the image for deletion as unused non-free. I was reverted in both cases by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), who also left an edit summary falsely accusing me of malice [291]. So, I began a discussion on the talk page and notified him on his own talk page of the discussion. He ignored this entirely, and over the following 6 days made many other edits to other articles and was quite active elsewhere. Since he was refusing to discuss, I again removed the image from the article. At this point, he reverted me again saying there was "no consensus to remove" and added a similar comment to the article talkpage discussion [292]. The comment did not respond to my questions/concerns about the image whatsoever, so is still not a good faith attempt to participate in the discussion. Instead he is seemingly weaponizing WP:CONSENSUS passive-aggressively by saying consensus is required but refusing to participate in my attempts to gain consensus. This is bad faith, disruptive editing and not helpful to the project. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a content dispute and probably not appropriate for this board. That said, the "D" is missing from the WP:BRD cycle here: ...using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. It should be possible to justify the status quo beyond "it's been that way and I like it", especially when reasons have been given as to why the status quo should change. Maintaining a non-free image of a defunct website mentioned in a long list doesn't speak for itself. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

How long have you been getting away with this? You insist that someone follow a process (making a personal attack in the process), they attempt to follow that process and then you refuse to take part in it? The content dispute is beside the point. Now you've also templated a regular. Your behavior is reprehensible, frankly. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I am following the process. I've taken part in the discussion - you just don't like what I'm saying, which is that you need a consensus to remove the image - so go get one. If you get a consensus, there will be no beef from me. But, of course, you choose instead to WP:FORUMSHOP here. First you attempt to remove an image, and insure it stay removed by deleting the FUR from the image's page, then you bring a content dispute to ANI when you don't get a consensus to remove, now you're going around the back by attempting to have the image deleted. Why haven't you gone to WP:3O instead of sneaking around? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It would help an eventual third opinion process if you respond affirmatively on the talk page of the article explaining why you disagree with EnPassant's edit. Stare decesis isn't a helpful reason on its own given the absence of any previous discussion on the question. Mackensen (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Your response was obstructive. You didn't respond to my question regarding the value of the image to the article, you engaged in a circular argument demanding I obtain consensus... which is what I was attempting to do by starting the discussion. So clearly that avenue of consensus building was closed to me. I decided to gain consensus at a deletion discussion, and now that discussion isn't going your way so you're accusing me of forum shopping... when you were the one reverting me and demanding I reach consensus. If you can't see the problem with that I don't know what to tell you. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

And templating a regular is "reprehensible"? Do you actually know what that means? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they list a whole bunch of things (personal attack, etc.), then they say "reprehensible." I would guess that that last sentence was for the entire paragraph, not just the sentence right before. El_C 08:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Demanding someone follow a process and then obstructing it is cynical and dishonest. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• BMK, as Mackensen notes, you can't argue for something to be there because it's been there. The essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" speaks to that directly, while WP:SILENCE does more generally. Likewise, at the FDD discussion, you don't even provide a rational beyond declaratively stating that the fair use "isn't faulty," and that's it. You also speak of a ploy ("another ploy," even), also without explaining any context. And then WP:FORUMSHOP, which, I suppose possibly, if you really squint at it. Anyhow, the OP states in the opening that you've been stonewalling their requests to WP:ENGAGE — which would be conduct, even if at the heart of it is content (as are most conduct matters). As well, couple of days ago, you stated: You made a change to the status quo of the article, and it was contensted. This means that you need a consensus to make that change. You do not have one. Lack of discussion is not consensus (diff). Were you saying you intended on stonewalling them indefinitely?

Now, beyond that, even with substantive argument, that is not how it works. If it were, a contending version would always be at the mercy of a longstanding one. If that was so, everything would be Wikipedia:Consensus required. So, while WP:ONUS and WP:BRD are, indeed, generally recommended, one can't expect to gain major advantage from invoking either (again, even with a substantive argument). So, you need to take a step back and reassess. Reassess how you conduct yourself; how that conduct is being perceived by others. If you can will yourself towards that kind of meaningful reflection, well, then I'd be impressed, and the dispute may resolve okay in the end. But if not, then it'll obviously become more likely for it to end up... not so okay. So, now there's two concurrent discussions: (1) at WP:FDD, please discuss the merits for the fair use rational, etc. (2) Here, the rest. Thank you. El_C 08:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, there's really no defending BMK in a situation where the other person specifically started a discussion on the talk page, specifically notified BMK of the discussion, and waited for 6 days with no reply before reinstating their edit. BMK basically reverted just saying "I disagree", and then because he said "I disagree" claimed he could start saying "consensus required". Obviously that is not the case and it is a very serious detriment to the collaborative spirit of the project. BMK has a bad habit of occasional petty edit warring and he overwhelmingly gets let off the hook for it because he's a reasonable person, a highly respected pillar of the community, and someone who usually has an understandable rationale behind his actions on a human level, even when he is in the wrong. Both for all he contributes to the project and for his reasonable temperament, he is generally trusted to self-regulate. I respect and have defended BMK. But this type of stonewalling behavior is really bad. I was literally just castigating someone for this exact behavior, telling them "You are lucky not to be fully blocked for a lengthy period for your ownership behavior." I have issued lengthy blocks over such behavior against established editors which have withstood community scrutiny. I don't wish to see BMK dragged over this, but OP did everything right in this situation and BMK crossed firmly into what I consider to be routine block territory.

BMK, it appears to me that EnPassant was attempting routine copyright compliance, which you mistook as a malicious attempt at backdoor deletion of an image that you have previously saved from deletion. I think all of us can understand that becoming defensive is human nature, but you definitely crossed the line here and you should never think that you're entitled to revert someone if you're refusing to engage in their attempts at discussion. It may not seem like a big deal, but I have seen situations like this deteriorate into editors being gaslighted and having their experience here turned into a living hell, and when they reported it and I intervened as an uninvolved admin, that same living hell was unleashed upon me.

