Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148

WP:DE by Babyscorpio97

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.

---

Babyscorpio97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly made disruptive edits to Georgia related pages, claiming to "protect Georgian history". They systematically delete all mentions of other countries (especially Russia) from Georgian articles (see here); or work to subtly advance mentions of languages, cultures or other such concepts in Georgia (see here). They have been warned multiple times on their talk page; and as a response they have accused these editors of being Russian "bots", or "adding Russian propaganda". They are also very persistent with their edits, re-reverting almost immediately in many cases. I have not seen much use of edit summaries to explain any edits either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uness232 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) ^<diff>

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.

Bad faith user.

User: Hob_Gadling

He is consistently bad faith; straw manning, condescending, bullying, etc....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_1;

"If you find a reliable source that agrees with Kennedy's defamation of people who disagree with his crazy anti-science stance ("false claims both Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine"), then you can come back and contest the word "false"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_2;

"Are you making WP:LEGAL threats?" -- Be sure to read Lindosland's comment Hob responded to so to see how ridiculous of a response this was.

"If you do not agree with what the sources say or with the way Wikipedia works, that is your problem."

"In short, you have two conflicting accounts from two differents sources: the scientific community and Wikipedia on one hand and Kennedy and his antivax troops on the other. And if source A and source B contradict each other, obviously source A must be wrong. Which, in this case, is the scientific community and Wikipedia. Sound logic, as always in this area."

"We have reliable sources calling him an anti-vaxxer, and we would not be "a credible source of information" if we omitted that information. Your pharma shill gambit fools no one here."

"The article says he made false claims about Fauci. That is correct, according to reliable sources. What is your problem? You want that fact hidden?"

"Bullshit. Go to some forum to whine. This is not a forum."

"This article is based on reliable sources. They say Kennedy's stance on vaccines is wrong. End of story."

"You have "disproved" nothing. If you can give a good reason why any of the sources used in the article should not be regarded as reliable, bring it. Otherwise, go away."

"Exactly what it says: Let's see what other users think. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_3;

"Your proposed edit Who are you talking to? The indentation says it is me, but I did not suggest any edits. Neither did M.boli. And the one above that one, which actually does propose an edit, seems to be you yourself."

"Why? It seems kind of important that if this guy becomes the Democrat candidate, Americans will have to choose between two people who live in parallel fantasy universes. (It's probably a given that the Republican candidate will be no better. Their sane wing has been tiny and weak for several decades now.)" - Hob knows to keep things related to improving the article (archive 2, "This page is not a forum. It is for improving the article.") yet he is taking shots at RFK Jr and Trump here.

"His "Children's Health Defense" regularly equates mainstream scientists with Nazis." - evidence?

"Yeah, he also sleeps and eats every day, which is also something far different. So what?"

"Nobody cares. Discussions are not about the discussers' positions, they are about their reasoning"

"What happens if these government "experts" are wrong and that's not revealed until a decade from now Come back when that happens. Until then, we will use the knowledge we have now (which is that Kennedy's disinformation is spreading disease and killing children by convincing their parents and the parents of their neighbors not to protect them by vaccination). See WP:CRYSTALBALL" -- I think the use of crystalball here is excellent, but everything Hob said leading up to this is bullying, condescension, and borderline harassment of anyone on the page who disagrees with him.

"Can we stop this? This is not a forum, see WP:NOTFORUM. Go acquire competence (see WP:CIR), and come back when you know how to use valid reasoning."

Two examples of straw manning; "I did read OR. I'm not applying my own thoughts -- making a claim. Please re-read my OP." - this quote is of me.

"'I didn't say' Yes you did."

"That may be the case in a very few cases, but in general, it is just the Dunning-Kruger effect."

"Not continuing this losing battle is a great idea, although the reason for it is bad because telling an inexperienced person that they are inexperienced is not an insult."

That's only Archive 1-3 (of 6) of one Wikipedia article so I could continue, but I hopefully that is sufficient evidence to convince any reader that Hob Gadling is in bad faith. Personally, I'm hoping to see he is no longer in Talk tabs because so many of his discussions are disruptive to the progressive flow of the article. I am also hoping to see his editing privileges get removed. Cmsmith93 (talk)

To be clear: you're reporting an editor for edits made in June 2023 and all the way back to 2021? Is there any recent behavior that's concerning you? Otherwise this report is stale. You mention that you "could continue" with newer talk pages — I would recommend you do so, and perhaps try again with this report with behavior that is actually actionable (if it exists) rather than scraping an editor's history more than two years back. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've topic banned Cmsmith93 from AP2 for WP:CIR, WP:DEADHORSE, and WP:IDHT. While Hob Gadling's interaction style could use some improvement, Cmsmith93's lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, despite ample information being provided, has been a drain on editor time and patience for quite a while now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that Cmsmith93 is fortunate to receive such a minor sanction. I would have indefinitely blocked this editor for TLDR axe grinding. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A block which I would have supported. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal articles without referencing

BarrySpinno (talk · contribs · logs) I reviewed this article Draft:British Airways plc v Commission and its seemingly unsourced and is now in draft. Its been in draft before which I never noticed. Its a legal article and its a single source. Its a copy and paste from the legal site onto Wikipedia. There is no context on it for the average reader, or indeed anybody who isn't a lawyer. One of the articles that editor wrote was at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 which seems to indicate its notable. Its the law the land in Australia. But there must be more than that, like e.g. why it came about, the history of it. Every article that reviewers have looked at, has been sent to draft. If that perfectly correct. For me it just a straight copy and paste exercise with little value to the reader. It is a bit of a dichotomy. This may be the wrong venue for this. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

scope creep, I do not understand why this matter is at ANI. The whole purpose of draft space is to allow ongoing work on a topic, which is the case here. When I look at BarrySpinno's talk page, I see a bunch of canned template alerts and warnings, that BarrySpinno often responds to with replies and follow-up questions. And yet no other editor has engaged this relatively new editor in actual human-to-human communication about things like our expectations on sourcing and how to develop coverage of a topic in sandbox or draft space before adding it as an encyclopedia article. I think that sort of human interaction should come long before an ANI report. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the wrong venue. It is a draft article - the copy paste might be an issue but it looks quoted and the article is work in progress so not sure what the issue is. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think your probably right. That is cogent advice. Close this, please. 19:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

FrankKataklian - WP:NOTHERE

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

This is the second time this user had edited the Irredentism article to insert non-neutral language reflecting an Armenian POV. I'm not active in this particular topic area but I seem to recall there is a WP:AC/CT arbcom ruling on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

Also looking at their short contribution history, their very first edit was [1] to add a link to Furry fandom to an article concerning Turkish nationalist group. I'm wondering if a WP:NOTHERE block may be in order. WCM_email 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Troll. Introduced to the door. Courcelles (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

2a00:23c6:d510:6701:31c7:210:f50:aaf4

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 IP is the car engine LTA. They are back. It seems that they now revert their edits, as they look like joke edits now.

This user seems to continue vandalizing, despite the warnings I gave to their talk page. Again, the IPs resolve to UK as always. 212.154.66.111 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2024 (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.

Nancy652 - potential self-promotion?

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, there is a user named @Nancy652 who has a userpage talking about some Indian hospital, complete with a link to that hospital's website. I blanked their page, and gave them a warning. Here's the diff link. - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 14:09, 29 January 2024 (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.

WP:WEBHOST violations

This morning Lee Vilenski raised the issue of YoloMc8562’s user page with them.[2] In short, the user page appears to be a collection of personal blogs about YoloMc8562’s video game experiences, documenting fictional professional wrestling matches on a wrestling video game, as well as their own commentary and reviews of this fan fiction.

I concurred with Lee’s comment[3] and also highlighted a particularly problematic statement that was in there. I informed YoloMc8562 that I would remove the material per WP:WEBHOST and advised that they not restore it. Regardless they have done so. There are also clear issues with the size of the page.

I’m bringing this here as it appears to be a clear violation of WP:WEBHOST, but YoloMc8562 does not seem willing to cooperate. — Czello ^(music) 10:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Very clearly has a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and unable/unwilling to read the policy on userpages. Whilst we do allow some content that isn't strictly aligned with Wikipedia's aims in userspace, we don't support a video game blog.

Their responses when told and the information was removed isn't fantastic. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a note they've moved the information to User:YoloMc8562/sandbox, probably to try and mask that it exists. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I did it so if it gets removed again I still have somewhere to store the text. YoloMc8562 (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You do have somewhere to store the text: your own personal computer's hard drive. Wikipedia is not a webhost, no matter where on its servers you seek to stash your personal blog. Such content is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, full stop, and you risk being blocked as WP:NOTHERE if you persist in trying. Ravenswing 10:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that YoloMc8562 just re-added the content after the page was speedily deleted, before removing it again – I suspect so that they have it in the edit history and can refer back to it. Not sure if that's still rule-violating, but worth mentioning. — Czello ^(music) 11:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I deleted the sandbox as an obvious WP:U5. What is it with wrestling editors and disruption? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel a good 50% of my time in this corner of Wikipedia is dealing with disruption, unfortunately.

Are you able to look at the issue above your comment, where they briefly restored the content so it's still in the edit history? — Czello ^(music) 11:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to just re-delete the page(s). It seems very clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather have a host for a video game record. I'd support a block in this instance, but I'm a bit close to it to handle it myself. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol the stalking is insane YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not just save this information on your own computer/cloud rather than using Wikipedia for something it's not designed for? — Czello ^(music) 12:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has the templates I need (i.e. {{Pro wrestling results table}} and {{Pro wrestling title reign}}) no other website have them so I don't know where else to put it. I'd use a Word document or something but yeah. YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You can create a personal Miraheze wiki and import the Wikipedia templates there! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait really? What's Miraheze? YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A place to host your own wikis, you can import Wikipedia templates and stuff there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried it and it doesn't have the templates I need, thanks for the help though, I don't know where else to try. YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You would have to create such a thing. You don't just have the right to host it here. It's especially onorous as you have well over 500 edits (basically half) on this blog. Messages like "this is cringe" and "the stalking is insane" isn't helpful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You can import them, there is a tool for that. Although this is getting a bit off-topic, and I invite you to ask on Miraheze for help on importing Wikipedia templates there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help! YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Once we establish that someone is WP:HERE, I don't know why we care what sort of nonsense they have on their user page. I have a reference to Katamari Damacy, The Prisoner, chess, other silliness, and some other personal information on my userpage. My user talk page has a section for music recommendations. I got all of these ideas from looking at other people's pages, many of which have much, much more of this sort of content. We were here not long ago with a user whose user and user talk pages are so long and packed with images that they frequently crash people's browsers or fail to load, and for the Nth time there was no action. It's a classic example of a rule we only enforce on new users. How about this: Yolo, (1) it's in the "even pushing it for an experienced user to get away with" territory in terms of size. Keep is shorter. (2) Consider putting it on a subpage. (3) Be really careful not to look like you're here primarily to maintain that page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The user you're referencing is notoriously immune to long-term action. Their ability to unduly get away with it shouldn't open the door to others being able to; indeed, this shouldn't be a case of where it's only enforced on new users and should instead be enforced across the board. I don't think it's helpful to give a green light to YoloMc8562 on this when their pages have already been deleted by two different admins. — Czello ^(music) 13:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Just thought I'd say I only copied and pasted it over to my sandbox (which got deleted as I said) because I was panicking that I was gonna lose it, however I was able to copy and paste it over to a Notepad document. Sorry for forgetting to then remove it from the sandbox before it got deleted, Sorry for my reaction over this, I was just annoyed over what I felt was people not minding their own business, but I can understand why it was deleted. Its just annoying its happened this late because I can't really copy and paste it over to another website except Wikipedia because it uses templates from here. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that comment. I echo Chaotic Enby's comment that Miraheze would suit you better (I think there are other fan wikis that might also be available). Even if importing the table from here is difficult, they're likely to have suitable alternatives that might work. If all else fails, I'd never overlook trusty Microsoft Excel / Google Sheets for being able to build tables quickly and easily. — Czello ^(music) 13:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just Miraheze seems very bare bones with seemingly not much on there, I'm not sure on how to transfer it over because I don't have the Wikipedia page with it anymore and I don't have an XML file, and I don't know any other fan wikis :P YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Miraheze has a tool to import a given Wikipedia template and all of the subtemplates it uses at the same time, which I used quite a few times on a wiki I created there. Otherwise, Fandom is another wiki host that is arguably less powerful technically but more intuitive to use and easier to set up. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I know but I don't know how to find it lol, Fandom is another site I tried, but once again, the templates being the problem. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The tl;dr is: create a Miraheze wiki → create a page on your new wiki → paste your content on that page → import the templates you need with the import tool → it should work. Feel free to ask Miraheze volunteers if there's any issue you encounter. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I already made the page, I just don't know how to find the import tool haha. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

yourdomain.miraheze.org/Wiki/Special:Import ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that now. YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know what is considered a big size on here because I don't really have any scale for it, My thing is just under 400,000 bytes, I'm not sure what "subpage" I could put it on here, I'd be open to do that, but my user page and sandbox have already been swiftly deleted. Also just thought I'd say I'm not new to WIkipedia, as I saw someone state that on one of my pages earlier, I've had this account since October 2021, and I also edit WWE pages as well as pages for my football team I support (Sheffield Wednesday F.C.). Do you know anywhere else I could put the page? YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, that's not our problem to solve. WaggersTALK 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, but he said put it on a subpage, and I don't know what "subpage" on here to put it on. YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to be discussing how to use a different website - it's almost as bad a WP:WEBHOST violation as the original page. With the content now deleted I'm guessing there's no further action to be taken and we can close this thread? WaggersTALK 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean since I'm clearly not gonna be able to put it back on Wikipedia then I guess lol YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

By "subpages" people mean you can create additional pages in user space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YoloMc8562 is your user page, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YoloMc8562/subpage where [subpage] can be just about any valid string of text creates a "subpage" in your userspace. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that the content being discussed is not suitable for anywhere in userspace. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

As my point earlier, I'm clearly not gonna be able to put this back on here without getting blocked. YoloMc8562 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean I'm cool to do what @Rhododendrites suggested, which was put it on a subpage, but as stated idk if people would be fine with it. YoloMc8562 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Are we even sure they are here to build an encyclopedia? All they've done since being asked to remove their webhost is to move it to other pages, such as User:YoloMc8562/WWE 2001- Universe Mode/PPV Table and make null edits on their userpage. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to block indefinitely as a regular admin action, not as a claimed community consensus. This has gone on long enough and YoloMc8562 either isn't listening or can't understand. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:General Collective Intelligence

I'm writing to request assistance with a group of editors who have repeatedly reinserted the same comments "conflict of interests", "reads like an essay", and "duplicates existing content", even though the article that these comments applied to was deleted and completely rewritten. The editors were asked multiple times to justify attaching comments from a deleted article to an entirely new article. But as can be seen from this talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:General_Collective_Intelligence , the editors refused to provide any substantive reply. I'm at a loss. I would appreciate any assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CognitiveMMA (talk • contribs) 01:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This is as clear a case of WP:NOTHERE as I've ever seen. Highlights include self-citation, attempts to create a POV fork on the topic of their COI, and a maneuver where they moved a draft to Draft:Deleted Article and had it deleted there, apparently so the previous AFC decline messages would not appear on the draft. Efforts to explain anything on their user talk are met with hostility. I think it would be best to save everyone's time and show this editor to the door with a WP:BOOMERANG. MrOllie (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the deleted contributions of Draft:Deleted Article, and I'm seeing some content regarding the Montenegrin Republic of Zeta-Duklja in the deleted contributions. The move referred to by Ollie was to Draft:Deleted Page. Admins can see the version immediately prior to the blank-and-move at this link. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have rejected the draft, WP:NOTESSAY being the primary reason. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There was content related to the "Montenegrin Republic of Zeta-Duklja" what? That is simply untrue. The article was about a form of collective intelligence. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The draft previously at Draft:Deleted Article was not your draft; the one formerly at Draft:Deleted Page was. Ollie appears to have accidentally misattributed the first one to you. The point of my comment was to direct admins/other editors to the correct draft title. I apologize if my comment above was unclear in this regard. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 05:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my issue was that their comments referred to the deleted article, but they kept reinserting their comments even though those comments no longer applied. There is no way this can be within Wikipedia's policies for them to do, and to repeat doing many times without providing explanation despite clearly being requested to provide their reasoning. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia policy to allow the same group of editors that I'm raising the issue about to be the ones to carry out further actions regarding this complaint, like rejecting the article? Isn't that a conflict of interest? The editor @MrOllie accused me of violating Wikipedia's WP:NOTHERE policy, saying that this is "as clear a case of WP:NOTHERE" as he has ever seen. Where is the self-citation? Where is the conflict of interest? Don't such persistent and false personal attacks violate to consistently and unjustifiably prevent an article from being published or continually removes content without a valid reason, constitute disruptive editing and a violation of the consensus-building process? Furthermore I deleted the old article and created a completely new one in order to address any issues with the article. How can these same group of editors that have been involved ask that I write a new article and complain when I do so? And furthermore can @Seawolf35 state specifically where the article violates any criteria whatsoever of WP:NOTESSAY? If the article does violate any such criteria I'd like to fix it. But falsely claiming it does and refusing to specify any details is disruptive. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The talk page of the editor @Seawolf35 who rejected the article clearly shows that he was cooperating with the editor @MrOllie that I raised the complaint about. For this reason I'm adding him to the complaint as well. Wikipedia is supposed to be about disseminating knowledge, not a personal club to settle vendettas. I don't mind if they provide legitimate reasons for rejecting the article, but providing clearly false reasons like saying that I've cited my own work, and then refusing to provide any detail to their comments ... there has to be some way to address this. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Andy puts it better than I could below. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 06:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Aside from making subjective comments, @AndyTheGrump still doesn't specify any criteria of WP:NOTESSAY that the article violates. Wikipedia editors, since often not experts in every field covered on Wikipedia, are expected to evaluate articles based on specific Wikipedia guidelines and standards, rather than their personal understanding or expertise in the topic. The key aspects they focus on include:

1. Notability: The subject must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is usually demonstrated through coverage in reliable, independent sources.
2. Verifiability: Information must be verifiable and backed by reliable sources. Editors check if the references provided are credible and relevant to the topic.
3. Neutrality: The content should be written from a neutral point of view, without bias or promotion.
4. Original Research: Wikipedia does not allow original research. All content should be based on published information from reliable sources.
5. Quality and Clarity: The article should be well-written, understandable, and organized, but a deep understanding of the subject matter is not required for this.