"Reprehensible" is not an exaggeration, and BMK should apologize for his failure to engage in communication and dispute resolution to deescalate the situation, at a minimum. Regarding the content dispute, it is at FFD so it is being handled appropriately. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Why is this even a discussion? The image clearly fails WP:NFCC criteria 8 (because a blurry screenshot of a website doesn't increase the understanding of anything about that fairly obscure group which are mentioned in a single line of prose) and so "consensus" is irrelevant anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Even if it wasn't covered by NFCC, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Disputed content defaults to being left out. If BMK doesn't have consensus to include the image, it needs to be left out until they do. --Jayron32 15:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The NFCC also echos this and specifies that in dispute situations, the burden is 100% on the person who wants to include the content, and the person who wants to remove it has no obligation to defend their position. The NFCC can be subjective, but whether they actually apply is irrelevant…OP did nothing wrong and BMK was obligated in that situation to actively defend his content. When he failed to do so, there was no dispute, so OP moving forward should have been routine. When BMK continued stonewalling, OP was completely justified in both reporting him and starting an FFD. Apart from this being stonewalling behavior, which as I’ve said is blockable on its own, it’s stonewalling to include non-free content which only makes it that much worse. Administrators and the community take copyright issues very seriously, even too seriously at times. It is an area where there is very little tolerance for ineptitude or misbehavior. I commend @EnPassant for their exemplary conduct in a difficult situation. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure seems like we should at least get an acknowledgment that this could have been handled more appropriately by BMK. Everyone makes mistakes or has the occasional lapse in judgment, acknowledging them is usually the best way to move forward. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:6D5E:81E8:39B0:B329 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncommunicative IP editor

Would an uninvolved admin be able to look at the contributions of 2A02:C7C:5012:8B00:D53C:FF55:2116:C235/64? Someone has been editing on that range since 10 May, always making the exact same type of edits (fiddling about with flags, the names of belligerents in battles, adding unsourced casualty figures) at a great many articles about British and Irish battles and wars. Many of their contributions get reverts, and they just come along and reinstate them a few days or weeks later. A typical example is at Battle of Ardnaree:

• they make an unexplained and unsourced edit,
• they get reverted,
• they make another unexplained and unsourced edit,
• get reverted by someone else,
• reinstate their changes a few months later,
• that gets reverted,
• so they and come back in a few weeks to reinstate their changes again.

There are many, many such examples. They never add sources or explain their changes with edit summaries, and they have never once edited a talk page (at least on this range). It's a wearing drip-drip-drip of reverts for the editors who maintain these pages. If I were uninvolved, I would probably apply a long-term block on the range, but I have done quite a bit of work on a number of the articles they seem to be interested in. I will attempt to inform them of this thread on their most recently used IP's talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they stopped using this IP range, 2A02:C7F:ECE1:BC00:3D66:82F7:FC7A:A726/64, around 20 February. Exact same pattern of edits and changes including this edit where they just swapped the sides in the infobox. Mesidast (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That last especially irritated me in that the article was/is an FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Update: another five unsourced and unexplained edits today, at three different articles, reverted by three different editors (including myself). Still no edits to talk pages... Girth Summit _(blether) 16:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Update 2: Widr has blocked the /64 for a week. I'll come back if they start up again in seven days (or switch range). Girth Summit _(blether) 18:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Hanfu

• 175.213.48.82 (talk · contribs)
• 175.123.117.133 (talk · contribs)

Edit warring to add copyright violation content that has little to do with the subject. Requesting user or range block, page protection and rev/deletion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The article has been protected by Materialscientist. I've performed revision deletion of the infringing content. DanCherek (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

4me689 disrupting Year pages

Unfortunately I can't deal with this myself because I am involved, so I am requesting advice from other admins. User:4me689 arrived here early in 2022 and since September, along with User:The ganymedian (who has not edited for the past couple of weeks), has added many images and "collages" to the already over-long Year pages. Many of these are of poor quality and requests to improve them have mostly met with either no response or with backdoor attempts to restore images that have been commented out - mostly because of US-centricity (note that this is part of a recent pattern of IP address editing that has caused me to have to protect both the Year page and some Talk pages, and I'm not accusing either of the named users of keeping socks). After being asked repeatedly not to alter the standard format for Year pages until this RFC is resolved, as well as warned repeatedly for canvassing and for anticipating the result of discussions, s/he has now taken to adding images of Nobel recipients to the Year articles (despite a recent discussion as to whether this whole section should be kept). This refusal to listen to advice is creating disruption on the Year (and decade) pages, and I've come to the conclusion that the only option is a temporary block on User:4me689, at least from editing Year and Decade pages. Note: I am not saying that User:4me689 is wrong to create collages - the RFC will decide that - but s/he has already agreed in principle several times not to continue to do it and is simply going ahead and repeating the conduct for which they were warned. Deb (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I am very very very very sorry, I will stop trying to canvas, I'll try to get help from Wikipedia:Teahouse and see how the canvassing rule works, I promise not to restore any collages that have been removed so far. I'll stop getting people to the RFC, and I won't add images to the Nobel Peace Prize section, I want to take this warning as a note so I can better improve as an editor, I'm sorry to you all for what I have done that made people mad. I don't want to be blocked from Year and Decade pages, I know I'll be a awesome contributor, it just takes some guidance. and I know if you can guide me, I'll be an awesome contributor. 4me689 (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You've apologised in the past, but continued to canvass anyway. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is also an issue of concern. I have no doubt that 4me689 has good faith to contribute to this encyclopedia and is clearly WP:HERE, but being pinged by 4me689 to discussions was something that that I felt was overdone both to me and other editors; only after I addressed it directly on 4me's talk page did 4me refrain from @-ing me. 4me also has asked editors in all of his replies during a recent period of time to reply to a certain discussion, which certainly seems like canvassing even though it has the possibility to backfire and rule against 4me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a tad concerned, that 4me689 has (so far) chosen not to respond to this ANI report. I hope he's not ignoring it. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I know this exists don't worry 4me689 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

4me689 - You've said all this before, but you've just carried on in the same vein, so this report will remain in progress until other administrators give their view on whether a topic ban is appropriate. Deb (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ab.esmailzadeh (competence issues)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ab.esmailzadeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user needs a block. Despite multiple warnings, they are making some extremely bizarre edits, all reverted, which:

• Add big chunks of unsourced content:[293][294]

• Duplicate existing content: [295]

• Or seem to be just oddly-toned phrases which don't belong in an encyclopedia, and were probably copied directly from somewhere else: [296][297]

In any case, this user doesn't seem to have the necessary competence to edit here. I'll do some checks on their edits to see if any RD1 is needed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The [last] one is a copyvio from here. Neiltonks (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Moved from within report to below it. Also adjusted wording to retain meaning Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Some RD1 will be needed. All edits have now been checked for copyvio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Six-month block applied, which of course they can appeal against. Deb (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Cross38

The user Cross38 does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to soapbox and harass me. Three separate posts [1] [2] [3] (the user's entire edit history) have been made about me specifically on discussion pages which I believe qualify as hounding and making personal attacks (using my supposed political beliefs as an excuse to request that I be blocked from editing). Bailmoney27 ^talk 00:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that I reported a sock puppet investigation against Cross38 due to suspicious behaviour. Styx & Stones (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pktlaurence Sarrail (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like Cross38 was hit with a block by Bbb23. However, the sockpuppet investigation is still ongoing. Sarrail (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced changes by Rayane 77

Rayane 77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite the two warnings I have issued, this editor has kept changing or adding content, and never provides any sources to back up their changes. Examples: [298], [299], [300], [301], etc. All of their edits, basically. Even though this is the English-language Wikipedia, sometimes they edit in French for some reason: [302]. Since they have never communicated with other editors, nor tried to change their behaviour, I think it's time to block them in order to prevent more disruption, and maybe get them to finally communicate. BilletsMauves^€500 10:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Commenting so it doesn't get archived. BilletsMauves^€500 10:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

KSSully12

KSSully12 is vandalizing Wikipedia page on Noa Tishby to Whitewash Israeli Apartheid Robtin.Goodfellow (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Logged AE action. Neither one of you are permitted to edit material pertaining to this subject matter, per WP:ARBPIA4#General sanctions upon related content, so it's moot, anyway. I've restored the last stable version (06:25, 28 September 2022‎, by Onceinawhile) due to WP:BLP vios. El_C 07:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

See also my note at WP:RFPP/I#Noa Tishby (permalink). El_C 07:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Subsection move/edit. Sorry, that was my fault. It wasn't obvious from the title and content. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but please be more careful when clerking the admins noticeboard, and make sure to read beyond the headers. Thanks. El_C 15:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Robtin.Goodfellow (talk · contribs) and allegations of a personal attack

I have been charged with a personal attack by Ymblanter (talk · contribs) for asking another editor a question, if they were a zionist that supported apartheid to El C (talk · contribs). It would seem that when questions become personal attacks objective reasoning has been influenced by a bias. Cheers Robtin.Goodfellow (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a a Zionist... that supports Apartheid, I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion from anything I said. Maybe tone down the polemics, though...? El_C 08:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

A cursory glance at your edits implies to me that you have an axe to grind. You seem focussed on labelling Israel an apartheid state, including egregious BLP violations, and when other editors explain to you why this is problematic you accuse them of supporting apartheid. First I'd advise you to read WP:NPOV, and secondly I'd advise you to read WP:BOOMERANG. It's probably best to stop this while you're ahead. — Czello 08:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to know how a question can be construed as a personal attack? The axe I have to grind is the truth/reality of the current Human Rights Crisis and War Crimes (as defined by the International Criminal Court) in Palestine... Cheers Robtin.Goodfellow (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Your question is clearly worded as an accusation. El C gave their view on why your edits had an issue, and your response was to question their personal opinions including whether or not they're a supporter of apartheid. Your second sentence also implies to me you're not editing neutrally. — Czello 08:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they said that The only sources that dispute Apartheid are funded by Israel (diff), so regardless what one's position is on the matter, that novel view sort of speaks for itself. El_C 08:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite a human rights organization, not directly funded by Israel, that disputes Israel as an Apartheid State, if you can I'll take it and move on. B'tselem, literally an ISRAELI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP has labelled Israel an Apartheid State (www.btselem.org), which is a pretty big deal. All I want is the truth to be published, I thought that is what Wikipedia is about?! Cheers Robtin.Goodfellow (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested. El_C 09:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Because you can't... Cheers Robtin.Goodfellow (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

No, because you started getting All caps-excited. Actually, before you've edited your original comment (diff), as you seem to do nearly every time, I was going to say that, on Wikipedia, sources refers to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which could mean anything from books, studies, film documentaries, news stories, etc. This is not an invitation to engage with me again btw, with proving a negative, asking me inane and offensive questions, or anything else. El_C 15:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

To make it clear, we are talking about this diff--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a query... as an attack? That seems to be a huge over reaction, that has ulterior motives. Cheer Robtin.Goodfellow (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• The query itself is highly improper, and was certainly meant not as an innocent inquiry into another editor's politics (bad enough as it is), but as an attack on that editor disguised as a question. This is made entirely clear by the editor's repeatedly expressed views about Israel. A block for a personal attack is called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• I blocked Robtin.Goodfellow for this diff for 31h, but it make sense to discuss whether they are here to build an encyclopedia and whether the block needs to be extended.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, blocked, okay. To me it seems doubtful they'd ever get a grasp and live up to the ethos of WP:RGW. El_C 15:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

So, El C - when did you stop beating your wife? More seriously - yes, of course a question can be worded so that it is an attack. If I ask someone "Are you actually stupid, or are you just acting that way?", it is phrased as a question but obviously heavily implies that I think the other person is stupid. No more questions like that please. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I felt they were trying to get a rise out of me at multiple junctures throughout our exchanges with those non sequitur loaded questions. I'm just not that easily provoked, I suppose. El_C 16:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If I said, "Are you a crazy axe murderer monster that killed your son?!", you'd certainly take that as a personal attack. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 16:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wave of transphobic edits by IP vandals.