It's not reasonable for an editor to reject an article solely because they don't understand the specialized content, provided the article meets the above criteria. CognitiveMMA (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It is entirely reasonable for an article to be rejected because it cannot be understood. The burden rests with the contributor(s) responsible, who have to make it understandable. If they can't do that, putting it in an encyclopaedia serves no purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The rejection of the article was clearly legitimate. It is not just an essay, but a poorly-written one at that, give its failure to explain clearly what the hell it is actually about. Repetition of a phrase doesn't do that, and nor do vague unsourced assertions about sociobiology, political science etc using the term. And neither does more unsourced nonsensical waffle suggesting that 'collective IQ' is some sort of actual thing. Wikipedia is under no obligation to publish the essay, and shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Google Scholar cites 1600 instances of use of the term "collective IQ" in the academic literature. Are we to believe your subjective opinion as an anonymous Wikipedia editor who knows nothing about the topic, or are we to believe credentialed experts who have published articles in peer reviewed academic publications? Regarding vague your comment about "vague unsourced assertions about sociobiology, political science etc." those assertions were reused from the Wikipedia page on collective intelligence to draw a distinction between collective intelligence platforms and general collective intelligence platforms. The content on the collective intelligence page has clearly been published and approved. Saying the article is "poorly-written" is a subjective comment. My request is that any editor who takes the time to comment on this issue please specify the criteria WP:NOTESSAY that the article violates, if any. CognitiveMMA (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly concur that after reading your draft, I know no more on the topic than I did before. As for expertise, I've been reading poorly-written Wikipedia content for over two decades now, and think I can recognise it when I see it. For example, I'm still trying to figure out what the repeatedly-used word 'platform' is referring to. Clearly not something one stands on, waiting for a train. And I don't think it refers to something a political party comes up with before an election either. 'Platform' could mean all sorts of things, none of which seems obvious from context. As a general rule, whether writing explanatory content, for academia or otherwise, one attempts to write for the benefit of the expected readership, who shouldn't have to read through the whole thing like a detective novel, seeking explanation, only to discover that the explanation is never given. That might possibly have worked for the great Dashiel Hammett, but we don't work that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

At least that's a specific comment that can be addressed by replacing the term "platform" with "software platform". CognitiveMMA (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

In which case I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of the Google Scholar results you found were referring to something else - from a quick sample, they appear to be. I sincerely doubt that sociobiologists for example are referring to software. Or to anything else not (according to their theories) transmitted through good old-fashioned biological DNA. And if you are indeed referring to software, everything but the first paragraph of your draft appears to be off-topic. Or perhaps padding, added to make this hypothetical software platform seem more important than it actually is. Perhaps your efforts would be better directed towards realising the hypothetical, rather than towards trying to convince people how good it is going to be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope your comments are just for your entertainment and are not part of this administrative process. You can't replace a comprehensive review of the academic literature with your subjective understanding of a few articles you found on the Internet. If your response sounds even remotely reasonable to you I request that you at least use a chatbot like ChatGPT4 to get some more insight. CognitiveMMA (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked CognitiveMMA as not here to build an encyclopedia. This editor's participation here for several years is summarized by this comment: An editor censoring this important information simply to exercise one’s personal bias in the way that has been done, and continuing to censor that information for years, particularly when that information is potentially important to so many people … what good purpose is served by this? Can you think of many things that are more harmful? Literally, this article is just describing the difference between a collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for some centralized entity, and a general collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for all participants, and it’s saying that understanding the distinction is critical because the difference between the societal impacts of the two is potentially great.. I cannot recall any editor who indignantly hollered about censorship actually contributing positively to this encyclopedia. We do not needed tendentious axe-grinding to right great wrongs by editors who think that opposing their self promotion is somehow the most harmful thing on planet Earth. The editor appears unable to collaborate productively with other Wikipedia editors. The waste of time has come to an end, and the blocked editor is free to promulgate their own theories on some other website. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I got to the last comment prior to yours, Cullen328, and was heading to the editor's talk page to block indefinitely also. On that basis, I clearly support the block. Daniel (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that what this is all about? ...a general collective intelligence that optimizes outcomes for all participants...? An imaginary BenthamBot which has ...the greatest happiness of the greatest number... built into its algorithmic soul? If so, I'd have to suggest that we don't need such a Bot here, since Cullen has already found the route to maximum happiness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel. As for you, AndyTheGrump, this is not my discovery and has been well known for over 20 years. The route to maximum happiness comes from complying with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and refraining from self-promotional bullshit artistry. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

As usual I slept through all the drama and am waking up to the result. Thank you for the collective input everyone. Theroadislong (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why people get into such a fuss over a few mouse clicks, they seem to forget that almost all actions on Wikipedia are easily reversed. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Good block by User:Cullen328 - I became aware of the first version of this draft article on 14 January 2024, when I closed a case request at DRN because it was about a decline of a draft. The subject editor appears to be a self-promoting author who writes incomprehensibly. If I read this sort of stuff ten years ago, I would conclude either that it was badly translated from the French original, or badly translated from the German original, or written by an author whose native language is English but who writes what appears to be bad translation. If I read this sort of stuff in 2024, I conclude either that it was written by a large language model, or was written by an author who writes as if he is a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Related users trying to get someones account blocked for revenge

WesDuDe92811 and Tatthehulk are related by the edit summaries in their contributions. Toketaa^talk 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Both blocked per WP:NOTHERE; it hardly seems worth my while to check which is master and which is sock. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC).

Check by account creation date? Toketaa^talk 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just checked. Wesdude was made first. Toketaa^talk 17:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bishonen, Wesdude is now saying that their friend (tat) logged on their account and vandalized. The language of before and after the friend supposedly logged on is different. This could be Wikipedia:LITTLEBROTHER but I am not sure. Toketaa^talk 18:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Then their account was WP:COMPROMISED and needs to remain blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell them to make a new account, link it to the old one via talk page, and after that global lock the old one maybe? Toketaa^talk 19:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If that's true, then they lost control of their account and it's compromised, so they don't get to edit. If false, then they lied and are trolling. Either way, the block should stand. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Mainly wondering how they would appeal if they could. Toketaa^talk 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Either they need to create a new account and make a much more secure password, or just simply quit Wikipedia for a while, wait for a couple of years and then create a new account. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

So how would someone reply to them saying that? Toketaa^talk 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have actually no idea. Since I'm not an admin with CU rights, I assume that someone like Yamla or NinjaRobotPirate, who both DO have CU rights, can possibly inspect the account (I'm not sure, but probably that's how CU works). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It's just an inference. Maybe I'm wrong. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Even then, if they come on a new account and start acting like this again, this definitely will be considered WP:LITTLEBROTHER. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• WesDuDe92811 has already appealed for unblock and an uninvolved admin has declined the appeal. Also, if WesDuDe92811 let Tatthehulk have use of their phone and of their password, they have only themselves to blame. I'm not unblocking anybody. Bishonen | tålk 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC).

  Yeah, I wouldn't recommend it either. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Makes sense, I was just seeing what would happen in that case because I never seen that stuff before. Toketaa^talk 19:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's really interesting to see this much WP:LITTLEBROTHER being in place. Usually, most blocked users just admit that they made the mistake (even if they are making personal attacks and having incivility), but this? Damn. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not going to lie Wikipedia:LITTLEBROTHER should be remade as a non humor essay and have the humor one moved to a different article. Toketaa^talk 19:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, it depends. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

* User:Nissimamon persistently whitewashing his own page, despite several warnings.

User:Nissimamon has been persistently removing critical content from his own page, as can be seen here: [4], despite having received several warnings on his talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely from editing the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Should this guy maybe just be blocked as WP:NOTHERE? He’s clearly running an WP:SPA for PR purposes only. Dronebogus (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Harassment.

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.

---

Check User talk:Hellotherematessssss, and I have nothing else to say. Toketaa^talk 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't harassment, it's garden-variety incivility from a vandalism-only account. Not worth reporting to ANI, IMO; in the future, simply reporting them to WP:AIV will probably be more efficient. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

oh, I was uncertain which to report to so I picked this one. Toketaa^talk 14:23, 29 January 2024 (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:TxBangert and edits related to Holocaust denial

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

Today, TxBangert removed the redirect at Bradley R. Smith and copied/pasted the contents of the Metapedia article on Smith. (That website is blacklisted but the article can be located via Google.) Metapedia, according to our article on it, is an online wiki-based encyclopedia dedicated to germanophile, fascist, far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, anti-feminist, homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemitic, Holocaust-denying and neo-Nazi points of view. The whitewashing of Smith's Holocaust denial is obvious in what TxBangert copied to Wikipedia. I reverted the edit and performed RD1 revision deletion because I found no evidence that it was compatibly licensed, either. I warned TxBangert on their talk page (User talk:TxBangert#January 2024) and then...

... I looked at their most recent edits prior to today, which were to Denial (2016 film), a film also about Holocaust denial, where they added a citation to user reviews on IMDb (an unsuitable source) to justify a statement about how unlikeable they think the main character of the film is. The main character is a portrayal of Deborah Lipstadt, who is involved in a lawsuit against a Holocaust denier.

I have serious concerns about these edits, particularly the ones from today, and suggest that an indefinite block citing Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive would be appropriate. DanCherek (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That's two Nazis in two days at ANI, I'm starting to be a little concerned even though they don't look to be the same person. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you look at their logs/edit history, there's some indication as to who they are. And yes, they appear to be a real nazi. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe due to International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which I imagine causes an annual exodus of bad haircuts leaving their mom's basement. Levivich (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That could be it, unfortunately... ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You can view Special:Diff/1200610288 two different ways: it goes against MOS:DOCTOR, and it's an attempt to burnish the credentials of holocaust deniers. The pattern is consistent. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the only way I know to contact Wikipedia. I was researching "Steele Dossier" and I think the contents there are Democrat propaganda. I've donated 4 or 5 times and have used Wikipedia as a reliable source, but I now will be very careful and not rely on Wikipedia for the truth. See the article at https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/politics/steele-dossier-fbi-durham-danchenko/index.html

The CNN article is much more reliable. You should make serious efforts to avoid political operatives tampering with articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:C200:22F0:0:0:0:182B (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated to ANI, should belong in Talk:Steele dossier if anywhere. That CNN article was already discussed in Talk:Steele dossier/Archive 26. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• TxBangert indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC).

User:Byte-ul

I made a contribution to Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties on 7th Jan 2024. Four days later this was reverted by the new user Byte-ul.

Byte-ul claimed my contribution was vandalism and malicious, despite it being on topic and referenced. They reverted a fourth time from their IP address rather than signed in (they claim by mistake - User_talk:Byte-ul).

I opened a new topic on the Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties page, asking them to explain their reverts. That unfortunately went nowhere, and my DRN and 3O requests were both closed due to there being issues of user conduct as well.

Byte-ul has engaged in disingenuous reverts and making blatantly false and hypocritical accusations that I made edits to settle personal disputes and harassment.

I request that my contribution be restored, with the two edits suggested by me on the Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties page, as the article is now extended-protected.

Ilike2burnthing (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Warned: User talk:Byte-ul#Warning. El_C 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please don't doxx another editor's off-wiki account again, including if you are continuing here an argument from that site (which isn't advised to do in general). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby see my response to User_talk:Ilike2burnthing#c-A_smart_kitten-20240127175800-A_smart_kitten-20240127175300. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who, if anyone, is right here, because much of the discussion appears to be WP:OR based on interpretations of primary source documents. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how, as it is just 'person X asked FOO, entity Y replied BAR', all being referenced.

If the objection is to the phrasing, "[...] citing reports from Germany, France, and Belgium which found no evidence of this," then I suppose this could be changed to just directly quoting from the first reference, "[...] Germany, France and Belgium do not perceive any problems with cooperation with the firm concerned[.]" Ilike2burnthing (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that is a lot of text to go through in that link. Is this matter still outstanding? Is assistance from an administrator still needed? El_C 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

See from 'Suggested resolution' onwards in Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties, as it's the only part I regard as unresolved. Thanks. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack

PickleAndPeanutFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a personal attack on me at my talk page cause they believe Jack from Oggy and the Cockroaches is a main character and I don't believe the same. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The user has apologised for losing their temper, so I don't think further action is necessary other than to say, paraphrasing Life of Brian, "Right .... now don't do it again". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Dunno what is happening here but it is mad weird...

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 User talk:Immortalbeliever... Is this some sort of cult??? Toketaa^talk 16:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE indef. Move along. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 30 January 2024 (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.

WP:MEAT at Anthroposophy

• Anthroposophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Evidence of WP:MEAT: Google "VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about. Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the. EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you".

Also Google "this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp".

Date: 19 October 2023.

Hard to miss: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22shitting+all+over+Anthroposophy%22

John Penner

January 3 at 2:55 AM ·

calling for a bit of help here — to help with some Vandalism to the wikipedia article for Anthroposophy Wikipedia Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy

if you check the Wikipedia Edit HISTORY — you can see how the Anthroposophy entry has been VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. i was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr 😡

someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you could spend a couple minutes to login to Wikipedia and correct just one statement in the article — that would be of use — because right now — this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp

Full quote.

Disclosure: I don't know which editor is John Penner or even if he edited Wikipedia at all. So, I am not WP:OUTING any particular Wikipedia user. Doxxing others is not allowed, but in this case I was simply doxxing myself (Googling my own username).

If you ask me "Is Anthroposophy racist?" my answer is neither yes nor no. I will say it is a mixed bag.

And some people cannot understand that I'm not pushing original research, I'm merely mirroring mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So, if they dislike mainstream scholarship, that is their problem, I'm not a scholar, so I have no contributions to such scholarship. So, if someone lies about their new religious movement, it's not me, I have merely WP:CITED mainstream WP:RS. The mainstream academia does not think highly of their movement, and they think that would be my own fault. Most of the WP:RS I cited there have been published sometime from 10 to 100 years ago. So, it's not like I'm spilling the beans about their secrets, nor like saying anything new. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence from the article history that the Facebook post led to anything. What action are you expecting to be taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I don't know which action should be taken. As I had already stated at WP:FTN#And the article about its founder, I find that the amount of newbies and WP:SPAs which have edited Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner in the past four months would be indicating some foul play. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

A dispute about Anthroposophy was heard at AE last November. That complaint was opened by Tgeorgescu as a complaint against User:SamwiseGSix, but it was closed with warnings to both parties. Now Tgeorgescu is opening a complaint about meatpuppetry on the topic of Anthroposophy, whch could possibly lead to admin action if details could be verified. However I don't see any evidence of new editors arriving on the article due to the off-site canvassing. The topic of Anthroposophy falls under WP:PSCI. There was also a Waldorf education Arbcom case which mentioned Anthroposophy, though the sanctions were abolished in 2022. To go any further with this complaint, I think User:Tgeorgescu would need to explain what ongoing abuse could be prevented by some admin action. One option is extended-confirmed protection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because I see the problem, it does not follow that I have a solution. But I'll go for the extended-confirmed protection. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Also at ANI a couple of weeks ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#User who cannot learn what WP:V means. SamwiseGSix hasn't really edited since then. I looked at the history of Anthroposophy and also didn't see any disruption since then.

@Tgeorge ... the off-wiki harassment you're quoting sucks and I'm sorry you're having to deal with that. However, I don't see any problems at the article since the last ANI ... which means no current problem?

I did, though, see this: Special:Diff/1194757415 and Special:Diff/1194757024. I really can't think of any situation where it's OK to say something about another editor in a hidden comment. I'm surprised that didn't get brought up in the last ANI thread, but please don't do this again.

Samwise said they'd walk away from the article at the last ANI, and it seems they have done so. I don't see any disruption since the last ANI -- nothing current -- so I don't see any grounds for ECP or anything else here. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that was prohibited. When someone pointed out it is prohibited, I have ceased performing such hidden comments. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that we have a specific rule against it... but I think everyone would agree that articles are not the place to write anything about editors, even in hidden comments. I mean if someone wants to go around adding <!-- Levivich is awesome --> to articles, I'm sure no one would object. Anyway, thanks for ceasing. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, here are some rules as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, but I agree having specific written rules isn't necessary to understand that commenting on other editors within articles isn't helpful: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses..., Wikipedia is not a soapbox..., and Wikipedia is not a battleground... Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not anyone's pointed out a rule to you, please strive to be as collaborative as possible. It shouldn't be a surprise that personal commentary, wherever it is placed, is not conducive to working co-operatively. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

One suspects that people who belong to a large group might independently become displeased by an extremely popular website's article about them vaguely insinuating that they personally are racists, without there necessarily being a coordinated conspiracy on their part. jp×g🗯️ 17:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not vaguely insinuating, but saying it aloud: Wieringa, Tommy (8 May 2021). "Groene vingers". NRC (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 7 February 2023. Het was een ontmoeting van oude bekenden: nazi-kopstukken als Rudolf Hess en Heinrich Himmler herkenden in Rudolf Steiner al een geestverwant, met zijn theorieën over raszuiverheid, esoterische geneeskunst en biologisch-dynamische landbouw. — It was a meeting of old acquaintances: Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler already recognized a kindred spirit in Rudolf Steiner, with his theories about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) Also search for "Je oren deden zeer van alle quatsch over de superioriteit over het blanke ras". But anyway, just because they have a racialist worldview, it does not mean that Anthroposophists would be malignant racists. I did not find a good way to word this, but it is an essential difference: Anthroposophists are paternalistic racists, not warmongering/oppressive racists. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

So they're racists but with good intentions? Levivich (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

IP from France

This IP keeps coming back. While most of their edits seem to be genuine some of their edits involves adding false cast members such as retired actress Babita [5]. Here they add three actors that definitely are not in the film: [6].

This weird behavior first started at Gulabi (1995 film). Upon watching the film, all of the cast members in the film are already in the actor but the IP goes on to add [7] more actors. See Talk:Gulabi (1995 film), where User:Archer1234 has been reverting unsourced edits. It is unclear what their motive is as they are making Wikipedia both reliable and unreliable at the same time.

A problematic edit is shown here where they add Bengali actor Tarun Kumar Chaterjee to a film he was definitely not in [8].

The IP should either respond to talk page requests (Archer1234 tried at Gulabi talk page) or stop making false edits. Basically when two people have the same name, IMDb links the popular one even if they didn't appear in the film. I think the IP is sourcing their edits from a database because it is highly unlikely that they have access to every low-key Telugu film.

Here [9] the IP adds a film more than ten years before the actor debuted. There is no way to verify this since the film is not online. The IP has been using different IP addresses but most of them are similar [10]. DareshMohan (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the lack of communication, the IP does not appear to source any of their edits. And they often (always?) forget to italicize film titles.

These are the IPv6 ranges from which I have seen them operate actively:

• 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E0A:21:130:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Plus this IP4 range:

• 81.65.88.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) going back to at least August 2023.

They are very prolific, so it will take a lot of effort to scrutinize their edits to separate the wheat from the chaff. It appears that a block on their ranges would have little to no collateral damage.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Some edits cross into Bangladeshi cinema and bring to mind sock Symon Sadik.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Another 19 edits today at 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:3832:5A3C:98AB:172B. None are explained. Some are correcting errors (good), but many are introducing new claims with no sourcing. Here's one of the unsourced ones adding a film to an actor's filmography: [11] (note, as usual, they do not italicize the film name). Still no communication. Can we get a block with the purpose of encouraging them to discuss our concerns with their edits?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Now they have also jumped over to 81.65.93.69. Same MO: unsourced additions to filmographies and film cast lists. All of the IPs used (IPv6 and IPv4) center around the same metropolitan area.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Archer1234: I don't think they understand the fact that 2 people can have the same name and 1 of them isn't on Wikipedia. Here they added three films to someone who wasn't in the industry till 2006 and here they added a 1990 film to a man who debuted in 2008. DareshMohan (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

After a few days off, they have returned t 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:3832:5A3C:98AB:172B with dozens of unsourced edits and unexplained content removals.