Posting this here at the recommendation of User:AndytheGrump I've noticed a severe spike in transphobic edits in the recent changes on wikipedia tonight targeting articles about trans and non-binary people, changing pronouns, making bizarre accusations. I think there might be a coordinated effort going on and there could be a valid reason to protect these articles in some way so that IP vandals aren't able to vandalize these articles so easily - even a level 1 pending changes change would be beneficial. Some examples of those I reverted - there were many that were reverted before I got to them so I don't have that list.

• Blu del Barrio
• Laverne Cox (already protected)
• Ian Alexander (actor)

I know my list is short but again - wasn't able to get them all on my contributions list in time to save the names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marleeashton (talk • contribs) 05:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The edits to Blu del Barrio and Ian Alexander came from a single IP, so not really evidence of coordination. If there is more to it though, we should probably try to figure out why it is happening. Is it maybe due to something in the news? As for pre-emptive pending changes, I don't think it would really be appropriate to single out a specific subset of biographies in such a manner. Many types of BLPs suffer from ongoing vandalism issues, and often in ways that are more troublesome, in that they don't get watched as much (take a look at bios of Indian politicians for example - riddled with all sorts of unsourced and badly sourced nonsense, up to and including accusations of murder...). Personally, I'd like to see all BLPs subject to pending changes, but that would require a change of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We have WP:NEWBLPBAN to address users and pages with persistent problems. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Abidmardan

Could someone please look into Abidmardan, they're moving user pages etc. around, and it's all getting rather confusing (so much so that I can't even notify them of this ANI discussion because their user talk page now has a redir on it!). It looks to me like they want to publish something like Draft:Abid Hussain A Living Librarian; I rejected this earlier at AfC, and they may be trying to find some other way of doing it, but they're just making a mess. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

They also moved Trevor Howard to Abid Hussain (LIS Scholar). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, I've notified them and the speedy deletion nominations and reverts have taken care of everything, I think. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Nythar, and thanks for sorting out their talk page (can't think why it didn't occur for me to do that... I'll blame lack of coffee!). DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• I tagged Abid Hussain (LIS Scholar) as G11, being a first person CV with language such as "praiseworthy". It is also a G12 of this short bio, in which the third person was replaced with first person writing, but otherwise being the same. --Mvqr (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm starting to think this user is perhaps !HERE... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  It looks like they are mostly here to promote the librarian, not the encyclopedia. --Mvqr (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• I sent a talk page message that all types of vandalism from this user will be reverted, or the user will be blocked from editing. SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Lack of competence from SpyridisioAnnis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Based on User:SpyridisioAnnis's talk page and contributions, they have not understood attempts to communicate with them, not have they shown particular proficiency in English. They have repeatedly tried to respond to WP:AFCRC requests incorrectly, and I can see this has happened at WP:AFC as well. Competence is required.

I'm not familiar with this area, nor with what kind of response this warrants. I'm posting here because it seems likely this user will continue this pattern of editing. — Qwerfjkltalk 01:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a sign that I need to fix something... SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Please post WP:DIFFs (which are required) per the edit notice. You may also wish to be more considerate of others requiring assistance with Wikipedia processes if you yourself are having trouble following the rules for ANI. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chess, sorry, I seem to have a case of banner blindness.
On reflection, I think it would be better to discuss any issues on the user's talkpage. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hadn't seen this thread at the time, but for the record I've just blocked the user in question for their disruption at European World Cup champions' curse (four days after this thread was closed, so the warning clearly didn't sink in). I've intentionally only blocked for a short time, to allow them to participate in the associated AfD should they choose to do so. ‑ Iridescent 08:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:RW abuse