Can we get a short-term block on the /64 to encourage them to WP:ENGAGE about their editing?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:842A:1BF:1901::/64 for two weeks per the above discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

2A02:C7C:76BF:E100:61A2:CA8A:722:32EC Adding Partial Block

Hi, this IP 2A02:C7C:76BF:E100:61A2:CA8A:722:32EC has been continuously vandalising the page Owen Moxon, could we add this to the list of partial blocks? Thanks 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Three edits to an article with bigger problems - a 6 month /32 block seems an unwieldy and probably excessive solution. I've semi'd the page for a bit (and sent a /64 block message). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Charmetric / Sikder Group

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week by me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Charmetric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - New user with a vested interest in removing sourced content from Sikder Group. I have attempted to discuss, with no success. We're getting close to edit war territory here and I could use some intervention from someone with more experience. (User's recent edit summary contains some nasty slander aimed at me, so I need to walk away.) Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it all :) Toketaa^talk 16:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Unfortunately the page is still a mess - I think your reversions didn't go back far enough. Can you take another look? There has been so much back-and-forth, but I think my edit here is the last good version. Thank you so much. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

yup I forgot that whoopsy! Toketaa^talk 16:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That page history is quite a mess. I've restored an early September version that seems to be stable and in-between periods of large changes. Thank you for recognizing a bad fight and passing up on it when it became personal. @Toketaa I know you are excited to contribute but please try to use the edit summary feature appropriately, especially when reverting things other than obvious vandalism. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't this guy blocked for edit warring? 12 Reverts in one day combined with this talk page comment [12]. Fails WP:CIR and a clear candidate for a WP:NOTHERE block. WCM_email 16:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as 3RR is concerned, remember that An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. and Charmetric's 'undo' actions have occurred in two bursts. But their social behavior does still leave much to be desired. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I now see they did it in 2 bursts (I was looking at their contribution history). I still think it may warrant a WP:NOTHERE block. WCM_email 17:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether this is the right place to report personal attacks (rather than content vandalism issues), but I do still need help dealing with this user; please see this addition to my talk page - if you can even read it - in which Charmetric lashes out further, makes various accusations, and demands I be banned. Some help from a grownup would be much appreciated. Jessicapierce (talk)

(EC) Well I left a message on Charmetric's talk page because I had some hope they were here for the right reasons, but they soundly ignored it, and quite emphatically proved me wrong. I reverted their tirade, I hope that's ok Jessicapierce. This is indeed the correct place to report chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and is not actually meant for vandalism itself (or any content dispute really). GabberFlasted (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE and judging from the comments there is a clear conflict of interest WP:COI and admits to editing on behalf of his employer ie WP:PAID. Just some of the comments:

“ Fraudulent, facist, discriminatory, unethical and truly evil people involed. ”

“ Ban Jessicapierce or atleast remove her unfair advantages giving her an unethcial marginally significant boost over the real people, thosoe who want to keep the world safe, keep the world truthful, keep the world real. ”

“ The reality of what I said comes from the awareness of the broader spectrum here, the money in play to produce these bad actors used to weapons wiki's data as a means to give evil people the freedoms they desire to slander their enemies to such extreme degrees. Jessicapierce plays a role for these people as an enforcer and she is the obvious choice because her wiki account is privileged with attributes allowing here to manipulate this platform for whatever she and here evil business partners desire ”

Spelling mistakes are not mine, so edit warring, personal attacks, only needs a legal threat for a full house. Definitely warrants a block IMHO. WCM_email 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have left a final warning for User:Charmetric. They do seem to be quicly exhausting all assumptions of good faith. I am prepared to issue an indef block if they won't withdraw the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all so much. It's been a while since I ran into anything so heated on Wikipedia - I'm just here to fix commas and alphabetize lists. I hope it goes without saying that I am not, in fact, a fascist (or a "facist"), nor do I have any personal interest in the article. I appreciate the backup, and hope we can all be done dealing with this issue. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have now blocked this user for a week. While the user was never warned about 3RR, and at the time Ed said they had not violated it, to me they have since then, and I would also draw the thread's attention to this apparent effort to log out and make the same edits after reaching three (maybe four) reverts within a few hours, suggesting awareness of the rule. On top of that their general incivility, lack of good faith lean very much toward NOTHERE for me. If the account had been created more recently I would have had no reservations about an indef, and if this behavior continues after the block (assuming they are not the sort of user who will make enough repetitive, abusive and unproductive unblock requests within a short enough period of time as to justify revoking talk access and extending the block), then the next block should be indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO the above block is entirely justified. If there is any more trouble, I would suggest an indefinite page block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem, @EdJohnston, and @Daniel Case, could one of you please remove the edit summary from this diff so the PA attack on Jessicapierce is not immortalized in the article history? If I'm mistaken and this isn't something that can/should be done, my apologies for the needless ping. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Activist editing by NoonIcarus

In a previous ANI report it was detailed (perhaps too detailed) that NoonIcarus was engaged in activist editing in support of the Venezuelan opposition and attempted to make things personal by deleting an article I created. If you would like to jump into their editing history in that report, it provides a thorough background on their civil POV pushing behavior. This disruptive behavior has, unfortunately, continued. As a disclosure, I have said before that it takes two to be involved in edit warring and I have acknowledged my previous misbehavior in disputes with this user, but please allow me to provide information on how NoonIcarus continues to be disruptive.

NoonIcarus persists with making things personal by WikiHounding my contributions, removing[13][14][15] or driveby tagging[16][17] (a user has also raised concerns about NoonIcarus' tagging)(Edit:--WMrapids (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)) information minutes after it is placed. It was this revert here that was the last straw regarding the continuous hounding; NoonIcarus removed the information (minutes after it was placed) based on previous discussions they had with Storm598, a blocked sockpuppet user who provided inappropriate references (such as opinion articles). This is similar behavior to NoonIcarus' "stable version" argument where NoonIcarus inappropriately enforced a "stable version" by reverting any new content that they didn't deem "stable". In the past, NoonIcarus has justified WkikiHounding behavior by saying that an article is on their watchlist, but when such behavior happens constantly for every edit (especially within minutes) and even devolves into defining a shakedown, it becomes plainly disruptive and makes editing feel hopeless.

In addition, NoonIcarus does not seem to have learned from their previous sanction regarding block deletions on the United States involvement in regime change article, blanking material and moving the goalposts once more by demanding opinions from users on the inclusion of Venezuela in the article (this same issue has been going on for over 4 years) after other users adequately laid out the scope of the article on the talk page.

A previous WP:0RR sanction and the most recent ANI report has done nothing to remedy NoonIcarus' behavior, so something else has to be done. As I have said before, Venezuelan articles already have limited participation, and it sure doesn't help when you have a user like NoonIcarus hounding, removing and stonewalling the work of other contributors.--WMrapids (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to a diff/section of the details of NoonIcarus's WP:0RR sanction please? When was this placed, by whom, and has it ever been violated? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: You can see this in a previous ANI where the closer says about restrictions placed on NoonIcarus:

essentially, this custom restriction limits [NoonIcarus] to 0RR when they have been reverted, absent consensus, and 1RR otherwise.

This restriction was placed by User:El C in January 2020 for a period of one year. As for if the restrictions were violated, I have not gone back that far as interactions with the user only began within the last year. WMrapids (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Edit--WMrapids (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I was careful not to violate the restrictions, asking El C whenever in doubt (1, 2, 3), and later I started being less active in that second half of the year. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: After reviewing the closing comment from January 2020, I noticed that User:El C notes:

this note by Jamez42 was probably the wrong call. I'm not sure I would call it canvassing outright, but it certainly skits its boundaries.

Well, it seems that NoonIcarus did not learn from this warning either and has continued their apparent borderline canvassing by listing POV tags they placed on WikiProject Venezuela's talk page. Most of these tags were placed by NoonIcarus shortly after edits I performed.[18][19][20][21] This not only shows possible attempts at canvassing (NoonIcarus could have always listed POV tags in a sandbox or user page so they "can remember") but also that NoonIcarus is attempting to maintain a particular POV.--WMrapids (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I'll try to come back later with more time, but SandyGeorgia, who I linked in the last report and was also accused of COI and hounding, offers a good overview: I interpret your posts here as an attempt to intimidate me with "ownership" (with no valid diffs yet), and where you are intimating COI, as you are doing with NoonIcarus with "advocacy", based on your apparent misunderstanding of WP:COI. (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics).

WMrapids wishes to include a section about Venezuela at the United States involvement in regime change article, but another editor challenged this two months ago ([22]), ReyHahn. Last week they started a discussion about scope, asking about threshold and definitions but never about Venezuela, and yet another editor, BobFromBrockley, said that the section should not be included until the discussion is sorted out ([23]). WMrapids clearly doesn't have consensus for the inclusion and omitting this information is deceptive.

I should also warn about not throwing stones, since just this week I also warned the user against blanking ([24]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus, I will respectively only reply to you once in order to avoid bludgeoning and another wall of text.

• I shared concerns with both you and SandyGeorgia about your editing. Other than being frank, it was in no means an act of intimidation as we needed to clear the air at the time following months of disputed edits.
• "another editor challenged this two months ago" Yes. The editor used the same argument ("explain how verbal support is regime change") that you have also been trying to make since 2019 ("neither of them go into depths about any actions (which and how), only intent"). Clarifying this concern about "verbal support" occurred in this discussion where it was determined that reliable sources saying that the US was involved in soft power or hard power tactics to enact regime change was sufficient for inclusion. This is why I placed the information back and later cited the snowball clause since I genuinely believed the dispute was over. You, ReyHahn and Bobfrombrockley were the few who opposed the inclusion of Venezuela and the consensus of the scope for inclusion (such opposition has been persistent since 2019) while 6–8 other users support the inclusion criteria that would allow the placement of the Venezuela section. So accusing me of being "deceptive" is casting aspersions and is more evidence that you are taking this personally.
• If we want to talk about omitting information, why did you not provide my rationale on why this information was removed (undue and possible conflict of interest) and instead provided your diff accusing me of blanking? Also, why did you omit that a separate user supported my rationale for removing such information?[25][26]

It's clear that you have taken your interactions with me as being personal, which is evidenced by you nominating an article I created for deletion without any rationale, WikiHounding my contributions, placing questionable tags on my edits and now calling me "deceptive". Honestly, you simply stopping this behavior would be enough for me, but given your pattern of ignoring warnings, we are beyond that. WMrapids (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't explain why you haven't had issues using the same sources in the past (1, 2), other instances of blanking in the article (3) and that the discussions that you refer to actually recommended trimming and not expansion (see this response here). That being said:

Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids

I was really hoping that less interaction with WMrapids would mean less conflict, but it clearly hasn't been the case, so I will be detailing their own disruptive behavior while I have the chance.

There's hardly been any pushing, at least not from my part. While they started editing in 2014 and originally focused mostly in Peruvian topics, last year WMrapids quickly shifted to edit about Venezuelan ones after a move discussion that I started was closed with an outcome they opposed. The move was closed (24 May 2023), and in two hours they start two move requests on articles I have been involved with with the same rationale (1 and 2). I cite an essay I have contributed to in said discussions, and then they proceed to label its listed sources as biased.

"This opposition deputy led an auto theft gang", "this journalist served as a foreign agent", "this political party is a terrorist organization", "these protesters usually strip naked to ask for attention"... with such controversial edits it shouldn't be a surprise that the changes are contested, and cleanup tags have been the only way to prevent edit wars. Case in point, WMrapids violated the 3RR a few days ago at the Guarimba article (4 5 6 7), until I warned them about it. These issues have been broughts up at ANI and the NPOV noticeboard, but remained unanswered: ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS, ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking), WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda, WP:NPOV/N#Venezuelan opposition and WP:NPOV/N#Guarimba. If I challenge the edits, then it seems that it is "POV-pushing", but if I don't and raise the objection with a tag, then it is "driveby tagging". Either way, any criticism apparently is disruptive editing and the only satisfactory response is not to interfere at all. In other words, the message seems to be: "Do not disagree with me".

This pointy and contrarian attitude has been ongoing for eight months now, as I will point out later, and it is unbearable. While in the previous thread the editor vaguely accused me of driving away editors, I have pointed out to editors saying that they have unwatched articles because of WMrapids' editing (8), becoming so stressful that it even gives head and stomach aches (9) (and I can say that it has been definitely been very stressful for me too). The bludgeoning against editors that have disagreed with them is common (10 11 12 13 14 15), and being the only editor that hasn't abandoned editing because of this is only natural that this ANI is filed against me.

There are many issues at hand, but I will focus to detail two LTA patterns: filibustering and hounding. During this time, WMrapids has had the habit to bring back or relitigate settled or old article discussions, coincidentally also nearly all of those where I have participated and some with similar positions to those of editor ZiaLater (talk · contribs · logs). Interaction between both users shows a clear overlap in topics about Peru, Venezuela, and Grand Rapids, Michigan (bear these articles in mind when I detail better the hounding examples below). While sockpuppetering by itself is not forbidden, using multiple accounts to game the consensus certainly is. While it has been too long to demonstrate a connection with a checkuser, a duck test should certainly give a clue:

• 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt Move to "2019 Venezuelan coup attempt" proposed on 1 May 2019 (supported by ZiaLater), no consensus → Move to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" proposed by WMrapids on 24 May 2023, not moved.
• Operation Gideon (2020): Move to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" proposed by ZiaLater on 8 May 2020, no consensus → Move to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" proposed by WMrapids on 24 May 2023, no consensus (move to "Bay of Piglets Invasion" proposed later on 19 July, procedurally closed).
• Rupununi uprising: Drastic expansion about "Venezuela's involvement" by ZiaLater on 18 January 2020 ([27]) → WMrapids continued reinstating this point of view starting on 25 November 2023 ([28])

Regardless of the original user, those are not the only examples:

Other filibustering exampes

2002 Venezuelan coup attempt: Discussion about sources in April 2023 (#Non-NPOV article). Relitigated by WMrapids six months later, in November ("Terrible article"). United States involvement in regime change: (mentioned above) Inclusion of Venezuela's section, hotly contested and last discussed in early 2022 (Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 5#sanctions against Venezuela). Proposed again by WMrapids in October 2023 ("Venezuela"), and recently again last week ([29]) National Democratic Institute: Use of this Jacobin article as a source:[30] First brought up here, and WP:RSEDITORIAL issues were discussed at the WP:RS/N talk page by November 2023. WMrapids proceeded to use the source for new sections at the 2013 Venezuelan municipal elections and 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election articles a few days ago ([31] and [32]) Popular Will: (mentioned above) Changing party's ideology to "right-wing", last mentioned in early 2021 (Talk:Popular Will#Political position). WMrapids brought this issue again a few days ago ([33]), describing the party as a "terrorist organization" before [34]. Colectivo (Venezuela): Discussion about neutrality throughout 2020 and 2021 (Talk:Colectivo (Venezuela)#This Article is Very Troubling). Relitigated by WMrapids two years later, in late 2023, and cited it as a justification to carry out a string of contested edits [35].

WMrapids has also accusing me of hounding in articles where I have already edited, that are on my watchlist, and sometimes even created, failing to see that this says more about them than it does about me. SandyGeorgia also sums it up very good ("#Followup: intimidation, COI, and BLP concerns"): You claim hounding above, based on me editing articles after you that I've edited for almost two decades, and in one case, you even claimed that based on an article I created. And yet, you fail to mention the times you have clearly hounded my edits, and gone right after me to articles I have always edited and you have never edited. Examples include the following (please note how all of these cases happen after 24 May 2023, when the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article move discussion was closed):

WP:HOUNDING examples

Article - Date last edited by NoonIcarus → Date first edited by WMrapids Internal enemy 23 January 2024 → 24 January 2024 (a day later) List of massacres in Venezuela 12 January 2024 → 21 January 2024 (9 days later) Resistencia 27 December 2023 → 27 December 2023 (14 seconds later) Template:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute 5 December 2023 → 5 December 2023 (24 minutes later) Schomburgk Line 5 December 2023 → 5 December 2023 (an hour later) Simón (2023 film) 4 December 2023 → 4 December 2023 (22 minutes later) Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute 21 November 2023 → 22 November 2023 (a day later) 2024 Venezuelan presidential election 14 November 2023 → 17 November 2023 (3 days later) Ben Emmerson 8 November 2023 → 8 November 2023 (53 minutes later) Protests against Nicolás Maduro 3 November 2023 → 4 November 2023 (15 hours later) Bassil Da Costa 3 November 2023 → 12 November 2023 (9 days later) La Salida 27 October 2023 → 30 October 2023 (3 days later) Hugo Chávez 20 October 2023 → 24 October 2023 (4 days later) Daktari Ranch affair 12 October 2023 → 17 November 2023 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt 12 October 2023 → 25 November 2023 Llaguno Overpass events 12 October 2023 → 25 November 2023 United States involvement in regime change 9 October 2023 → 26 October 2023 (two weeks later) Juan Guaidó 8 October 2023 → 9 October 2023 (a day later) Rafael Acosta Arévalo 8 October 2023 → 20 October 2023 (two weeks later) President of Venezuela 4 October 2023 → 11 October 2023 (a week later) Foreign involvement in the Venezuelan presidential crisis 4 October 2023 → 24 October 2023 Colectivo (Venezuela) 10 September 2023 → 13 November 2023 Globovisión 6 August 2023 → 24 October 2023 Venezuelan presidential crisis 29 July 2023 → 7 September 2023 Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis 26 July 2023 → 18 October 2023 Shortages in Venezuela 23 July 2023 → 17 November 2023 Crisis in Venezuela 15 July 2023 → 16 July 2023 (5 hours later) Alberto Federico Ravell 6 June 2023 → 25 November 2023 Armando.Info 3 June 2023 → 15 June 2023 (two weeks later) La Patilla 15 May 2023 → 6 June 2023 Caracazo 13 May 2023 → 17 November 2023 Fernando Albán 11 April 2023 → 16 October 2023 Nicolás Maduro 31 January 2023 → 29 June 2023 Telesur 27 January 2023 → 6 October 2023 Carlos Andrés Pérez 26 November 2022 → 15 November 2023 Puntofijo Pact 26 November 2022 → 17 November 2023 Operation Gideon (2020) 4 November 2022 → 27 May 2023 El Politigato 19 October 2022 → 20 October 2023 (proposed deletion) El Nacional 27 July 2022 → 28 June 2023 El Pitazo 14 July 2022 → 28 June 2023 Plan Ávila 12 June 2022 → 6 September 2023 2021 Venezuelan regional elections 9 March 2022 → 20 October 2023 Runrunes 27 November 2021 → 6 June 2023 Últimas Noticias 16 September 2021 → 12 August 2023 David Smolansky 13 September 2021 → 24 October 2023 Efecto Cocuyo 8 July 2021 → 15 June 2023 Rupununi uprising 13 March 2021 → 25 November 2023

If I'm allowed to quote SandyGeorgia one last time, because she has put all this dispute more eloquently than I can:

I want to make sure it is very clear that if these behaviors continue, you should and can expect a very long list of similar incriminating diffs to show shortly at ANI. By "these behaviors" I mean, BLP breaches, continued harassment, continued misrepresentation of diffs, continued hounding of me to articles I edit, and continued persecution of NoonIcarus along with your busted AGF-ometer which leads to the aforementioned onslaught of aspersions that made me unwatch a page you followed me to. I don't mind cleaning up your POV edits, as that's part of the process, and it's clear you don't yet recognize how deep your POV and your failure to consult best sources are. Please make no mistake that my politeness or patience with you do not mean I am willing to let these serious behaviors go on indefinitely. Yes, a fresh start would be good and I am willing to continue being patient, but my patience is not unlimited. (9 November 2023)
— User:SandyGeorgia

I'm truly sorry for the long text, but it was necessary to condense the disruptive behavior. If there's any troublesome behavior that has not changed, it is clearly WMrapids', and at this point probably only administrative intervention will solve this. At the very least, an admonishment should be considered. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Neither editor is doing themselves any favours with wall of text presentations of content disputes.

BUT: I am also concerned about Noonicarus' edits on Venezuelan and Latin American articles. In particular Noonicarus is terrible at identifying/evaluating sources, and engages in tag-bombing as a first resort. In a recent edit they removed or tagged text cited to peer-reviewed scholarly articles 1, largely because they did not like the information that was sourced to them. Upon doing this they stated: Last but not least, as with other disputed edits, the content largely depends on English language academic papers, instead to mainstream media outlets, which suggests that the majority points of view are currently not being reflected. If we take this at face value, this is a bizarre statement for en experienced editor.

Similarly, when I suggested that claims from a report commissioned by the OAS, an organisation which has a political position and a recent history of making false statements on politics, should only be included if attributed, their response was: Please see the comments above about addressing the substance instead of the character. In other words, are there facts stated that should be questioned? Why? ... You might also want to take a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Noonicarus is a productive editor but their commitment to ensuring their political point of view predominates in Venezuela articles risks them entering an ANI death spiral. What is to be done?

Boynamedsue(talk) 20:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again

I haven't edited in this topic area. My involvement was that I began mediating a dispute at DRN over La Salida, a Venezuelan opposition organization, on 18 December 2023. As User:WMrapids noted above, User:Ultranuevo filed a recent previous WP:ANI report here on 5 January. WMrapids then provided a wall of text and proposed a WP:TBAN against User:NoonIcarus with respect to all political articles for at least one year. I failed the DRN because it was pending in another forum. The previous WP:ANI was then archived without action.

But here were are again. I think that some sanction is needed, or we will continue hearing these conduct disputes between these editors every few weeks. Has anyone reviewed their edits carefully to verify which of them is enough at fault to warrant a topic-ban? Or do we topic-ban them both from articles on Venezuela? Or do we conclude that these are two editors who do not like each other and impose a two-way interaction ban on them? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Interaction ban

I propose a six-month two-way interaction ban between User:WMrapids and User:NoonIcarus, with only the usual exceptions.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• I would support an interaction ban but would also recommend a Venezuelan politics ban for Noonicarus. There has been bad behaviour on his side here.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Boynamedsue became involved after I posted in the reliable sources noticeboard a week ago asking about the reliability of the Organization of American States (WP:RS/N#(OAS) Panel of Independent International Experts). The discussion afterwards can be found at Talk:Guarimba#Pejorative term. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is over behaviour not content, and my use of the first person above already makes the fact we have had past contact clear. Since you mention it, you took this to RSN, then when you didn't like the answer you were given you chose to ignore it. Again this shows your problematic behaviour with regards to Venezuelan politics. I don't think this is deliberate, but unfortunately your strong pro-opposition beliefs are pushing you into WP:COMPETENCE territory here if you can't even accept mild suggestions like "attribute this" or accept scholarly articles are valid when you don't like what they say. --Boynamedsue (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Boynamedsue - I see that User:NoonIcarus went to RSN on 22 January and posted an RFC, but the RFC will run until 21 February, and has received very little feedback so far. Is your issue that NoonIcarus asked for comments and then went ahead as if the comments that haven't come in yet agreed with them? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not entirely au fait with the rules of RfC's. I was reading the RSN post as a general request for others input rather than a vote intended to validate their viewpoint. As I read it there is consensus on the talkpage for text they want with attribution, but they seem intent on dragging on discussion on in two forums and making personal attacks as they do it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You should provide diffs if you accuse me of personal attacks, Boynamedsue. I posted an RFC based on this constested edit that I made: [36]. I have not reinstated said content afterwards, and I'm not opposed to it being attributed. -- NoonIcarus (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have already provided a diff of the personal attack, and that edit is absolutely not the subject of the RfC as there is no link or reference to it on the RfC. An RfC for that edit would be well beyond the scope of RSN. The recent edits on the talkpage only discuss whether the claim that Gaurimba is a pejorative term can be sourced, not the particulars of the above edit which would involve questions of detail, levels of attribution and relevance per WP:DUE.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: Is it possible as an involved user in the dispute to support this? While I feel that reviewing the edits is really important, I think this measure would definitely help with the situation (and is a measure that I would voluntarily agree to). --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban for WMrapids. Patterns such as edit warring and blanking have continued even after repeated warnings ([37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]) and reports at this ANI ("WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS" (August 2023), "WMrapids (blanking)" (November 2023)), and the diffs I provided above show that the editor has already had the same issues with several other editors in the past (1 2 3 3 4 5). The repeated changes without consensus, even weeks or months after first disputed and as recently as today ([46]), demonstrate either an unwillingness or inability to work collaboratively in the project, and a topic ban would be a step towards a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, I suggested a one-year topic ban on all political articles in the previous ANI, though a more targeted topic ban on Venezuelan politics is necessary as suggested by Boynamedsue, especially since it is clear that NoonIcarus will remain disruptive editing such a topic. As for the interaction ban, it may be helpful to assist with maintaining information on the topic, but this action is futile if a topic ban is not implemented due to NoonIcarus' lengthy history of gaming the system. For example, a user may place information in an article, NoonIcarus inappropriately removes such information (as done before multiple times with WP:BADPOV editing) and I would not be able to comment on the disputed information or even report potential misbehavior to other users, creating a false consensus. With this gaming behavior, there is also a high probability of retroactive editing disputes (adding/removing information previously placed/removed by either of us), which would only prolong disruptions on such contentious Venezuelan topics. Because of NoonIcarus' activist editing history, evidenced by their years of gaming the system and performing BADPOV edits, my support of an interaction ban (if even possible) would be conditional on the implementation of a topic ban on Venezuelan politics as this is the primary concern here.--WMrapids (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP changes to height from Turkish IP range

• 85.107.101.23/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Turkey has been changing the height parameter in dozens of biographies without citing a source. Some of the subjects are alive, so WP:BLP makes the problem worse. The disruption began in October 2023, as far as I can tell.[47] Can we give this IP range a timeout? Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked range for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I found four more ranges of Turkish IPs doing the same thing over the same time period: Special:Contributions/5.24.128.0/21,[48] Special:Contributions/46.154.48.0/20,[49] Special:Contributions/88.230.32.0/20[50] and Special:Contributions/46.154.176.0/20.[51] Can we block these, too? Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And two more: Special:Contributions/88.241.176.0/20.[52] and Special:Contributions/31.142.64.0/19.[53] This person gets around. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that. I blocked all those for 3 months. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Consistent reversions and deletions of my researched-based claims

Was redirected here by an experienced editor. Editor Potatín5 has been consistently reverting my research based claims, often deleting them completely. Not working to compromise and consensus, just deleting. What steps can be taken?

A few examples:

Josiah Omrides Ten Commandments IncandescentBliss (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also Temple menorah

I am requesting that editor is restricted or banned from WikiProject Bible pages. Their reversions are making it frustrating as a new contributor with extensive knowledge or related topics and systematically trying to erase scholarly consensus on important topics. IncandescentBliss (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In each of these cases they seem to have made a single edit which they have explained with an apparently-reasonable edit summary. I'm not seeing a conduct issue here. Instead of coming straight to ANI to get an editor sanctioned for disagreeing with you, you should discuss content questions on the article talk page in the first instance Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Single Purpose Accounts Being Used To Denigrate An Organization

There are 2 accounts, named Gevaarlik and Joker1Joker which appear to be single purpose accounts being used to denigrate an organization. Both accounts have been opened within the month of January with the latter being just over a week ago. In total they have made over 120 edits to pages exclusively to do with the Sekunjalo group, with just 1 exception. All the information they have written has been created in a negative bias towards the group.

They pages they have been editing include:
Sekunjalo Investments
Iqbal Survé
African News Agency
The Sunday Independent
Independent Online

They have removed information that is neutral or positive about each of the above pages and included negative information and their writing is structured with negative connotations.

Here are some examples:
Diff Here, user Gevaarlik removed a statement about about the company suing the President and State. This is a factual piece with reliable sources such as a press statement from the company website, an article written by Tech Central and an article by southafricanlawer.co.za

Diff Removed this edit citing sources as unreliable yet they are from World Economic Forum and a Muslim newspaper hajjreporters.com

Diff Undid this edit which correctly cites a source directly from the Kathrada Foundation and manipulated it to appear negative

Diff Included POV terms such as "Scandal Ridden" (fixed by another editor)

Diff Again, strongly worded POV opinions (fixed by another editor)

All in all you can see their writing has an extreme negative bias and is written in POV fashion rather than being factual. Again, the 120+ edits they've made within the last 3-4 weeks all focus on pages linked to The Sekunjalo Investments Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayFacts (talk • contribs) 09:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Erm ... you do realize that you are a single purpose account, with far fewer edits than they have, and exclusively editing on the Iqbal Survé and the Sekunjalo Investments articles, yes? Ravenswing 10:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Not only that, but from the edits I've looked at, the OP appears to adding peacockery to the article [54], whilst removing perfectly well sourced edits that just happen to contain negative material [55]. They are right in that the other editor shouldn't be using POV terms such as "scandal-ridden", but on the other hand it is not as if the multiple reliable sources cited aren't actually using the word "scandal" about the various issues, so it's only a semantic issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 14:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Jayden Jordan

Resolved

 – Blocked indef Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost all of his edits have been reverted or deleted. Created speedily deleted pages twice, with BEN (tv series) (which he later hijacked a redirect to create) and Ochomoto. Has now crated an autobiography. Mach61 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

He had already attempted to create that autobiography yesterday and it got A7'd. I had also already given him a final warning about an hour ago (before that page got recreated) to stop creating this kind of stuff. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as NOTHERE. If not NOTHERE, then CIR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic slur at ITN

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.

---

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

Ouro has used what appears to be an ethnic slur against Russians at ITN: Casual mention of NK support for russkee criminal acts in the Ukraine (diff). I confronted them about it, saying that the ethnic slur was inappropriate and should be struck (diff), to which they responded simply I acknowledge Your opposition to my honest and open usage of this term (diff). Considering the doubling-down I consider this beyond my capalities to solve, so I believe that it should at least be brought to the attention of administrators. WP:CIVIL is a pillar and I'm pretty sure editors aren't allowed to use ethnic slurs, regardless of our takes on the Russo-Ukrainian War. JM (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Post to a user last May about an ITN issue [56] "Hello, Knight! Didn't mean to bite, but I just ... get negatively emotional when it comes to that country beginning with r, You know... Will compose myself in the future. Cheers! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Same ITN post ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1156145521] "*Close just close just close and stop listening to those people. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Although I think Russia is a threat to the West, it does look as though this editor can't edit Russian or Ukraine-Russia related articles without pushing their pov. And ever since their first post in Nov 2009 all their edits are marked minor. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Asked them to stop marking edits minor, gave them a General sanctions notice for the topic area of the Russo-Ukrainian War and the CT alert for the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the notifications. As for the marking of my edits as minor, I will refrain from doing that. Promise to read into WP:MINOR. As for any other topics that might be mentioned, rest assured I will not make any edits to topics surrounding the Ukraine, because I know that I have a particular point of view. You need not worry about that. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I had heard the word used in movies but never looked it up. I just did. Dictionaries seem to agree on "disparaging" and "offensive". If this were about any other country/ethnicity, the response would be an immediate indef. So, I hope we can at least get an acknowledgement of the problem and assurance to stop. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Acknowledgement of the situation. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Notice the use of the word "situation" instead of "problem", and no assurance to stop. JM (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  You've already stated your concerns. Let the community vet the situation; otherwise, it will appear that you are overeager to get Ouro punished. By the way, the Wiktionary link you provided in the OP doesn't actually say that the term in question is a slur; it states that the term is "usually derogatory;" I consider that to be a substantial difference in nuance (and yes, our article does describe the phrase as an ethnic slur, but you didn't argue based on our article). It is best for all editors, including Ouro, to refrain from using that term; it would also be best if you, JM2023, would refrain in the future from making strong claims without proper support. (One could also question whether this incident really belongs in the category of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems; hopefully you won't make a habit of running to ANI every time you disapprove of something.) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  1) The link actually does say it's an ethnic slur: (usually derogatory, colloquial, ethnic slur), so your concerns about "strong claims without proper support" and "substantial difference in nuance" are moot;

  2) My account is about a year old and I've brought something to ANI only once before, four months ago, when I was specifically told to do so, and which resulted in an (unlogged) warning against the person I made the case against and an apology made to me (see here), so I don't have a "habit of running to ANI every time [I] disapprove of something";

  3) Someone just brought an IP to ANI in a similar case last week and it resulted in a month-long block of that IP (see here), which is what motivated me to go here when I saw someone double-down on an apparent ethnic slur after being called out on it. JM (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  As the person who brought up the previous IP, I can agree that this one should also be blocked, ethnic slurs shouldn't be considered acceptable. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also agree they should be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Apt observation.--Ouro (blah blah) 15:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is ruskee an ethnic slur? I don't know. I thought it was simply a short/nick for Russians. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yup according to the article we have on the term. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Language is confusing. Isn't it the Russian word for Russian i.e. русский? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The Polish word for themselves is "polak". Go to downtown New Britain, say that, and see how many people jump you. I don't get it either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Slurs depend entirely on context. Use by the in-group is fine, as it's usually either self-identifying or an attempt to "reclaim" the term. Use by out-groups is pretty strongly rejected as reinforcing the insulting use of the term. At the very least, it's impossible to tell if an outsider is simply unaware of the insulting use of the term, or is relying on "I didn't know" as a get out of jail free card. Either way, best to avoid it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And how about those times I'm now remembering where I said it as a single word greeting to new neighbors I was seeing for the first time while out walking the dog and thought might be Russian (and were). Do I need to move? Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if you haven't been beaten and thrown into a ditch yet, you're probably okay. They may just have put you in the former category. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Or the later, I mean even if someone used a slur, most people are just going to minimise future contact etc. Some might be used enough to it they're probably going to forget it happened, so depending on how long it's been there might still be no point bringing it up.

Getting back to the original post I think an important point here is we're not simply referring to a case where an editor used the term to refer to someone with no reason to think anything was meant by it. It's possible that this editor thought "I want to refer to criminals but I'm going to use the most neutral term I can for them". But let's be realistic, there's a very good chance this isn't what happened and they chose the term precisely because they intended it as a slur.

I'd also note that there's no indication from the editor's responses above that they were not aware it was a slur, I mean even their assurances not to repeat it are decidedly lackluster.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Relating to my other post below, my impression is Russki, while generally seen as a slur has far-less use and recognition as such that say a word like Jap or Paki. So I suspect people offended by being referred to as such are far more likely to just think maybe they just didn't know. For that reason I'd probably often not necessary to do anything about it later.

Jap and Paki however are well recognised as slurs nowadays, so very people who actually use them especially Jap when used in the US and Paki when used in the UK, are not going to know. So if someone did use such terms without realising, it's probably well worth considering whether as uncomfortable as it may be, it's worth bringing it up and apologising next time you see these people.

I'd note that especially with things the way they are now, it's probably quite risky to make assumptions anyway. If you refer to Ukrainian even a Russian speaking one as a Russki, you might very well find you cause great offense but for different reasons. I'm reminded of the joke about someone in the UK calling someone who looks British Asian a Paki and the person who's from modern India not Pakistan responding something like, "I'm not a Paki I'm from India, I hate Pakis!"

Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd also emphasise it's important not to get distracted by the origins of a word. This can sometimes be the cause of a word being a slur, but the way the word has been used historically is often far more important as to whether it might be a slur. And yes, a term which is perfectly fine in one language may be a problem when translated or transliterated to another. And even within the same language, it can depend on region etc.

Jew is a term that can be used even by outgroups without being seen as a slur, but can also be a slur or pejoratively depending on how it's used etc. Edit: Jew (word) goes into this a bit as well as the history of the word which makes it clear it was not originally intended to be offensive but given a long history of anti-semitism has also long been used in offensive ways. Paki (slur) might be short for Pakistan or Pakistani but because of the way it has been used, it's well accepted as a slur. Shortened forms of accepted edit: words are often used as slurs e.g. Jap is another one. I suspect, but have never looked for evidence, that is in part because slogans etc work better when shorter, e.g. Japs out or Pakis go home. Flow may be another factor, and I wonder if this is partly why Ruskee is a slur.

The n word, negro and black all ultimately come from the terms referring to the colour black. But the first one is well recognised as one of the worst slurs to the extent many people just do like I do and use the euphemism even when simply talking it, when used by outgroups. And even when used by ingroups is generally spelt and pronounced different. The second one is often consider at best antiquated in much of the English speaking world. The last one can still be acceptable when used by outgroups depending on context and group, although as mentioned by our article, some groups historically found it more offensive than negro.

Gay has a complicated history, you still get the odd person insisting it should only have the original "happy" like meaning. But while it has been used as a slur or pejoratively at various times and there is a a more recent rise of it's use in a new pejorative manner (I think this trend might be dying down a bit, but I suspect it's something many people who played games with online chats are familiar with), it's often still acceptable even by outgroups depending as always on how it's used.

Queer meanwhile is sometimes considered a reclaimed slur and does have a fairly long history of being used as a slur. It's use especially but outgroups is often still controversial. However while it has been used as a slur for a long time, the perception of it being clearly a slur is as I understand it, more recent and indeed it was used by ingroups non pejoratively before it became to be seen as a clear slur let alone reclaimed Queer#Early 20th-century queer identity.