I discovered that a subsection of Question Hour was sourced to a blog, which by the way isn't live anymore, so it can't be seen to be written by a competent authority. WP:ELNO prohibits blogs even as external links, and they're clearly not reliable sources, so I removed the subsection with an edit summary, The whole subsection is sourced to a blog, and yet I was WP:RW reverted on the grounds of Unexplained content removal. I removed the content again, warned the editor, and was promptly reverted by a second editor. Would an administrator please remove these users' WP:RW rights and ensure that this article comply with WP:ELNO? WP:RW says But if you do not use an appropriate edit summary in your rollback reason, you risk losing your rollback permissions. Clearly these users are using this tool recklessly, because anyone who's paying attention will see that I'm explaining myself with a policy-based reason, and the rollbackers are violating policy. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute, admins do not settle content disputes. Perhaps you should wait to hear from the other users on their talk pages before hauling them here and demanding their tools be stripped for one instance. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a content dispute: 175 was reverted, twice, with blatantly inaccurate edit summaries. That’s extremely obnoxious. The two editors who reverted should certainly apologize, and should commit to doing a less bad job in the future. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I've already replied to you in my talk page but I also need to bring this matter up. You said and I quote, "Let's try that once more. The whole subsection is sourced to a blog, which isn't even permitted in external links, WP:ELNO. The first two rollbackers are now the subject of an ANI thread, and if you revert this edit, you will join them". Why do you feel the need to blatantly threaten to add another user to the ANI instead of just discussing it on the talk page? You're assuming that we're doing this in bad faith when it could've just been an honest mistake. Dulcetia  ^🗩  11:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Instead of defensive whining you should apologize for screwing up, and make sure to do better going forward. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that I've made a mistake in reverting the edit and I'm not denying it or trying to hide it but they also could've found a better source for it instead of threatening to report anyone that disagreed with them to ANI. Wikipedia is a wiki after all, if you can improve it by adding better source instead of deleting a passage, you definitely should do the former instead of the latter. Dulcetia  ^🗩  11:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• FYI: I replaced the Question Hour content removed by the anon, replacing the blog with two mainstream sources, one being the NYT here Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! Dulcetia  ^🗩  11:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Dulcetia: In the future, if someone removes content that could have easily been sourced, the correct procedure is to revert them with that easily-findable source and then, if you feel like it, point out to them how easy it was to find that source. A time-honored tradition on Wikipedia, really, but the order of events is important. You don't get to restore challenged not-reliably-sourced content without fixing the issue (as Adakiko has helpfully done now). Furthermore, when you revert someone for unexplained removal, and their removal in fact had an explanation, your response should be to apologize, not to lecture them on why you were right anyways. Looking at Fragrant Peony's response, same goes to you. You reverted inappropriately, restoring unreliably sourced, politically contentious material in the process. Everyone makes mistakes, but the correct thing to do is apologize, not blame the other editor (whose edit summary was perfectly adequate, if a bit testy). And on that note, IP175, please ease up a bit. People make mistakes. Also, you failed to notify Fragrant Peony; I'll do so for you, but please remember that rule in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  Admin, with all due respect I refused to take part in the conversation here from the start due to the threatening tone that was shown. I didn't engage in any edit war, I only reverted it once from the Recent Changes page after this[303] content removal was highlighted there as disruptive editing. As for the apology, I do apologize to you and to all the other decent humans here and to this respectful Encyclopedia, but kindly please I don't want to engage in a discussion based on threats even if that would mean reducing my rights, and I am really fully accepting it and will continue learning. Thank you so much. Fragrant Peony (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  While you seem to understand how you messed up, PLEASE do not fully rely on Recent Changes evaluation of edits. If that were acceptable, we'd have a bot do it (and we do for the most obvious ones). Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand, and I fully agree with you. Apologies again. Fragrant Peony (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  He did notify them, they just archived the post before you saw it. OmniusM (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I do admit that I've made an error by not apologising to the anon user and could've easily replaced the citation that was needed. Dulcetia  ^🗩  07:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

[304] Looking at the other talk page comments this editor has an agenda. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, deformation would be pretty bad for the project. ;) El_C 08:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, people might get all bent out of shape. EEng 18:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Panelbeaters love him! X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks less like a threat and more like soapboxing. The user isn't threatening to take legal action or saying it will happen, just that someone else should. That said, might be a WP:NOTHERE case. — Czello 08:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

To the contrary @Czello, I am attempting to re-gain the integrity of this site by weeding out the articles which I happen to find on here which are blatantly and obviously biased POV, or just political hit jobs full of loose sources and words like "far-right" which is an opinion. and "Fake News" ? well, then take todays articles and prove it! -Jf (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

We go with what sources say, and they support these labels. — Czello 08:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this currently warrants ant action, and it's the user's only edit in the last 9 months. I don't see any action needed at this time; the user's upcoming actions will provide evidence as to why they're here. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks all. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the third legal threat on this page. We better take this one seriously though, he's gonna call us out for deformation!! Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 16:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for inclusivity. Deb (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

But against deforestation, I presume (sorry, I'm really into trees, lately). El_C 16:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel the same way about defenestration. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone read Wikipedia:Yes legal threats lol. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I can assure you that it's not a legal threat, I'm merely pointing out that an article has been overrun by the "far-Left" admins with an agenda, and that the page is nothing but what any truly neutral party can plainly see is just biased opinion, slander and libel .Further, I am not associated with WND in any way, so I cannot sue you on their behalf. What happened is that I searched google for WND, and found the top 2 results were the site itself and the #2 was this page, which appears to be hostile towards a particular website based on the left-wing opinion that it's a right-wing site. It's actually more of a libertarian site that posts news and opinion which is properly labeled as such . Anyways, I've been on here for decades, and wikipedia was originally intended to be a factual site which didn't allow anyones political opinions to be used as facts in articles. We used to require that sources were real, but now the "far left" has taken it over and it's no longer a reliable source for information at all, as I predicted. -Jf (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jmurphy914 I would strongly urge you to reconsider being a firebrand in this topic area. The last thing we need are people coming on with an intent to correct a perceived bias and characterising users who do not adhere to their own weltanschauung as "far-left...with an agenda". That's more an indictment of you than you realise, and if you have already been warned comments like that are playing with fire. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Letter from a law firm posted to a talk page

Over at Talk:Elastic_therapeutic_tape#Improper_Use_of_KINESIO_Trademark, a user apparently representing a law firm has posted a lengthy message asking that an article use trademark symbols when the word 'Kinesio' is used. The article mostly uses this in reflecting specific wording of sources, including source quotations and titles of cited articles. This isn't precisely a legal threat, and I'm not sure anything really needs to be done, but in the spirit of Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats I thought I should run it up the flagpole. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If nothing else, the username User:FHFGD violates the username policy section WP:ISU. Jahaza (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty obvious what's going on here, presuming this is on the up-and-up: it's a firm seeking to justify its billable hours. Ravenswing 18:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The account should be blocked purely on promotional/role policy basis. The law firm is Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner and the account name is FHFGD. ValarianB (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented a username block. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I've converted the soft block to a hard {{uw-lblock}}. That account doesn't appear to be directly promoting that law firm, but rather, was created in order to possibly pursue legal remedies, which is prohibited to do on Wikipedia proper. Consequently, I've directed them to Foundation's legal contact page. See User talk:FHFGD#Indefinite block (hard block). Thanks. El_C 20:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This all seems like a violation of WP:NLT. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

How is it a legal threat? EEng 06:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