I think there are very few people who would say 'I'm fine with gay because it it's fine to be called "happy" but I don't like queer because I don't like being called "strange"'. That's nothing to do with the reason why the terms are seen as they are now.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Edited at where marked 04:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I apologise to anyone who dislikes seeing any of the terms I used spelt out like that, but I felt in the interest of clarity it was my best choice. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have three problems with the way you spelled the first three words of paragraph three, but they're all minor capitalization, hyphenation and frankness concerns. On the whole, good explanation! I'll note that the R-word (in question here) is quite prevalent in American media, especially from the "Cold War era", and a lot of that shit still gets played in Canada (at least). You hear people use the P-word often enough, but not the mainstream media. I'm pretty sure the J-word has fallen out of fashion everywhere since Japan (and all its J-Stuff) became cool in the capitalist sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

P.P.S. Yankee is a particular interesting one since in contemporary usage to refer to specific people it can often be a slur or at least pejorative. But precisely which specific subset it's used against varies depending on who's using it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

In this particular case it seems reasonably clear from the responses elsewhere and in this thread that Ruskee was specifically used as a pejorative slur, "honestly and openly". CMD (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and based on that, I'd say a NOTHERE block is appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, so did I. Learned something today. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like this discussion has totally died down. I'm not trying to act like an admin or be punitive or anything, but here's a summary: there's three people explicitly supporting a block, and four others explicitly finding the behaviour problematic, without including me in either. The rest never expressed an opinion on Ouro's use of the slur. And in all this there's been no apology or retraction of the slur, or even an acknowledgement that it shouldn't be used. What happens next, if anything? JM (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thing is, admins are still volunteers, so none of them is required to do something just because it may need doing. I imagine it does not need explaining just why admins may not be acting here? And, I wouldn't go so far as to say admins didn't do anything. One of them posted notice on Ouro's talk page about Russo-Ukraine CTOP. I think that means that if they repeat the same behaviour, you could report them to WP:AE, which is generally less forgiving.

  Once upon a time, you were supposed to think it was just not actionable and forget about it, if no admin did anything before the report got archived. But Wikipedia has changed a bit since. So, you can probably afford to make a post to AN asking that an admin review the discussion. Of course, it depends how much you care. And it would make more sense to request review/closure at AN if you actually proposed something here formally and turned it into a !vote. Personally, I would let this be. They didn't acknowledge it but we can assume the message has been received. You can always start a new report if they do it one more time. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  What happens next is that it doesn't happen again, and if it does, then it'll be brought back here and then perhaps some sanction will be needed to prevent further disruption. But if nobody does anything and it doesn't happen again then this thread will have served its purpose, without the need for apologies, retractions, or sanctions. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2024 (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.

5.2.202.159

This IP user 5.2.202.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is quite insistent in adding content without references (or with references not useful to verify the information provided) in several articles. They have made the same kind of edits through the IP range 109.101.69.224/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They have already been warned on many occasions and doesn't seem to have any intention to change their behavior. Xexerss (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I am one of the people on the first IP address, and I am always adding correct details and facts, because I actually care about helping with shows I love, and I do not know how to use references, because it is too complicated and English is not my first language. There is still information, that has been available for months, such as Saori and Fumi's actors in JJK characters Rie Suegara and Aoi Azusa, but you block facts and instead of being helpful, are being obtuse. You are an expert, right? So please, just help and add the citations, or add the details. I want to help complete the details and was being helpful, to the best of my knowledge. 5.2.202.159 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations are your responsibility when adding content, not that of other editors. If you don't know how to properly cite the material you are adding, you should not add it. See WP:V. --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

5.2.202.159, I suggest you put your proposed article edits along with the required references on the articles’ talk pages until you figure out citations. Thank you for your interest and help with these topics. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance, I added it to the talk page, but I did not know how to add the source, that being the cast list from the episodes, since I read Japanese. So I just mentioned the actors names 5.2.202.159 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've told you several times already about WP:NOTTRUTH, but it seems that you either still don't get or plainly don't care. It's not a matter of completing information just for the sake of completing it. Adding content without a respective reliable source available to verify said content is not helpful at all. If you want to add voice actors without any kind of reference, there are a million other sites where you can edit, but not here. Xexerss (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal articles without referencing

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.

---

BarrySpinno (talk · contribs · logs) I reviewed this article Draft:British Airways plc v Commission and its seemingly unsourced and is now in draft. Its been in draft before which I never noticed. Its a legal article and its a single source. Its a copy and paste from the legal site onto Wikipedia. There is no context on it for the average reader, or indeed anybody who isn't a lawyer. One of the articles that editor wrote was at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 which seems to indicate its notable. Its the law the land in Australia. But there must be more than that, like e.g. why it came about, the history of it. Every article that reviewers have looked at, has been sent to draft. If that perfectly correct. For me it just a straight copy and paste exercise with little value to the reader. It is a bit of a dichotomy. This may be the wrong venue for this. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

scope creep, I do not understand why this matter is at ANI. The whole purpose of draft space is to allow ongoing work on a topic, which is the case here. When I look at BarrySpinno's talk page, I see a bunch of canned template alerts and warnings, that BarrySpinno often responds to with replies and follow-up questions. And yet no other editor has engaged this relatively new editor in actual human-to-human communication about things like our expectations on sourcing and how to develop coverage of a topic in sandbox or draft space before adding it as an encyclopedia article. I think that sort of human interaction should come long before an ANI report. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the wrong venue. It is a draft article - the copy paste might be an issue but it looks quoted and the article is work in progress so not sure what the issue is. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think your probably right. That is cogent advice. Close this, please. 19:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

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 deleting/vandalizing content

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

IP previously blocked ([57]) for vandalism (e.g. see edit history at Partal Palace). Right after the block, they responded with these. Over a month later, with the block expired, they are back to making mass deletions of sourced content with edit summaries that don't come close to explaining or justifying the deletions, e.g.: [58], [59], [60]. They already received a warning ([61]) and continued to do the same after it ([ [62]]). Whoever is using the IP is WP:NOTHERE. R Prazeres (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Taken care of by EvergreenFir who has reblocked that IP. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Smadur661

There's something not right with Smadur661's editing. I can't tell whether it's serious lack of competence, or wilful disruption, but either way it's not helping. There's also a heavy promotional angle to this, as they only edit about music- and publication-related topics which all seem to be connected and in which they almost certainly have some sort of COI (which has been queried, but not responded to). Thus far I've not seen a single useful edit from them, so I'd say they're a net negative to the project, and almost certainly !HERE. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Having reverted some of their edits[63], and nominated for deletion their creation (Soccer News \ Room), I have to agree that this editor seems to have a severe WP:CIR issue. See e.g. Draft:Black Ambition, an article about a record label, but " it earned bachelor's degree from the University of Tshwane.", and then the "Awards & Honors" section is just extreme nonsense. Fram (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

My favourite is Draft:My Classical (Stories). I've gone through it many times now, and still haven't a clue what it's meant to be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Why, a compilation of articles like Mary Hill, Austin, of course! Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked, and all pages deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Behavioral issues at Talk:Horror film

Hoping someone will be willing to take a look at Horror film and the talk page there, where Andrzejbanas is exhibiting disruptive behavior issues include ownership, sealioning, refusing to accept consensus is against them, and refusing to revert their edits made against that consensus once it was pointed out to them. When an issue is addressed, they move to a new one, creating walls of text that keep accusing other editors of not being willing to continue discussing and explaining.

Extended content

It started with this reversion, where they wrote in the edit summary there are certainly horror films set during Christmas, but without some page citation from that book, all the other articles just connect the dots that "here are a list of alternative Christmas films" or "here are some horror films set around Christmas time" without really isolating it as a genre. Here, after I'd found those page#s, they reverted again, this time saying I'd added the info back without addressing concerns, which wasn't true. Here argued that none of the sources that none of them describe it as a genre, which wasn't true, and in fact in the content they'd removed included a note I'd added quoting the book source calling it a genre three different times. Here that the genre wasn't well-defined. I pointed out that it doesn't have to be well-defined in order to exist, and that an entire book of essays about the genre had been published by an established publisher. Here that they didn't find the book's arguments convincing. Here argued "seems irregularly represented against other horror cycles here such as the slasher, teen horror film, or the slasher." I pointed out that Teen horror doesn't even exist except as a redirect. Here told me that if I didn't even know what a genre cycle was, I shouldn't be trying to write about film. Here said calling it a genre was FRINGE. Here that nothing in the sources provided any value to the reader. I pointed out that my proposed addition told the reader The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre. Here that they never heard the term in common use. Here that an entire book of essays about the genre published by an established publisher wasn't sufficient to show the genre existed, saying, I repeat, this is not a substantial sub-genre, despite there being a book by a non-academic on the topic. Here that other than the book, there were only listicles. I pointed out that NPR and Hollywood Reporter both were calling it a genre or subgenre and giving it lengthy treatment. Here that they'd found errors in books by that publisher and implied NPR and HR were well-disguised listicle content. Which is not true, both describe the genre and its appeal at length. The fact they mention multiple highly-regarded examples does not make those articles listicles. Here circled back to that there was nothing in the three sources that provided valuable information. Twice. At this point, two other editors, GoneIn60 and Robert McClenon came in and agreed it was a legitimate genre. To which they responded, I'm not saying that there isn't such a genre, but due to it's sort of wobbly discussion, there is no real way to make it stand on it's own as it hasn't received critical attention. This is why I'm iffy on including it here, and not calling for a removal on the article or anything on it's own. The discussion isn't so much if it's real or not anymore, it's how we can include it here with saying something that gives the genre prominence. As I can't even write that on my own (and I've tried), I'm not sure what the best method is to include it. Which seems pretty WP:OWNy -- if they can't write it, it doesn't go in?

GI60 then proposed entirely new language, which I supported, and Andrjez started the whole rigamarole over with that proposal. GI60 at that point agreed that he and I had done our due diligence and his third opinion provided consensus, and we added the language, and Andrjez reverted again saying there was no consensus. Then he said he hadn't seen the discussion between me and GI60, but still didn't revert himself after being asked multiple times on my talk, his talk, and the article talk. And he's still arguing that neither of us has explained what the issue is and that I'm dodging his questions. The whole thing could be another dozen diffs. Sealioning in particular is hard to prove without multiple. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

1. . Basically on trying to pull information from google searches, I had very click-baity aritcles. I grew frustrated trying to pull into a form which I think fits a film genre and went WP:BOLD.
2. . I shouldn't have done this and should have brought it to discussion.
3. . I'm very strict with genre. The descriptions within seem broad and not part of any cycle. Kim Newman argues that genre can only exist when films are trying to imitate each other. As I've added to this and various film genre articles, genre is very subjective. For example, on the Thriller film article, most serious journalism agrees that despite the term being in common use, there is no universally agreed upon term to it. This is the same in the current horror article, specifically "Mark Jancovich in an essay declared that "there is no simple 'collective belief' as to what constitutes the horror genre" between both fans and critics of the genre" The same can be applied to the sub-genre, so I warn against such arguments.
4. . The genre, isn't well defined. Yes there is a book, and in the opening pages of the book the author even states "It's difficult to define [the Christmas horror]". So I'm not sure what the issue is here.
5. . I didn't find them convincing, because they are very broad. I'll elaborate on that.
6. . I'll admit to that, as it didn't appear you have read this article before contributing to it. Cycle is mentioned early in the prose.
7. . That was wrong of me, I was frustrated and apologize. And I believe I did apologize in the topic at hand.
8. . The genre is fringe. Kim Newman states this enough on his write up on the topic in Nightmare Movies.
9. . Here's where you are flat out wrong. It would be anachronistic to place a genre like this. Genre's don't emerge, they arrive via imitation and cycles.
10. . It isn't common use. Kim Newman refers to it Nightmare Movies as a very minor genre.
11. . One book, by one author. This is hardly the slasher film which has countless essays, articles, and books about it. I can easily provide further research into teen horror which has Scholary journals written about it, but pointing out "i've never heard of it" felt like knee-jerk reactions, especially to someone who only showed that they didn't seem to have read the article when adding their content.
12. . You were right on the NPR and Hollywood Reporter, and I said you were in the discussion.
13. . There are errors in the articles, and I've pointed them out. I never suggested the publications were unreliable, but further research (which was requested, then done, then ignored by the requesting parties). For example, information of it being taken suggest there is a connection between the films and early Christmas ghost stories, but the article has no proof out of this. The articles also list Silent Night, Bloody Night as the first, or an early film in the genre, but as the article I shared in Rue Morgue magazine on the topic, the link between Christmas and that film begins and ends with the title.
14. . I feel that from what I've said above, the articles are not the strongest discussion points on the topic, from writer who clearly have not seen some of these films they are discussing and question, and work on assumed beliefs based on film titles.
15. . And one of those editors, encouraged me to keep on going despite you only commenting that I'm trying to own the page and not addressing me when I asked you time and time again to comment on my content, not perceived editing patterns or agenda.

I'm not reverting the edit, because I feel like the user is trying to force me to agree with something, without addressing my requests. They are welcome to revert it on their own, but they have not assumed good faith with any of my edits. Yes I believe I was wrong some of the times and my actions were too bold. But when I've done when they asked (i.e: find more sources, try to re-write it), they've made their decision that I've gone too far.

I'd like to address this user made the content really frustrating to browse. Two threads were opened and the editor hopped between them back and forth. I missed the consensus (between two editors). In the meantime, I reached out to WP:HORROR and WP:FILM to ask for suggestions on my edits to Horror film, action film, thriller film, and mystery film talk pages, and this debate in question. Please do not assume, I'm trying to own a page when I'm actively reaching out. I appreciate that you also asked for comments as well, but I don't blame anyone for not reading through our bickering. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your entire response is returning to arguing content. This is about behavior. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

...? I also apologized? Showcased where I reached out to others for further comments (which seems to be against your accusations of me trying to own an article when I want more voices on it!) and pointed out where I think you are ignoring content for, unknown reasons. Yes, I've brought up the content here, because that what was what the question was. How else should I explain myself? I want to assume good faith, but you give me one sentence summaries. You have edited your own posts as well to make it look like you haven't been antagonizing me. The very fact you address a perceived notion instead of content, and you make antagonizing posts against me in both edit summaries and edited responses: here and here. You have been ignoring WP:FOC, and have made the priority of your arguments on the page about me, when I've frequently asked to please comment on the content, you return it with how i'm trying to own a page. Not sure what else, but I'm finding it very difficult to engage about content with you that you clearly feel strongly about as you never discuss it and avoid anything that suggests I'm actively looking for a grander solution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

On my own talk page, I've also stated that you have made me feel like reverting my own edit would feel like you are trying to trap me into suggesting consensus with your edit. You did not respond to that. What should be my, or anyone's, take away from that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I would assume you and anyone else should take away that I've given up on trying to keep plugging away when someone is just giving back WP:IDHT and WP:SEALION. Consensus is against you, you've refused to revert yourself, and instead are demanding that I continue a 82Kbyte discussion in which three different editors have told you consensus is against you. Valereee (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to revert it. I've stated you are trying to force me into consensus or do something. If you could simply say "i'm not trying to do that", then I'd feel comfortable. You haven't made me feel safe in doing it. Right after the editor who told me keep going with what i'm doing here. I'm not why you are quoting essays and I don't hear you, because I've done what you've requested. You can say you've addressed me, and you are happy to point out Diffs. I'm trying to address you continuously (again on your own talk page, and in the article). I am hearing you, and have made issues with the content. When you aren't engaging with me when I ask basic questions. I'm not sure what you want me to do other than call you on the same. But as you said, this is about me. I agree with you on some points, and on others, I think you are ignoring valid points on the base assumption that I'm trying to own an article. I've addressed where I think how I'm not doing that. (I.e: engaging with Gonein60, asking for outside discussion from wikiprojects, and continuously asking you to please focus on content, not perceived backlines.) I'm more concerned with you not addressing and trying to get me into reverting an edit based on...I barely know. Accident? This again, feels like I'm getting trapped for the reasons stated above. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what else there is to say, but I think we probably re-open this with focus on the prose and not perceived biases. I feel like that shows that I'm not trying to own an article, i'm trying to find the happy medium. As the current edit, has material which has some content which I've found is wrong. (see comment again on Rue Morgue quote and Kim Newman and Yuletide quotes on it being a hard to define and smaller genre). Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you are worried reverting yourself will somehow suggest you're agreeing with consensus, I'm happy to make that reversion. Headed out now, but I'll check back in. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not trying to be bold, but yes, I've said that about three times. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made that edit. As long as @Andrzejbanas does not revert it to some preferred version of their own, I'm satisfied. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No interest in reverting at the moment, but I've opened up new discussion, as the current edit has focus and sources that disagree with each other. I look forward you to responding. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas, so we here at ANI should take this to mean that if I and other editors do not continue to generate tens of thousands of bytes of discussion daily, you are planning to revert again? Valereee (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No? Every time I suggest anything in that talk page, you assume like this. I'm sorry, but you are not assuming good faith at all. If you can't assume good faith, I suggest you take break from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not start out editing in this topic area, but was responding to what I thought might have been a request for a Third Opinion, and offered the opinion that Christmas horror is a distinct subgenre. Whether it is a fringe subgenre is not important. I will agree to the language proposed by User:Valereee or by User:GoneIn60. I thought that User: Andrzejbanas was sealioning, but I didn't feel like writing that up, and hoped that the issue would either be resolved by other editors or go away, or possibly be written up by other editors. I see that it has been written up by User:Valereee. My opinion, which is only worth what you paid me for it, is that Andrzejbanas is still sealioning. I would suggest that this dispute can be resolved in at least one of two ways. Andrzejbanas can recognize that they are in a minority, and allow the other editors to agree on language, or the community can impose a topic-ban from the area of horror films for at least sixty days (during which the other editors can agree on language). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm totally aware i'm in the minority, if like, two editors against one is a wide margin. I have to disagree @Robert McClenon that I wanted editors to go away. I've shown that I've reached out to communities and other regular WP:FILM commentators for further opinions (here and here. I was definitely rude early on. I believe I've apologized on it. I feel like since then, if I suggest anything to it, which, the current agreed upon suggestions had content that is flat out false. In fact, when I pointed it out before, Gonein60 agreed and even said just yesterday "It may be too early to call for consensus" here. When I asked Valereee to please focus on the content changes, (per WP:FOC), it led to a write-up that I'm trying to control the article. It would be a real determent to article to include it in it's current "agreed" upon form where I've stated there is flagrant misinterpretation of sources, and as further material has been found, it should require further discussion. I understand they are frustrated with me, but I think it's time to focus on prose and citations instead of presumed beliefs. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas - I didn't think that you wanted other users to go away. I was hoping that maybe the issue would go away because I didn't want to think more about it. No such luck on my part. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahh my bad. I misread there. Trust me, my current stance is to have something in the article that state what citations say. From our rough start, which is definitely my wrong doing for a good chunk, it has become difficult to contribute. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I think it would be best if you stepped away from the article for a little while. I appreciate your good faith, but you're not gaining consensus for your views, and the sheer volume of your comments on the talk page will discourage other editors from participating. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Given this, I can't help but agree that this editor should step away. Given this, it appears unlikely to happen. Valereee (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

How about yourself? Anytime I try to clear the air, make easy for other editors to read, and refresh what I believe a current issue is. You shut it down. This is against several wiki policies, you aren't assuming WP:GF. I've haven't had this much trouble with anything in any article until this in a very long time. You haven't addressed any issue I've had, I haven't reverted your edit, and still you stress I can't control myself. I'm trying to keep format. but what is up ?Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is over 80Kbytes. I have not shut anything down, I've engaged far longer than 99% of people would. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

So? I agree it's gone on long, but it's mostly because new content is not being addressed which has been found only yesterday. Per WP:TALK#USE we're supposed to communicate there. While you had made it obtuse by discussing the same topic in two threds WP:MULTI. Yes i've created a new sub-section, because WP:TALKSUBHEADING I'm trying to focus on task. Just saying "we've talked a lot" is not addressing that I've found new content that is being ignored. Now, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." You haven't given me constructive feedback, you've just been saying "this has gone on long enough". If you are done with the topic, that's great. You don't have to contribute. I'm not going to revert your edit, but I've tried to flow the topic to one course which is the current issue. You are welcome to join in, but please have something constructive about the content, not the user. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Robert McClenon's proposal for a 60 day topic ban from horror films and film genres, broadly construed, with a warning to Andrzejbanas that resuming this type of behavior anywhere on Wikipedia may lead to a sitewide block. Be concise. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, I respect the edit, but I suggest it be separated from horror films. I'm one of the more active users in WP:HORROR and have actively been trying to keep that community active (see it's talk page, and main page). I don't have an active train of these edits. If you feel I must step away from this topic, but I feel like just editing the christmas horror article and subsection of the Horror film article is enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, I stand by my recommendation. Let's hear from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – Just wanted to add that a note dropped at WT:FILM led me to the discussion around the same time as Robert McClenon. Following our third opinions, the discussion seemed to be progressing when Andrzejbanas accepted the reliability of sources in question and suggested a proposal was needed to weigh in on. Once a proposal was given, the immediate response was "I can't really find valid content within the sources mentioned to actually formulate this into something palpable" (diff). Why ask for editors' time commitment in writing a proposal if you were already at the determination nothing could be written? This was a sign of things to come in the debate. Despite the responses and alternate proposals that followed, a new concern or issue is always waiting right around the corner.
  It also appears another editor has now been canvassed directly to participate, but in fairness, this canvassed editor is a veteran editor of the Film project and a discussion notice was dropped earlier at WT:FILM. Not really sure what to make of any of this. I'll leave that up to those who have experience sorting these situations out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not cool, @Andrzejbanas Valereee (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  And another canvass Valereee (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, if I was going to solicit additional feedback, these would be two of the first editors I'd ask. Their opinions will be unbiased. However, the fact that no one was notified of these pings is concerning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  At the time, I couldn't find information, I've said that at the time where I couldn't find information. I did not canvas to get anyone to agree with me or not, we had about three people discussing it. There is nothing wrong with what I did and my requests were strictly for comment, not to swing a position one way or another. Honestly, If they agree with you, I'll be more comfortable with me feeling "it's probably just a me thing." and I'll feel better and move on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Andrzejbanas, they could be the least biased editors on the project. The problem is that by canvassing them, you've tainted their input. Valereee (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Is there any rule that I can't do that? I've asked them completely neutrally, as I've seen them edit things with little bias in the past and are long time contributors to WP:FILM. I've done this several times, and this is the only time I've heard it being treated like I'm rallying troops or something. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  For example, I've had it done to me on Talk:Ninja Gaiden (Atari Lynx)#Merge proposal This is really normal behavior. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  And the editor doing that pinged you transparently to the discussion, explaining their reason for doing so, at a point when no one else in the discussion was even disagreeing with them. The difference is obvious. I am happy to have more eyes on the discussion, but when you are in the minority and you handpick editors to invite in to the discussion and don't even mention you're doing so, it does tend to make it look like an attempt to recruit the troops. GI60 says these are editors they trust to be unbiased, so I'll let it go. Valereee (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Me saying I couldn't find anything, is an invitation to say something like "perhaps you could!" I feel like we're really twisting words here to really make me discourage anyone from editing. Since then, I have expanded on it, and both @GoneIn60: and @Valereee: have said it's not close enough to their personal definition. And both decided to progress further. I feel really quite like we're trying to twist every word I have here, to make it look like I've denying everything, while I've previously said that GoneIn60's was "the best writing" i've seen so far. GoneIn60 has also encouraged me to keep going. I feel like i'm being torn both ways here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  GI60 didn't encourage you to keep going. They made one final attempt to have a reasonable discussion, and then they too threw up their hands and we agreed we'd done everything we could. Valereee (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• The issues seem to have been resolved for now. I have no objection to this being closed or archiving with no action. Valereee (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User User:Ben qasim

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.

---

Newly created account who's sole purpose is to WP:POVPUSH in the article Balochistan. Despite being warned twice, they are still being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flux55 (talk • contribs)

Three edits and you're bringing this here?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (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.

Perpetuated false topic

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.

---

The term Functional relation is not supported by reliable sources yet an editor persists in perpetuating the disinformation that it is equivalent to a univalent relation. The issue was raised at his User Talk, but the Proposed deletion of the redirect was removed. At the target article Binary relation it is asserted that "reason=unclear whether "functional relation" refers usually to a partial or a total function", a comment derived from edits, not a search of sources (which don't exist). Intervention may be required to stop the perpetuation of fraud. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

As WP:PROD says, Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects. MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Found a source. A. Sengupta (2003). "Toward a Theory of Chaos". International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos. 13 (11): 3147–3233. doi:10.1142/S021812740300851X.
The definition is on the beginning of page 4. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sengupta's grammatical error "relations assigns" indicates lack of critical editing. The source J of Bifurcation and Chaos is far from fundamentals of relations. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

What about a course on the topic, another course (from MIT), yet another course? ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for putting Sengupta in the gap for functional at binary relation. Thus the topic has been verified and my complaint nullified. The editor that put functional for univalent has been informed of standard usage. Therefore the incident has been resolved.—Rgdboer (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment by the involved editor: I am "the editor that persists in perpetuating the disinformation ...". This content dispute should never have been put here. Moreover, the use of this page for accusing me of "disinformation" and "fraud" is totally unacceptable. Some administrator action is thus required against these personal attacks. D.Lazard (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2024 (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.

FYI, Discussion of the content issue in question is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics § "univalent relations". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Strange editing from Uskudar University

Both Asmahadad23 and Lenah_aldalati claim to be editing on behalf of Uskudar University [64] [65]. Both have been adding walls of text that appear to only have a single source at the end, and often that source has no bearing on the subject.

Asmahadad23, on Diagnosis of autism, added a whole paragraph about misdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with percentages and reasons and it was referenced by an article about misdiagnosis of hernias in children.[66] Nothing at all to do with ASD. Another paragraph on the same subject was referenced to a paper on "Misdiagnosis and mistreatment of uterine myxoid leiomyosarcoma" which, again, has no bearing on ASD.

Lenah aldalati, on Nervous system disease, removed sourced material and replaced it with four paragraphs that had a single reference at the end to an article entitled "Wound infections: an overview" that has nothing to do with nervous system diseases.[67]

I don't know if this is an actual school project or how many editors may be involved but the edits aren't actually helping the articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WP:Education noticeboard#Student assignment at Uskudar University editing medical articles. That may be sufficient management for now. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose content disputes are handled on article talk page, unless it’s suspected that the students are acting in bad faith? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's less about the students being in bad faith, and more that they may be told to edit Wikipedia with no guidance, and their grade depends on it, so adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities. The entire education program can wind up here on ANI when it becomes clear there's no real mentorship going on, and whatever program it is needs reined in.

Otherwise, normal content disputes should be handled on the article talk, yes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

“So adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities” I can’t agree with this assumption. If they don’t adhere to the rules, their edits will get reverted and they may even be blocked, how can they get good grades? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In no way is it Wikipedia's responsibility to determine what grades the students get. And we cannot let our content suffer out of concern for that. It's the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the students understand what the rules here are. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the sentence you wrote, but would like to modify it. If we're talking about responsibility,

It's the ___'s responsibility to make sure that the old Wikipedia users understand what the rules (WP:CIVIL, WikiBullying, etc.) here are.

It's ___'s (and old users) responsibility to make sure that the new Wikipedia users understand what the rules here are. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly dislike the sentences you wrote, not because I disagree with the need for mutual responsibility and respect, but because you seem to be naive about how these things really play out here. But how about we say that it's your responsibility to clean up after the student edits here? I suspect that once you go through that, you'll change your tune. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The sentences I wrote were based on the sentence you wrote ... I don’t know whether I should (strongly) like or dislike your description of me as “seem to be naive”. Perhaps I’d better view it as a compliment? After all it’s really not easy to stay naive after one has seen or got involved in all those not-so-pleasant discussions and users’ interactions here at Wikipedia (e.g., [68] [69]). I don’t think it’s anyone’s “responsibilities” to do any clean up (and whether “clean up” is needed can also be very subjective, and sometimes it’s actually content disputes between editors who disagree). I’m not sure if I should change *my tune* ([70]). IMO the discussions have gone somewhat too long and scattered, and are difficult to follow. Maybe it’s time for me to move on.. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC); 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And I don’t think I see any student violating the rules *deliberately*. All I see is, *no one* bothers to tell them the rules.

They might have completed the “ Wikipedia training modules”, I don’t know much and can’t comment on that. Anyway, I believe medical editors can do a better job to guide our new comers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC); 18:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the big problems with student editing in general. They're often given requirements by the instructor that do not match those of Wikipedia. (In this case the instructor has apparently told them that anything and everything they find on PubMed is usable, which is clearly wrong). When they get told otherwise they stick with the person who is grading them. And no one should blame them personally for this - they are being put into an impossible situation, where their grade depends not only on their own work and their instructor's beliefs, but on the actions of third parties (that is, every other Wikipedia editor). MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah... I don’t think the instructor is suggesting that *everything* in Pubmed is usable. If the instructor really *do* think so, I think it’s time for us to review our wording in WP:MEDRS to see why it gives users such an impression. Again, all these don’t belong to ANI IMO. I don’t see there are any conflicts between getting good grades and making great contributions to Wikipedia.

Agreed that no one should be blamed personally. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That said, I believe our usual practices to safeguard the accuracy of our content are still essential. There are absolutely times that reverts are needed. Just that I think students shouldn’t be labelled as more problematic than other new users. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a side-effect of having seen this happen repeatedly with poorly run education projects (aka the "Ah, shit, here we go again" phenomenon). It happens often enough that people immediately bristle when a cluster of students start editing against policy, because they know it's going to be a mess to fix & the educator likely won't have their backs.

It's well and good to not WP:BITE the newbies. It's incredibly frustrating when this keeps happening because of a project that has no controls & no recourse for correcting the inherent problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily “poorly run education projects”, it’s probably about “how good Wikipedia is run” (by us?).

• How do we welcome new medical editors

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's definitely poorly run education projects. If they were well run, it would nip a lot of this in the bud before it became a problem, or at least the educators would be the ones cleaning up the messes. Instead, it's left to us. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see much evidence in the problem or “messes” you mentioned. Perhaps you mean these problems of Wikipedia? E.g.,

• [71] [72]
• [73]

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

After looking a bit, it looks like Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts is a pretty good help sheet (notably discussing WP:MEDRS) that could deserve to be linked somewhere. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby Thanks! That page looks great. I hope we have more constructive and forward-looking comments like yours (perhaps in a different venue other than ANI though ...) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The instructor is Flower of truth. I will also notify her, on her talk page, of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto, if you're talking about the second source cited in that diff, which talks about "functional neurological disorders" instead of saying "autism", then you might be interested in PMID 35511383, "Clinical overlap between functional neurological disorders and autism spectrum disorders: a preliminary study".

I agree that some of these are not relevant sources, but we also know that anyone can accidentally paste the wrong thing in the wrong place. I hope that someone added the {{failed verification}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The second source in that diff is "Misdiagnosis of scrotal and retroperitoneal lymphangioma in children" and I don't see where it mentions "functional neurological disorders" anywhere in the text.

If you mean the first source added, "Autoimmune Encephalitis Misdiagnosis in Adults", that reference is about misdiagnosing autoimmune encephalitis not misdiagnosing ASD as the text Asmahadad23 added would lead one to believe. The only mention of "functional neurological disorders" in that source lists it as a correct diagnosis instead of the incorrect diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis, so again it is not about "The misdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in neurodevelopmentally typical children" as Asmahadad23 claimed in their edit. They are using references that don't say what they claim they say. That isn't a mere failed verification it is borderline vandalism. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I was looking at "Autoimmune Encephalitis Misdiagnosis in Adults", which says that AEM in adults is sometimes diagnosed when FND (which can include autism) should have been.

Wikipedia:Vandalism is intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia. Trying to make things better but screwing up completely is not vandalism, and neither is pasting the wrong source into the wrong place.

Misdiagnosis is a significant problem in ASD, and while these sources don't verify the statements made, the fix that's needed is primarily pasting the right sources in, rather than removing the contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

FND isn't autism, it's medically unexplained neurological symptoms. Secretlondon (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The paper I linked suggests that the division may not be quite as clean as that, and the context in which the FND paper was cited was about misdiagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Shutting it down?

As others have observed, this keeps happening. Is there a way the English Wikipedia could suspend support for these student assignments (at least in the medical area), as they seem to be a net negative for the Project as currently set up? Bon courage (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia doesn't "support" these student assignments, so we can stop what we're already not doing.

We could incentivize students to hide the fact that they're engaged in classroom-based assignments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s a “net negative” to the project. We are talking about around 27 postgraduates here. I didn’t review their edits one by one. I see none of the more positive contributions are being mentioned in all 3 discussions.

People tend to focus on problems. Further, whether an edit is a “positive contribution” can be quite subjective, for example formatting or prose problems maybe viewed by some as very negative, while others may think they’re just minor issues that can be fixed.

As for “this keeps happening”, as I’ve said in the other discussion, I believe Wikipedia has its responsibilities as well. Very often users are not well-informed, but they are *supposed* to know what they are *not* told. And it seems to me that many of us are accustomed to using warnings (and reverts) as the very first and only means to “communicate” with our new users.

IMO if new users are more well-informed at the very beginning, much less problems and cleanup will be needed. (E.g. if someone never knows a rule but we keep saying that she/he is violating the rule, of course there will be much conflicts). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

See also:

• Education noticeboard
• WikiProject Medicine talk page

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld, I have worked in the administrative part of the education sector for much of my life. To me, this seems as though it would fall under the same general guidelines as any class excursion - the instructor must understand the rules and regulations of the place they're going, and must inform the students before arrival. For example, say the class had gone to sit in a courtroom for a day - the instructor would have told them what they should and should not wear, how to behave, what they were allowed to bring and what was prohibited, and so on. If members of the class kept misbehaving, the whole class may well be removed from the courtroom.

It's true that Wikipedia has many rules and restrictions, but the students should at least be prepared with information about reliable sources, how to cite sources, and how to manage disagreement (even if that was 'simply step back from the discussion') if they were instructed to edit articles. Links to the Teahouse and relevant project pages would, in my opinion, also be vital tools. I note that Flower of truth got a welcome template about a year ago, and that they have been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years with what seems like enjoyment and competence, so the students have an instructor who appears to know what they're doing - this might sound like an obvious thing but you would be amazed at how many instructors tell students to go do something they've never done and just thought was a brilliant idea one day.

Our ability to reach out and support instructors is limited given that often we only discover students are working on assignments once disruption begins, and by that time editors who are having to do extra work are already getting a bit annoyed. They are not seeing students who have multiple assignments and classes, students who are not *volunteering* to edit Wikipedia like everyone else. They are seeing new editors who can and should take the time to learn about the Wiki before making their first edits.

I wonder whether it would be feasible to add a line to welcome templates that basically said 'are you a student or teacher? click here for resources' - or set up a different welcome template entirely to be given to apparent students/instructors. If that seems helpful, I'd definitely be very much interested in being part of the discussion around what should be there!

And a final thought - it seems that some instructors/classes return more than once. Perhaps a less disruptive assignment option that might still cover what the instructors are looking for would be 'pick a Wiki article(s?) and write a paper demonstrating how you would improve them, including citing sources'. That is what the students are doing, in any case, and if they are not actually making the edits there would be no disruption. That would hopefully decrease the anxiety some students feel when their work is reverted - how can they show they've completed the assignment when what they did was taken away again?! Anxious people can become irrational when confronted with a fear - I'm one of them, but at least I can walk away from Wikipedia without worrying about my grades! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime, I agree with you that classes need more support. As to welcome templates, yes we have many of them here and some are custom made. Ah ... your suggestion on how to manage disagreement (“simply step back from the discussion”) can sometimes be seen as “not engaging” (see below) ... I think your suggestions on how to improve course support are in line with my comments at the other two discussions, which I’ve highlighted above. You may want to continue the discussion there. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the only way to literally shut it down would be through some sort of ban (either of individual class projects, or of all of them). But the reality is that class projects are sometimes strong positives, so I don't think that we should do anything like that. Instead, the real problem is when, in a subset of class projects, we get instructors who do not engage responsibly with how to run a class on Wikipedia. For classes within the geographic remit of Wiki-Ed, the Wiki-Ed staff do an excellent (and underappreciated) job of making things work well. Here, however, the class is from Turkey, where WikiEd has no "jurisdiction". Perhaps WMF should change that. But as I've said at the Ed Noticeboard, our first step should be to try to get the instructor of this class to work with us. If that effort is rebuffed, then that will actually become an ANI issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, agree with you that class projects are sometimes strong positives. As noted by StartGrammarTime above, instructor of this class knows what they're doing, and IMO they’ve been working with us (for years I would say). You may want to join the other two discussions I’ve highlighted above to discuss further on how to aid our newcomers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You keep replying to me like I'm someone who doesn't get it, and should take more of an interest in these things from the perspective of helping student editors. I'm the primary author of WP:ASSIGN, and have been working on these issues at Wikipedia for well over a decade. I'm also a retired university professor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your long-term contribution to Wikipedia. I’m just replying to those who replied to me ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t like (non-voluntary) student editing either, I think it’s a crapshoot at best. Maybe we need to keep track of how many Wiki-Ed assignments actually result in appropriate encyclopedic content and how many result in uncited, amateurish student essays being dumped on Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST? If it’s even a plurality of the latter category we need to do something to dissuade inexperienced educators from inadvertently disrupting Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the Wiki Education Foundation only supports classes in the US and Canada (e.g., not Turkey). Also, being supported by an organization is not required. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" includes not only teenagers and retirees; it also includes students and teachers.