EEng, if you're confused about the particulars here, or in general, about WP:NLT and its boundaries, feel free to be... less terse. El_C 07:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Or the person asserting the existence of a legal threat should be less terse. The "role account" block was valid, but I don't see the threat. What I see is someone unfamiliar with our style guidelines who's saying they think the article "should" do something, and that they are "prepared to provide a specific list of edits" they would like to see. How's that a threat? And, as Deb notes below, there may (may) very well be a problem with the article loosely referring to the generic product by a brand name. EEng 17:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This is hilarious, I know people at Finnegan. BD2412 T 18:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell what you're saying. EEng 18:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

They're referencing the law firm cited in the purported letter (I might know a person or two there myself!). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: they don't need to outright make a "threat" of seeking legal remedies. As WP:NLT states: A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target Wikipedia or other editors. I assert their cease and desist-adjacent note qualifies, even if it's only implied. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia editors to enage with lawyers representing a client on talk pages in regards to legal matters. That role is the exclusive domain of the Foundation, and as such, those correspondences should be forwarded to [email protected], as I have done. Now, this doesn't exclude any named account or IP then asking: what is the policy of this website with regards to this or that [trademark, whatever]. I considered going the WP:NLT#Copyright, route, but it just didn't seem like a DMCA matter. But even if were that, legal@wikimedia could take it from here, if/when needed. Thanks. El_C 19:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing about "cease and desist". I see them saying that (to quote again) they think the article "should" do something, and that they are "prepared to provide a specific list of edits" they would like to see. If they hadn't been blocked for other reasons, we should be simply explaining that our MOS calls for X, Y, and Z, sorry. We way, way overreact to stuff like this. EEng 19:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Implied. But my greater point, again, is that I don't think editors should be engaging with lawyers representing clients in regards to legal matters. That has a chilling effect on editing and is not appropriate as a form of editorial collaboration. That doesn't mean that their comments should be disregarded, or the changes not be made as part of WP:V, WP:COPYVIO, or whatever. Just not like that, with a legal matter looming.

Because no matter how softly it's formulated, there's an inherent legal issue (and potential legal dispute) underpinning their comment, phrased as legal notice with all the (expressed) legalese. Which is inappropriate, but which I'm also not holding against them in anyway. Time is money (a lot of money for lawyers) for someone advocating for a paying client, so I wouldn't expect them to take hours to research the myriad of policies and guideline on the project. It just is what it is. El_C 20:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Not buying it. It's not "phrased as a legal notice". We go through this every time someone quite innocently says, "We have to be careful to avoid anything libelous" and everyone responds like this: [305]. The point of NLT is to prevent anything that might have a chilling effect. I don't see anything chilling about this, and please don't say that just because it's a lawyer writing that's automatically scary. I think at this point we should just agree to disagree, and if you're not willing to do that I'll have my attorneys get in touch with you. EEng 20:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you obviously don't have to agree with my take here—though, in my view, it's clearly phrased as legal note by a lawyer representing a paying client—I'm just expanding on my position and on my understanding on this. If you want to leave it at that, I'm okay with that. If you'd like me to respond further, I'm fine with that, too. I'm good with whatever. El_C 20:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like my comment had a definite chilling effect on you. EEng 20:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. El_C 21:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's just you've become so... compliant. EEng 21:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a compliance lawyer, but you ask, I answer. Anyway, there's seems to be a divide, with my correlation of WP:NOLEGAL to WP:NLT. Which, again, if you wish to explore further, it's whatever. El_C 21:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

---

And for the record, as per WP:MOSTM, Wikipedia is not required to, and does not, use ™ or similar symbols in articles. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment - There does appear to be a potential issue here, though. If I understand correctly, they are saying that the product name is being used incorrectly and that should be investigated. I don't know enough about it to be able to judge whether Kinesio tape is in use as an alternative name for any old Elastic therapeutic tape. Anyone familiar with the product? Deb (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's as much a generic used trademark as Band-Aid or Elastoplast (depending on which part of the English speaking world one lives in). Would it be inappropriate to use it as such in Wikipedia's voice? Yes, because doing such constitutes a POV endorsement of one company's product over another, and any such use should be replaced with the generic term you already used. But quotes that do use the name as a genericized trademark should not be altered. Wikipedia is not here to help enforce trademark claims, nor should we engage in scrubbing real-world usage on the company's behalf. We don't mark things with trademark symbols as Stfle noted above, nor write them as all-caps unless that's the common usage, and any demands that we must or else they'll call in the lawyers (as they've done here) is a total non-starter. Yes, the validity of a trademark rests on defending it. No, quoting people using the name generically in an online encyclopedia doesn't contribute to trademark dilution. The block is good, and the company is being overbearing. oknazevad (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. IANAL but there is a clue in the name; using someone else's trademark when trading (within the scope of the registration) is actionable, general use not so much. If only UK trade mark law applied; that makes unjustified threats actionable.[306] NebY (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) This type of area is a minefield, best avoided unless you're a trademark lawyer and being paid. As other examples, cellophane is a registered trademark in UK but generic in US; hoover is the usual British word for vacuum cleaner, a registered trademark which nearly became generic until the company of the same name took frantic steps to preserve it; and Budweiser is a registered trademark of Anheuser-Busch in one half of the world and of Budejovicky Budvar in the other, and is in at least one country a PDO. The possible tricks and traps are too many to enumerate. We need to take care to tread a line between people claiming rights beyond which they are entitled and people claiming rights to which they are not entitled at all. Full disclosure - I'm a retired IP lawyer. Narky Blert (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

A minefield best avoides, I completely agree. I'm just so surprised by the idea that trademark protection extends so far beyond actual trading! NebY (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Full disclosure - I'm a retired IP lawyer — that's okay, bwo. We all have our vi©es. El_C 23:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