I think the proper comparison is against other newbies. Would you rather have an edit by a student with a textbook in hand and a teacher standing over his shoulder, or by a random kid? We see far less vandalism and self-promotion from class assignments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

By a random kid. Vandals aside, random kids who are editing in good faith tend to have a higher motivation for making good content than some college student dumping an essay on here so they can scrape a decent grade in class. They also tend to learn the rules quicker because they want to be here and aren't just forced on by the WMF's unending stream of bad ideas. Also, just the fact that they have a professor to grade them doesn't make it better; in many cases, the professor either isn't very interested in fixing their mistakes or themselves doesn't know how Wikipedia works very well. AryKun (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you are cleverer than to offer a false dichotomy like "Would you rather have an edit by a student with a textbook in hand and a teacher standing over his shoulder, or by a random kid?" Or an unfair comparison like "We see far less vandalism and self-promotion from class assignments". So, we can't be upset about this because (a) random kids and (b) vandals. Comparing to newbies is not a "proper comparison". No newbie ever opened their as yet unread class textbook, on a subject they are only beginning to learn, skipped to chapter 10, read a paragraph, and plagiarised it onto Wikipedia as a random factoid in order to try to get the 3 marks it had been assigned. It is a repeated theme of these complaints that the students are compelled to edit, unlike every other kind of editor we want to get, and their teachers are ignorant about Wikipedia and have zero intention of supervising or fixing the edits. And the teacher isn't standing over their shoulder, but asks their fellow students to PR the work. And mostly the student doesn't have a textbook but has Google and Pubmed and not a clue how to use them. Look at the opening post of this discussion. A student found https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31760407/ on the internet, an abstract summary of a medical paper, and did Select All. Copy. Paste. This is not what newbies do.

WhatamIdoing, perhaps compare your argument with paid editing? Lets see how it sounds... Would you rather have an edit by a professional who was paid to insert factual and legally sound information about a company, than vandalism and libellous tittle tattle from some aggrieved ex-customer? We see far less vandalism and bonkers mind-bendingly stupid biomedical shit from editors who are paid to write. And would you rather have an editor who only got paid after their customer had read the Wiki page and was pleased with it, or a teacher who is far too busy and has no intention of reviewing the edits, and sets "peer review" as an assignment for the class or assumes other Wikipedians will clear up the mistakes. I don't think you'd find any support for that kind of argument. There are fundamental flaws with class editing that can theoretically be mitigated by a very high level of supervision and ability by their teachers and classroom assistants, just as there are fundamental flaws with paid editing that could theoretically be mitigated if companies were altruistic and fair in a competitive world. We decided long ago that paid editing couldn't realistically be made to work. -- Colin°^Talk 09:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Colin, thanks for spotting that out. I think that paper is released under the free CC BY 4.0 license. The new editor probably see wordings like “Free fulltext” at Pubmed and thought that direct copy and paste is ok. Of course proper attribution should have been given when pasting. They probably had finished the Wikipedia training modules, but like any other training in the world, there’s no guarantee that one won’t make mistakes after being trained. I hope they were given a welcome message or something similar, with relevant reminders, before they made that edit. I believe it’s just a good faith careless mistake. As to “This is not what newbies do.” ... well ... when I was a newbie ... ok ... I forgot. But of course, like this newbie, I was acting out of good faith, plus much more ignorance ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld, I think you are trying too hard to defend it. We don't copy paste on Wikipedia and a CC BY 4.0 licence doesn't let you do that either. Our editing policy is clear: "research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words". A class that isn't taught that they must do that, isn't being taught. I am absolutely with you that many editors forget what it is like to be a newbie, and I wish some editors reacted differently.

Looking over the education noticeboard discussion I see the teacher has said "my students are afraid of editing Wikipedia and then during their editing experience some felt discouraged and quite exhausted due to some unfriendly approach or comments from some users" and later "feel quite exhausted with the current situation, which I find quite judgemental" and "I will not comment on this anymore". I previously commented over at WT:MED that the response one of their students got was imo offensive, factually incorrect and misguided, particularly in their attitude that graduate students shouldn't be editing.

The problem is the teachers. This one is clearly out of their depth, and if they have actually disengaged with the community, then probably their account should be blocked and the students informed that further edits in this class assignment will simply be reverted.

I think it may be time to have a policy that waking up one morning and deciding to run a class assignment on Wikipedia will get you blocked and a request from the community sent to your supervisor. That first and foremost Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and using it for class homework is not in our spirit the same as using it for paid promotional editing is not in our spirit. If there is a consensus that some editors think there are ways of making it work, via WikiEd, then that should be mandatory.

Students at university join clubs where they do activities on a voluntary basis. Could we not encourage universities to move over to that model, where students are encouraged to add their knowledge and guided by older students and graduates who have been there done that? I would love to see more graduate students edit Wikipedia. I am now wondering, based on the remarks by this teacher, and previous experience, whether class assignments actually put students off of the project. Like how some dreary war poem you were made to study for O-grade English put you off poetry. -- Colin°^Talk 11:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I need some experts to explain to me what this is:

• Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?
  • wmf:Terms of use#7c

Your post is somewhat too long (for me) and I probably need much time to digest it. I probably won’t be replying (soon) with a long block of text, as I’m already described as “defending too hard”. I hope no one would say I’m “disengaged”.

IMO we all make mistakes, and we are all responsible for our *own* mistakes. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Only the first paragraph is a direct reply to you. The rather obscure page you link to should not be on any students "Cheat Sheet" on how to edit Wikipedia. That's advanced-level stuff which the essay you link to should probably more explicitly warn about. Copy/paste not ever how Wikipedia should be edited. That essay is really the outcome of lots of nerdy folk saying "Yes but it is legal if you do X/Y/Z" and everyone else saying "Nobody ever does X/Y/Z and it isn't how we write an encyclopaedia, which should be summarising our sources in our own words, but if you keep insisting...". I believe Jimbo once had something to say on that matter, which is along the same lines that Wikipedia should be written by us, in our words. -- Colin°^Talk 14:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations is full of copyvios by non-students. You've found one possible copyvio (and definitely inappropriate edit). That doesn't convince me that students have more of a problem with copyvios than non-student newbies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotally I believe from an editor perspective that the way WikiEd works nowadays is quite helpful and effective. There are standard processes and professors actively engage. If they do not, the WikiEd representatives do, both in specific cases and in more general questions (eg. the interaction of courses with DYK). That shows that these sorts of editorial assignments can work (although as mentioned above we don't really have a comprehensive review). The issue outside of that is meshing the tangle of en.wiki culture with the workings of external bodies. It can be hard for these to mesh well (it's hard enough sometimes shifting between en.wiki and meta.wiki). Fixing this is tricky. On the en.wiki side, there could possibly be guidelines/policies on what the expectations are, especially for instructors. However, this would still rely on ad-hoc adherence/monitoring for each case. On the external side, fixing the needed resources in any systematic way, including the off-wiki training resources that these courses need to use, would require someone who is quite familiar with en.wiki but also has a long-term commitment to working with these educational programs. This is something that would be near-impossible for a casual volunteer, would likely be largely thankless, and would also be volunteering to be the lightning rod for whenever a program goes a bit wrong. Further, unless this was somehow preserved institutionally, much of it would disappear whenever the poor soul responsible moves onto more welcoming pastures. CMD (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

German IPs - Incivility and disruptive edits

A group of German IPs ([74], [75],[76],[77] and more) are acting kind of incivil (some) at Talk:Aramaic. Their edits has been reverted by me and another user (who also informed the IPs on this on talk). Shmayo (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(Reporting in here, since I'm involved and mentioned.) — Remsense诉 11:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I urge the admins to review the entire conversation at the Aramaic talk page before judging, especially the examples of manipulative edits by user Shmayo. He/She has been involved in countless edit-warrings for a reason. User Shmayo has, with false claims, sidelined dozens of users over the past years to the point where creating an account no longer seems worthwhile for many and has thereby unjustly gained trust, which he is now abusing. Please do not be misled by his long-standing presence on Wikipedia.2A02:3038:202:F340:E0AD:FC13:F6:DFEE (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

173.29.27.108

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.

---

173.29.27.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I think this is a static IP, at least whoever is using it is making the same disruptive edits over and over. Blocked three times before, now back doing the same unsourced and possibly nonsense edits. Merits a significantly longer block? GiantSnowman 07:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go in WP:AIV? I imagine that avenue is much faster and efficient than ANI. 92.40.212.157 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 months. El_C 12:37, 2 February 2024 (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.

Possible sockpuppetry &/or PCD + COI

Hello, I have been monitoring the article Irakli Kobakhidze from time to time. The article is one of the targets of recent sockpuppets by ArsenalAtletico2017, attempting to transform the bio into an advertismenet article, and since the subject of the article is indirectly connected to Dozens of Accounts Associated with Georgian Government on different platform, I am afraid we are dealing with PCD + COI as well, and I have an impression that we are dealing with a coordinated network here as well.--DerFuchs (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. As WP:GS/RUSUKR. El_C 12:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.--DerFuchs (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Reporting about socks

I have requested Check user at meta and found many socks. A few of them already uploaded some images that were deleted and again uploaded here.

Group 1

SwamyAyya566 (talk · contribs · logs), ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk · contribs · logs), AryaPadaiKadanthaAurelius (talk · contribs · logs), DonParlo (talk · contribs · logs), كريشنا الداعي (talk · contribs · logs)

Group 2

17289ha (talk · contribs · logs), Tamil career advise (talk · contribs · logs), சூர்யநாராயணன் (talk · contribs · logs), 1gy9No (talk · contribs · logs), Edu-info-goodwriting (talk · contribs · logs), Btytatg (talk · contribs · logs)

• DonParlo (talk · contribs · logs) created an article which I requested for delete, and the user also started creation and work. eg: Sandbox
• 17289ha (talk · contribs · logs) uploaded some images that were deleted in Commons

I hope admins can take proper action. AntanO 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No copyvivo images were uploaded here. Relevent tags are mentioned for non-free images. Also commons I myself asked to delete all. So, my account can be discarded. I guess 17289ha (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't uploaded anything; why am I even mentioned? كريشنا الداعي (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sock reports are best dealt with at WP:SPI – robertsky (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

IP user 104.145.207.202

Since this IP was initially active, every single one of their edits were vandalism. Despite being warned several times, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. ''Flux55'' (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Apparent legal threats and battleground mentality - same day as unblock

XiounuX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making legal threats, though ostensibly threatening to take legal action themselves but instead threatening other users that the author of a paper who has been determined not to be reliable is taking legal action.

When a source was dismissed at Talk:Sun because the author was seen to not be reliable, XiounuX said By the way, I also notified Dr. Omerbashich about the above libel by you undergrad kids, and the man is contacting Wikipedia's legal department as we speak.[78] They later doubled down on this, saying Another libel. Dr. Omerbashich is certaintly building his legal case here.[79]

This user was only unblocked today. They seem to have other behavioural issues, as they were bafflingly belligerent in their unblock notice[80] and when the perfectly reasonable thread on Talk:Sun was started, they responded to it with No one gets to vote on basic science. Go and vandalize articles from your purview[81] (that link is to beauty pageant).

Clearly this user is WP:NOTHERE and the project is not better for their presence.

@Dennis Brown: I believe you were the admin who handled this originally. — Czello ^(music) 15:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed talk page access. There's clearly an issue with their mentality that will not be resolved if we unblocked again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The first block was for alleged abuse of multiple accounts. I was a bit skeptical of that rationale, so I reached out to Dennis, and Dennis unblocked.

However, given the behavior after the first block (legal threats, personal attacks, edit warring, general belligerence, etc.), I think an indef is presently justified, and I endorse SFR’s block as such. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 16:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• I support the block. I still feel that they are sock of someone (and the behavior afterwards doesn't diminish that gut feeling), but I admit the evidence was rather thin, so have no issue with the request to revert my own block. In the end, it doesn't matter as the editor is obviously not here to be a part of a collaborative environment, so however it is done isn't as important as the fact that it is done. Dennis Brown 2¢ 21:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Constant reversions

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.

---

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

Hello. I have been involved in a dispute with User:Therlinsideman over the Australia cricket team. To summarise the problem, Australia’s current captain in the ODI format is Pat Cummins. He is being rested from the next series that Australia play and Steve Smith is acting as stand-in captain. Generally, we have the permanent captain listed on Wikipedia, however, Therlinsideman has constantly been adding Steve Smith as the current Australia ODI captain, which is untrue as he is not the permanent captain. I have attempted to discuss this with them on their talk page (diff), however, I got no reply. They left a message for me on my talk page, but when I replied to it, there was no further response (diff). Their only justification given has been that Cummins is missing the next series, however, when I explain the problem in their edits, I have received no reply. I have also given them warnings on their edits but they have continued reverted since their final warning.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 22:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Steve Smith is listed as interim captain as Australia are not scheduled to play ODIs til September meaning for the intermediate time Steve Smith is the acting captain, just as is Mitch Marsh is in the T20I role! Therlinsideman (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Therlinsideman: Smith would only be listed as the interim captain if Cummins had been sacked or had resigned. Marsh is listed as interim because there is no permanent captain in T20Is as of now.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 22:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Cummins isn't permanent captain if he isn't the captain for the next series as he if fit to play but has not been selected for the interim time Therlinsideman (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Therlinsideman: He is the permanent captain as there has been no official announcement regarding a change in permanent captaincy. He has only been rested from a series. That does not equate to removal as permanent captain.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 22:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That is a content dispute, which is fit for the relevant talk pages (or, if that leads nowhere, you can go to places like WP:3O). This noticeboard is for discussing behavior issues, not content itself. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 23:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(non--admin comment) As a disinterested outsider (I have a view, but I'm a Pom so what do I know?), I suggest opening a discussion at WP:WikiProject Cricket with the aim of reaching WP:CONSENSUS there. Narky Blert (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2024 (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.

Disruptive editing at Christopher Columbus

Christopher Columbus

An editor, M.Bitton, is adamant about there being a "disputed" inline tag to the "Italian" descriptor in the lead for Christopher Columbus. These types of disputes arise frequently, of course, but in this case, the issue was recently brought in an RfC in October, closed with the consensus to keep "Italian."

Several editors, including myself, have been engaging with this editor over the past week, and the discussions are circular, with the editor feeling we have not sufficiently addressed their questions. I believe the questions were addressed by several other editors, and there is still a clear consensus to retain "Italian."

Four editors (including me) have removed the "disputed" inline tag, only to have M.Bitton revert:

Diff

Diff

Diff

Diff

And they are repeating the same question over and over, despite it being addressed by multiple editors:

Diff

Just looking for some kind of admin input on whether this behavior might be disruptive, or alternatively, if we're in the wrong in removing the tag.

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• The OP first refused to address the raised issues (which were never discussed previously, contrary to what they claim) and then, when they attempted to answer a simple question, they made a claim that they couldn't substantiate when asked to so so (basically, they claimed that the word "Italian" refers to his nationality). The others responses were just as vague, but I won't bore you with the details since the discussion is there for anyone to see. M.Bitton (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  With great respect, M.Bitton, I beg you to drop the stick, or at least change up your approach. There's almost no situation in which it is productive to say "I'm not playing this silly game. The question is there and it will be repeated however many times it takes until it gets answered." If this is a situation where local respondents are all getting it wrong, despite how right you are, you should seek further dispute resolution rather than repeat your question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's taken out of context. How can I seek a dispute resolution when editors refuse to define what the ambiguous word stands for? It's only by answering that simple question that we'll know which board to take the issue to. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  1AM and LAME come to mind. And if you're not sure how to seek dispute resolution, read the instructions at WP:DR and proceed from there; if you continue to revert without addressing this, you will likely be pblocked from that article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  No need. If some articles are exempt from certain guidelines and policies, then I guess, they will be used as examples to follow. M.Bitton (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  And you should read Wikipedia:SEALION and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Bears247 community ban proposal

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.

---

Bears247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the third time I've brought this user to ANI (March 2022, April 2022). Since then, they've been indeffed three times (block log) for various disruptive editing. They were blocked twice for persistent additions of unsourced content and a third time for pushing a series of edits without a true consensus despite repeated oppositions from other editors (User talk:Bears247#Final warning). They were most recently unblocked two weeks ago, and since then many of their edits are unsourced (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.) and another one of the problematic edits (related to the third indef) was also made ([82]). There are many warnings from me and others on their talk page (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and at this point I don't think this user is competent enough to edit Wikipedia given how many chances they've received. I could post yet another warning on their talk page about unsourced edits, but would the 10th+ warning make a difference? I am proposing a community ban here since the first three indefinite blocks were unable to stick. (Before the jokes start, yes I am aware we have extremely similar usernames.) (Reworded for clarity 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)) Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

An unbearable similarity. I feel bad. I believed in this user. Gave another chance. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't really understand what pressing issues are there post-latest unblock. It wouldn't surprise me that there would be, but I'm not immediately seeing it. Eagles247, can you provide a summary + diffs of a couple of these? El_C 23:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  El_C, are the six recent diffs above not enough? Cullen328 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Oops, reading comprehension failure, I apologize. El_C 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support community ban. One, two, three strikes and then you're out, and out is where we are. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:IDHT. I don't see any path forward. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Sad support for a community ban. Admins have worked to prevent this, but here we are. BusterD (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Alternative proposal I’ve never interacted with this editor, but the issue appears limited to biographies of American Footballers. Perhaps we could first try a topic ban from American Football, broadly construed? Perhaps they won’t be interested in participating in other topic areas - but perhaps they will, and away from this area that they are so clearly enthusiastic for perhaps they will be more willing to use sources? BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but to me the number of warnings suggest that they will cause disruption on any topic they are "enthusiastic" about. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support it does not appear that this editor has any interest in learning from feedback, or blocks. Time to move on. Star Mississippi 03:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support The fact they were indeffed twice, let alone three times, is a major red flag to me. Unless there are some truly impressive mitigating factors here, I feel compelled to support as not understanding what the issues with their editing are. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 04:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - let's not waste any more time on this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per baseball; 3 strikes and you are out. Toketaa^talk 13:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• It's quite possibly a joe job, but ... I just happened to notice there's a newly-minted Bear2647 (talk · contribs) at the help desk, mentioning an old account. Might warrant a {{cu-requested}}, or maybe someone wants to just block the sock/joejob? There's pretty much zero chance it isn't one or the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

   Unrelated - doesn’t seem to be connected to the account under discussion here. firefly ( t · c ) 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  That would be me. I had to close my old account of 22 years rather quickly for security reasons. I didn't have time to move my saved articles. IF there is a way to import them, great. Would save me a lot of time. Bear2647🐨 Bear2647 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't want to cast aspersions, but I'm surprised how someone could have been here for 22 years and still not know that Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I consider myself a moderator. So much less stuffy than admin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Would you settle for 'adminerator'? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I like "custodian" myself. Humble, but necessary -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm more surprised that someone who claims to have been here for 22 years claims an account that was created in February 2020 is 22 years old. Given there is no technically verified relationship between the accounts and no technical way to re-assign WP data, I've sprayed troll-b-gon on 2647. DMacks (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support The editor has used up several "last chances". Cullen328 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support They have had enough chances, enough is enough. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 01:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• For extra context, are the edits mentioned adding false information? SWinxy (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:VERIFIABILITY. Focusing more on the former can make us even less reliable. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  And that is the crux of the matter. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support Based on what myself and another editor who I saw eye to eye with, went through on several occasions. Check the revision history on Marcell Dareus and George Iloka. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Don't know if I'm too late but I do support this as well. I've seen this issue with this editor a few other times. It's been made clear multiple times and there's no other choice.--Rockchalk717 22:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support under WP:CIR. The user's been warned and blocked so many times that if they don't get it by now, they likely never will. The Kip 22:54, 1 February 2024 (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.