At least give me credit for "®eti®ed". Narky Blert (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Narky Blert now indef-blocked for making legal threats. No such user (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Question - and I know this is really content, but if Kinesio tape is commonly used generally as a standing name for elastic therapeutic tape then we should be able to find a reliable source for that. The current reference doesn't support that. If we can't find a reliable reference for it, then it should be removed as a generic word for it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I will shed no tears if that were to happen, so will require no Kleenex. ;) El_C 19:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, there are seven registered trademarks KINESIO. It is most certainly not generic. (And I'd never heard of the mark or company until just now.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Similar issue with Hook-and-loop fastener, which in my neck-of-the-woods we call Velcro whether it is or not. Seem to remember something vaguely similar happened there, see talk page, relating to "a misuse of the VELCRO (R) Brand Trademark." Nigej (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we know if the message is legit or if it is someone impersonating someone else? Levivich (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This from Primefac suggests that it's most likely real. DanCherek (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

...I see: VTRS directed a lawyer to the article talk page to discuss a trademark infringement concern; after posting on the article talk page, the lawyer is blocked. 👍 Carry on, everyone. Levivich (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Djbolkas

This user seems to have nothing constructive to offer, judging by their edits at 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup, 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup knockout stage and 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup Final. I have tried to improve those articles by bringing them more in line with the Manual of Style, as well as better reflecting the sources used in the articles. However, this user simply reverts with barely an edit summary (and when they do use edit summaries, they either mischaracterise my edits as vandalism or they use an incredibly unwarranted patronising tone). In six years editing Wikipedia, they have never contributed to an article talk page. Unless they start doing so, is it not fair to say they deserve a block for being unwilling to work collaboratively? – PeeJay 12:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

They also seem to be using an anonymous account (User:175.39.211.71) to avoid their reverts being picked up by 3RR. – PeeJay 12:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Note:PeeJay has not notified both editors of this discussion. It has been done. Sarrail (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I lost my internet connection where I was editing from, so I wasn’t able to do it immediately. – PeeJay 14:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the shoutout PeeJay, love your work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbolkas (talk • contribs) 03:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Edit summaries like this are obviously indicative of a very adversarial attitude when it comes to editing here. Users like this are clearly not welcome. – PeeJay 12:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The user in question has now set up another account just to leave antagonistic messages on my talk page (see here). Although the diff has been hidden by User:C.Fred, I’m sure they could corroborate what was said, and I have a copy of the email notification if necessary. Furthermore, the user seems to be revelling in the inaction of the admins in this situation, as exemplified by a message they left on their own talk page last night (see here). – PeeJay 05:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • At the moment I see a slow-motion edit war and neither side is clearly "right". You both need to take it to the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

    If the other user had ever contributed to an article talk page in any meaningful way, I would agree. This is beyond ridiculous. – PeeJay 09:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Administrator's comment. There are two separate issues here. On the content side, there is the slow-motion edit war that Stifle mentioned. I don't immediately see anything bad faith in the content of the edits, and nothing is glaring in the edit summaries that I see on the first page of their edit history.

Then there is the conduct side. I don't see where Djbolkas has left a comment on an article talk page, ever. All their edits involving talk pages have been while making article moves. Their messages on their on talk page (e.g., [307] [308] [309] aren't quite uncivil, but they're just short of nonsensical. Clearly there is a refusal to collaborate by Djbolkas. I suggest that the next time Djbolkas makes an edit to one of the pages in question, they are given an unequivocal message at their talk page that they must discuss the edit, rather than continue to force it in. I'm willing to revert to the status quo ante version of the article and protect the article or partial block Djbolkas if necessary.

There is a further conduct issue with the allegation of sock puppetry. I did block Sheernests (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yesterday. My assumption, based on a message of "lol [personal attack]. How’s it going trying to get me blocked?" is that this was block evasion: that's the hallmark of a blocked user back for more. However, in context, I can see that it's likely that Sheernests was a sockpuppet of Djbolkas. I'm debating whether a checkuser is in order here, but I'm leaning not yet.

In a rugby analogy, I'm calling Djbolkas over, reminding them to focus on proper editing and using the talk page to discuss and not getting involved in "action after the whistle" like personal attacks. I'm also telling them the Sheernests incident is "on report", and if there's further misconduct, they're "going to the sin bin". —C.Fred (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

diff of message at User talk:Djbolkas —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

COI editor on Dani Matos

It's a bit messy. Frogging101 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to place the ANI notice because there are multiple IPs involved. Frogging101 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Who? What? When? Where? Your report is missing a few things. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In a number[310][311][312] of recent edits to Dani Matos and on the talk page[313], an IP editor identifies himself as the child of the article's subject. Jahaza (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Edits are on at least two IPs:

• User:85.94.241.239
• User:2a02:678:54a:1b00:54a7:1a74:44f9:d50a

Jahaza (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have templated those IPs. (OK, I'll stop responding to myself now.) Jahaza (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I will be more specific next time. Frogging101 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Aquabestuae

Promotion only/vandalism only account. See this edit. BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, but for reports like these, WP:AIV is your best bet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll remember that. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Unrepentent vandal

Dear sirs,

204.100.235.136 has been vandalizing the Scary Movie page and responded very rudely to my request for them to cease and desist their vandalism on User talk:204.100.235.136 by saying "did I ask". This is an official report to the Wikipedia moderators, as the vandal is clearly here in bad faith.

Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:AIV in future please - and we have an ANI notification template to use... GiantSnowman 22:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you good sir. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In the future, please do not assume everyone here is a "sir", okay? Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC) (Miss)

What? GiantSnowman says on-wiki that he's male. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I assumed that was in reference to the opening "Dear sirs." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

facepalm. it makes sense now. I didn't even see that. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations at Jeena Shin

Going back to early October, accusations of abuse and fraud, presumably by disgruntled students. Requesting rev/deletion of defamatory edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Revdeld and page protected. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor adding hoax flags to articles and trolling attempts to delete them

User:Skivkanska has been spamming various articles on cities in western North Carolina with fake municipal flags. This seems to be their only purpose here, have a look at their contributions. They've edit-warred at Statesville, North Carolina to keep their fake material. Their talk page is filling up with complaints. All of their flag uploads on Commons have been nominated for deletion (here). And if anyone doubts whether this user is acting in good faith, it's worth noting that they reacted to a deletion nomination notice one one of their files on Commons by vandalizing the "reason=" parameter from "Uploaded without genuine source by bad faith user" to "Uploaded without genuine source by bad faith user and its fake and also its uhh gay looking also i really hate it and its racist and uhhhh everything is racist and uhhh the person who made this should commit delete". They also vandalized my Redirect for Discussion post concerning a redirect they created while I've been trying to type up this ANI complaint. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Skivkanska as not here to build an encyclopedia. DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I also blocked Skivkanskas pants from mongolia (talk · contribs). DanCherek (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely response. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

And for dealing with their dying racist cries. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Slow-burning edit warring IP range

(Note: I did raise this at ANI here two weeks ago, but nothing came of it and the editor seemed to stop so I left it alone until their edits resumed today)

The IP range Special:Contributions/2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0/48 has been edit warring for their preferred versions of a number of articles as well as making unconstructive edits to BLPs without sources (the overt vandalism has mostly stopped, now they are mostly edit warring to refer to currently active cricket players as "former" cricketers or similar). Examples include:

• Mitchell Marsh: [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] [319] [320] [321] [322] [323]
• Ambati Rayudu: [324] [325] [326] [327] [328] [329] [330] [331] [332]
• Vandalism at Vinodh Perera: [333] [334] including the edit summary "Those who want to change this, check real life of this mother fucker......"

An attempt to engage with the editor was made at Talk:Mitchell Marsh#"has represented" vs. "represents" to discuss their edits, but the editor did not engage and continued to edit war for their preferred version across a number of articles (multiple other editors have been involved in reverting their edits). OliveYouBean (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone else might like to block the /48 for a week to encourage them to communicate but I would want to see a little more effort in trying to get their attention without eye-glazing templates. Is there an IP talk page where they have been asked why they want "former" with an explanation of why it is not appropriate? If needed, try to engage the IP and if that fails, contact me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Be gentle.

They are "former" players, 'coz they're retired. Not dead, but former cricketers.

ie This might be a misunderstanding.

Or, it might be a troll, but AGF, etc. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, these are currently active players, not retired players. I actually pointed out in one case that "former" was being used even though their last match had been just a few days earlier.

@Johnuniq: I did attempt to engage with them a few weeks back. I notified them at this user talk page to try to direct them to the talk page I linked above, then in subsequent edits I tried to direct them there using edit summaries since they seemed to be (somewhat) communicating in their edit summaries. They haven't responded on any user talk pages or at the talk page I tried to use.

If it was just about the edits, I'd just discuss with them, but I'm getting a little bit frustrated because I have tried to communicate but the IP hasn't responded and it's very difficult to keep up with them since their IP changes each time. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

IP User continues to vandalize despite nine previous warnings; AlishaLaurie1 also continues to violate despite previous block

On User talk:47.16.173.9, one can see that this IP user has been warned for disruptive editing nine individual times. Since April 2022, they have been warned six times against vandalizing the page for actress Suzanna Son and The Idol (TV series), a show that she has been cast in. The last warning was a level 4 warning issued by User:Mike1901 on August 23. On November 17, 2022, the IP user left another non-constructive, undue edit on her page.

Other editors involved in warning this user are User:Victor Trevor, User:Tunakanski and User:Arado Ar 196.

Considering that there has already been one ANI discussion about this incident that the user chose not to respond to and they have already received a level 4 warning, I propose that the IP user in question be blocked from further editing with a WP:SITEBAN as soon as soon as possible.

Furthermore, upon review of the archived ANI discussion it has come to my attention that User:AlishaLaurie1, who was temporarily blocked from editing by User:Ohnoitsjamie for "Persistent addition of unsourced content; next block will be longer" only 12 days ago has continued to add unsourced and user generated content to The Idol (TV series) and to Poppy (singer), another actress on the show. At Ohnoitsjamie's discretion, or that of another administrator, I further propose either a WP:TBAN or even an SBAN entirely.

I have no direct evidence that User:47.16.173.9 is a sockpuppet of User:AlishaLaurie1 but it is extremely suspicious that their violations are very similar and always seem to occur around the same time. Both accounts appear to be single purpose WP:SPA accounts dedicated to nothing but editing pages related to that show. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the named user indefinitely and the IP for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0's only block warning

Please proceed: User:2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0 is doing serious vandalism everywhere, and I have sent the IP address their only block warning on their talk page. If the IP address keeps vandalizing, block them from editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyridisioAnnis (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This can be reported to WP:AIV. BTW, the IP has made no edits, why did you warn them and report them here? Sarrail (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Because you should see Special:Contributions/2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0/48. That's where vandalism starts to break in. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 16:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This can be brought up at WP:ANI#Slow-burning edit warring IP range. A section already exists on this matter. Sarrail (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

But it just responds to the IP's vandalism, I want the IP to get blocked if it keeps vandalizing, and that's why I made a separate discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyridisioAnnis (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I want the IP to get blocked if it keeps vandalizing... you may report if the vandalism continues, as their last edit was at 2:37AM UTC. Sarrail (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

IP user making legal threats based on content disputes, as well as repeated disruptive editing and edit warring.

Please see revision summary here [[335]] " the removal of an entry from one country compared to another displace arbitrary and capricious (bordering on racist) editorialising which - if removed again will result in a referral to the EHRC UK and a dirct approach to [email protected]. I am appalled at this behaviour", other edits on that article by the same IP user here [[336]] and (very likely) similar edits from the same user here on a very similar IP [[337]] JeffUK (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

/64 blocked and edit summary revdeled. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• In the OP's defense, I do understand that the European Human Rights Commission has historically taken a special interest in making sure that lists of successful English Channel swimmers are fair and balanced. EEng 19:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The persistent unjustified rumour that Captain Webb was a woman needs to be squashed whenever seen. Narky Blert (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)