Disruptive editing and failure to engage at Talk page

MarioFan294 (talk · contribs) has engaged in a few different patterns of disruptive editing, and more concerningly, is not acknowledging messages left at their Talk page notifying them of these disruptive edits.

What I primarily noticed is MarioFan adding film soundtrack track listings to film articles where they aren't merited, in violation of MOS:FILMSCORE.[83][84][85], other examples available. This resulted in my leaving them a message at their Talk page on January 25,[86] which they failed to acknowledge, instead continuing to add tracklistings as recently as earlier today.[87].

Additionally, they've repeatedly added information to articles without providing proper sourcing...in fact, their contributions have included CN tags.[88][89][90]. They were notified that this was inappropriate on multiple occasions.[91][92].

In the end, the biggest problem is simply that they're not engaging with any of the comments being left on their Talk page, and instead are just continuing to engage in their problematic editing patterns.

I find myself forced to request that they be blocked until they show a willingness to engage with their fellow editors and discontinue their disruptive editing patterns. DonIago (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

588 edits, and exactly 0 to article talk pages, and 1 to user talk pages (bizarrely, this issuing of a blocked notification to an IP that was never blocked). I tend to agree with the OP. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I have p-blocked the editor indefinitely from article-space. Block log note: Persistent failure to heed warnings on user talk page, or discuss on article talk pages. Please engage with the editors at either the article talk page, or at ANI, or on your user page. You will only be unblocked when you start do so. Happy for them to be unblocked (without checking with me) if/when they start participating on article and/or user talk pages, and preferably here also to explain their actions. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you for your prompt response! DonIago (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Insults

Baba Mica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [93] "if you are at all intelligent", "What's your brain" and there is more. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to post a comment to the talk page, but on checking Baba Mica's talk page I see that an incident report has already been filed. This level of personalization in a comment is just asking for a block and TBAN, and especially so in this topic area. There's very little room to tolerate this manner of belligerence. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the entire Wikipedia has been reduced to a pile of garbage and pamphlets without an iota of objectivity. Whenever I go back to Wikipedia, I just get annoyed by the nebula of various users who immediately after my proposal to form or restore some removed articles started a topic to remove two key elements in this war Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. As if someone from the Syrian Civil War asked to remove ISIL because it is a puppet of Qatar, FSA because it is a puppet of Western powers and Gulf monarchies, Al Nusra Front because it is a puppet of Turkey, SDF because it is a puppet of the USA, Rojava because it is a puppet of Israel, the PLO and Hezbollah because they are a puppet of Palestine and Hezbollah because they are a puppet of Iran. Unbelievable, what a provocation. Block me and I want all my contributions for the past 15 years removed. If I experienced this in the year 2024 and should not exist in your registry. I tried to compose articles for days and nights with a lot of my physical difficulties with a very modest knowledge of the English language, but as far as I can see, on the topic of Ukraine, so much bias and lack of objectivity has taken hold that it is unbearable for a normal person. There. Maybe this man is smart and I'm not normal? Maybe he has too much brain, and I no longer have it, or my brain is completely stunted and needs to be chipped, because I see that it has become normal since three days ago. Maybe this user needs to chip my brain so that I can somehow become the new normal? I apologize, I don't fall for such dirty tricks. If it is normal for you that DNR and LNR be removed from the template of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, then feel free to do so. It will be an honor for me to leave here forever because you won't make a fool of me. Your foolish theories that only Ukraine and Russia are the warring parties in this biggest armed conflict since the Second World War are not even grown up fairy tales for small children. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the worst and most biased article in Wikipedia history. After him, the worst article is the Yugoslav wars. That is my position and I will never change it. No one gives a concrete answer or any idea to my logical questions on the talk page, and the stupidity of this user who complains about me is immediately answered. I am ashamed of what the article Russian invasion of Ukraine looks like. — Baba Mica (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Baba Mica for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Their contributions for the past 15 years will not be removed wholesale. The license that the editor agreed to with every edit they made over those years does not permit that. By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

They have threatened to sue people in the past as well. Just recently [[94]] on an article talk page. "What you have done is blatant discrimination and blatant insolence and rudeness and I could sue you for it." And on their talk page they also talked about wanting to 'sue someone for vandalism'. But the latter was some years ago, the yellow vest protest header on their talk page from 2022. Surely intended to create a chilling effect. 188.118.188.126 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to TBan them from RUSUKR or EE while we're at it? The contentious topics regimes, both ArbCom and community, exist in part to kerb this sort of partisan behaviour. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if i am even allowed to mention the ECP area in the context of admin actions, but having glanced at some of their comments... A tban from at least the RUSUKR area wouldn't seem like a bad idea. Otherwise, if possible, just yank their ECP rights and let them work to gain it again. Not even a tban and proving their ability to work with others in the next 500 edits in other areas could be a decent preventative measure, as it cuts out a big problem area and would have an incentive for them to prove their good faith. Either they do behave and better themselves or they don't then. 188.118.188.126 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(random passerby with much experience in the topic area) Anything that would reduce the strife in this topic area would be a good thing. I support either proposal. I am not involved in the current kerfuffle, and I have never encountered this editor, but I am of the opinion that Mr rnddude and Manyareasexpert routinely take a great deal in stride and would not both be here if matters were not out of hand (although the response alone tells us this, really). Please do use the CT tools. Elinruby (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether the <r> in Bryne should be a flap or voiced uvular fricative

There's an anon (User:178.232.196.246) who keeps changing the IPA from [ˈbrỳːnə] to [ˈbʁỳːnə] against MOS:IPAINTEGRITY. I'd appreciate some help with that. Sol505000 (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

<Admin hat on> 1: I've changed the title of this section to make this a bit more specific. 2: I think the first step here should have been to go to User talk:178.232.196.246 to first explain what MOS:IPAINTEGRITY means, and then explain why their changes were not in line with that. 3: Talk:Bryne does appear to have a discussion about this. Maybe there should be? </Admin hat> Taking my own advice, next thing I do will be to try to look for ways to resolve this issue.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thatsyrianitalian

Can someone please intervene with this user, User:Thatsyrianitalian? They already had quite a few warnings on their talk page about a number of issues (copyright, lack of neutrality), and yesterday I brought their new creations to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Abdel Latif Fathy after they removed my "fanpov" tag twice[95][96].

At the discussion and on their talk page, User:Slatersteven tried to inform them about some issues (including their use of personal attacks), and other editors tagged issues on other articles, only to be reverted as well[97][98]. I restored one with an explanation in the edit summary, but was again reverted[99] with in the edit summary "can u point out whats wrong" even though I did. I then checked their most recent contribution and tagged again the issues, but was reverted again[100]. I see no improvement in their editing nor in their attitude, considering that they then created Ghada El-Shamaa where three of the four sources are Wikipedia mirrors. Wikipedia can have a steep learning curve, but in such a case editors should show willingness to learn instead of rejecting every indication that there may be something wrong with their creations. Just give them a temporary ban on removing tags from their articles or something similar, and warn them for personal attacks. Or make them go through AfC to make sure that their articles get reviewed before they hit the main space. Fram (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure if action is needed right now. They have apologized (in part [[101]]). But they do seem very confrontational and combative, but this may be a language thing. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

On one hand, I think some newbie latitude is warranted here. They clearly don't know what a reliable source is, or why bare URLs are problematic, or why we use maintenance tags, and it looks to me like we've been splashing them with alphabet soup instead of trying to explain in plain terms. I'll try. Of course there's a limit, and the personal attacks need to stop immediately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all, my pages are all fine, unlike you, when people see the wrong, they edit, and I thank them. My tone is very normal, and as I said, "do u have no life?", I do truly mean it, because you are only caring about my pages that are totally fine, if it bothers you that much, be a help and tell me where to change and a better option, or if you really want, you can do it yourself and edit it. Thatsyrianitalian (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop marking my pages!

Thanks! Thatsyrianitalian (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Um coming into ANI and making personal attacks against other users as you just did, is not a good look if you want people to take kindly to your edits. Canterbury Tail talk 18:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

They were not fine, and that is not an excuse for violating wp:npa (even if they were). I suggest you read the policies I linked to on your talk page. If you keep this up you will bet a sanction. Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Also read wp:cir we cannot explain to you every little thing you do wrong, you do actually have to make some effort to understand the policy. So when you are told "do not use peacock words" you have to understand what we mean. You can't expect us to list every word that is wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Im a starter so u can be a help and help edit or just tell me where to focus because from my point of view what im writing is just fine. Thatsyrianitalian (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Thatsyrianitalian, I haven't even worked on these pages, but it is very disrespectful in this global intellectual environment to use "u" instead of taking two more keystrokes to say "you". I don't even talk to my decades-long personal friends with "u"; please don't do that to us here. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

how is that disrespectful?? its a quick 'you' Thatsyrianitalian (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No need to consider my previous response. I can occasionally be unprofessional, and I appreciate your correction. Thank you for pointing out the issue, and I acknowledge your correctness. Thatsyrianitalian (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what those messages on your talk page are for. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You are very much correct, Thanks! Thatsyrianitalian (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for any disrespect. I genuinely agree with your expertise, especially considering my newness to Wikipedia and editing. I admit I may not be as skilled as you, and at times, frustration gets the better of me. If possible, I would greatly appreciate your guidance and assistance in identifying any issues with my pages. Thank you. Thatsyrianitalian (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

After conducting additional research, I have come to agree with your viewpoints. I would appreciate your guidance in refining my pages to ensure their accuracy. I apologize for any disrespect. Thatsyrianitalian (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, someone quickly learned punctuation, let's hope they pick up the rest of editing just as fast. Levivich (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No need to be rude :) Thatsyrianitalian (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Questionable editing by User:Baratiiman

Baratiiman (talk · contribs) appears to be inserting WP:OR, commentary and possibly falsified statements that are not supported by sources they cite despite at least two warnings given. Had also been called out multiple times by various editors for inserting grammatically incoherent statements that had to be either significantly revised or removed altogether.

See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Marg_Bar_Sarmachar&diff=prev&oldid=1197127942 (called out for WP:OR and loaded language; see their talk page)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=February_2024_United_States_bombing_of_Iraq_and_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=1202620487 (none of the citations they used support their conclusion)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tower_22_drone_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1201862168 (statements not found in source cited)

Borgenland (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for Assistance - Creation of Wikipedia Page for Annamalai Kuppusamy

Dear Administrators,

I am writing to request assistance regarding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Annamalai Kuppusamy, who serves as the state chief of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Tamil Nadu state of India. Despite Annamalai Kuppusamy's prominence in Tamil Nadu politics and significant coverage in mainstream English, Hindi, and Tamil media outlets such as The Hindu, The Times of India, Indian express, and BBC Tamil, I encountered restrictions while attempting to create a Wikipedia page for him in English.

Annamalai Kuppusamy has garnered attention for his leadership role within the BJP in Tamil Nadu and his contributions to the political landscape of the state. His notable achievements and activities are extensively covered by reputable sources, including major news agencies and newspapers. Additionally, Annamalai Kuppusamy already has Wikipedia pages in Tamil, Malayalam, and Hindi, further underscoring his notability and relevance.

The creation of a Wikipedia page for Annamalai Kuppusamy aligns with Wikipedia's policies on notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), and neutrality (WP:NPOV). Annamalai Kuppusamy meets the notability criteria as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines, given his significant coverage in reliable sources and leadership position within a notable political party. Furthermore, his absence on English Wikipedia deprives readers of valuable information about a significant political figure in Tamil Nadu.

I am committed to ensuring that the proposed article meets Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I have reviewed the previous deleted article request, which may have been affected by political biases, and I am prepared to address any concerns raised by administrators. I kindly request your assistance in addressing the restrictions preventing the creation of a Wikipedia page for Annamalai Kuppusamy in English.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am available to provide any additional information or clarification as needed.

Sincerely, Thatsvilen (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thatsvilen: This doesn't require administrator attention at all; new users are prohibited from creating new pages in mainspace until they're autoconfirmed. If you think Kuppusamy meets Wikipedia policies, you are welcome to try your hand at creating a draft on him, but I strongly suggest you read through WP:YFA thoroughly, and maybe push the thought of creating a draft away until you've gained experience in editing pre-existing articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Tenryuu,

Thank you for your prompt response and guidance regarding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Kuppusamy, the state chief of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Tamil Nadu.

I appreciate your clarification regarding the restrictions on new users creating pages in mainspace until they are autoconfirmed. However, I would like to bring to your attention that the issue at hand is not solely about my ability as a new user to create a draft. Rather, it pertains to the contention surrounding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Kuppusamy due to biases and restrictions that have been placed on the topic.

I believe this situation warrants administrative attention due to the unique circumstances surrounding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Kuppusamy. As mentioned in my initial request, Kuppusamy has significant coverage in reputable English, Hindi, and Tamil media outlets, and he already has Wikipedia pages in Tamil, Malayalam, and Hindi. Despite this, attempts to create a page for Annamalai Kuppusamy in English have been met with restrictions, possibly due to biases against the politician.

I assure you that I am well aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including those outlined in WP:YFA. However, given the contentious nature of this particular draft and the restrictions placed on it, I believe that administrative intervention is necessary to uphold Wikipedia's core policy of maintaining a WP:NPOV.

I respectfully request your reconsideration of this matter and your assistance in addressing the issues surrounding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Annamalai Kuppusamy. If there are any specific steps or guidelines I should follow in this regard, please feel free to provide further guidance.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Thatsvilen (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Annamalai Kuppusamy Please check this already existed draft for reference. Thatsvilen (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The draft and the article itself have both been WP:SALTed, incidentally that is the page that contains guidance on how "Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content" can go about managing to do so. It goes without saying that trying to restore a SALTed version is not one of the ways to go about it.

Just as an aside, and I don't say this to be rude, but if you are using ChatGPT or another AI to assist you in writing these comments (as it appears you are doing to me) then you might want to make sure that your grasp of English is good enough to write an article before actually attempting to do so.

– 2804:F14:80C4:6501:F90A:5BF2:504C:9AA6 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, to some extent, I have utilized ChatGPT to refine my comments, but I do not believe that it violates any Wikipedia policy. Regarding your suggestion of WP:SALT, I am truly grateful. I will attempt to submit a draft article to the protecting administrator and await their response. Thatsvilen (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding ChatGPT- I don't think it is a formal policy, but editors want to hear from other editors, not bots that they use. If your English skill is such that you need a bot to communicate(which doesn't seem to be the case with you, just saying) you would be better off editing the version of Wikipedia that is in a language that you have a better command of. Your talk page comments do not need to be gramatically and stylistically perfect- we just want to hear from you. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's also hard to know if the editor using AI fully comprehends what the AI has generated. Often I doubt that they do. Another reason to insist on editors not using AI at least on talk pages. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And regarding the concerns about ChatGPT, I understand, and I assure you that these latest comments are entirely my own and not generated by ChatGPT. Thatsvilen (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Be advised that what you are attempting will be very challenging and you will need to overcome the concerns raised in the deletion discussion(linked above). It would be rare for a local party official to have the coverage needed to merit an article. The local head of the Maine Democratic Party would not merit an article as few sources write about them personally. You would need to summarize independent reliable sources that discuss what makes them important/significant/influential as a person- do they have a particular influence on party activites? Have they created unique political strategies that others try to emulate and write about? Have they created certain public policies that have been implemented? Those are just some examples of what coverage we might be looking for. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear @331dot In addressing the concerns raised in the deletion discussion, I prefer not to engage in debates regarding whether Annamalai holds specific influence over party activities, has devised unique political strategies that others emulate and write about, or has formulated specific public policies. The media articles unequivocally affirm these assertions. However, if certain individuals choose to disregard this evidence and instead focus solely on arguing against his notability, then regrettably, there is little I can do to sway their perspective. It's worth noting that the primary contention in the deletion discussion centered not on Annamalai's notability but rather on concerns that previous editors may have exhibited biases, resulting in the draft being perceived as promotional and violating WP:NPOV. Regarding notability, the presence of extensive coverage in national media outlets, as evidenced by the reference articles I have provided, unequivocally satisfies the criteria outlined in WP:N for notability. Thatsvilen (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thatsvilen, FYI, people here hate reading ChatGPT material. You’re right that we don’t have a formal policy yet but ChatGPT’s style bothers people. It makes you sound long-winded, pompous and pedantic. I’m sure in person that you are none of those things.

Just be yourself. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In general, writing long-winded formal sentences isn't needed: provided you do the minimum and aren't explicitly rude, what matters is the points you make rather than how formally you write them. And conciseness, readability also help get to the points. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, pretty sure that long-winded formal sentences are my natural style ~ Falkner is one of mine idols ~ maybe i should use ChatGPT to sound less pompous and pedantic, more human. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The comparison with the chief of the Maine Democratic Party isn't really very close. That is the dominant party in a state of a bit over a million, but this subect is chief of a minor party in a state of about 72 million, but which controls the national government. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the overall point that there needs to be sources about this man is still correct. It may be more likely with a larger population(though India as a whole is larger too which might claw back some of that factor) 331dot (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Goodness gracious me. I don't think I've ever come across another subject with such strong desire to have a Wikipedia article, and such weak credentials to merit one. Just about every imaginable permutation of this person's name + title + role etc. has been protected already... and here we are debating it, yet again. Honestly, I despair. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that he has such weak credentials to merit an article. He has just become the chief of the national governing party in a state with a population of 72 million, larger than any US state and many independent countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as despite being the national ruling party, the BJP is almost completely a non-entity in Tamil Nadu. Regardless, this is a discussion that must occur at WP:DRV, not here. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This is all moot. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 2 closed as "recreation (under any title) is disallowed, pending submission of a competent draft to DRV" (emphasis mine). So the person filing this section here is required to formulate a competent draft (they can do it in their userspace if the draft-space is SALTed), declare their conflict of interest, and then file at WP:DRV. Daniel (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

ok @Daniel i got your point, give me sometime to make a good level draft to the best of my Wikipedia policies, then i will submit it for review to WP:DRV. Thatsvilen (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to declare a) any conflict of interest you have; b) if you have any relation to any other editors on Wikipedia who have edited this article; or c) if you have been paid to write this article. Daniel (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Geez, new editors are now using AI to speak for themselves on here? Is one's own thoughts not adequate enough??? But yeah, seems most AI-generated comments tend to have WP:TLDR issues. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the nature of these LLMs, they love being loquacious. Almost as much as they love being wrong. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If I were an admin I'd block Thatsvilen for WP:CIR, using an LLM/ChatGPT showcases that the user is not competent for wiki that plus the request to recreate a salted article brings WP:PROMO WP:NOTHERE concerns. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Persistent stuffing of notable alumni sections at Ormond College

• 101.184.28.99 (talk · contribs)
• 103.79.172.32 (talk · contribs)

For good measure, in case it's the same user, a dormant account:

• Ormond Archivist (talk · contribs)

Okay, the article is a promotional piece to begin with. Recent edits by IPs have been adding alums in violation of WP:WTAF. Many of the persons do not have stand alone articles, but are listed as honorees in other articles, and are misleadingly linked to appear as if they have bios here. Needs further cleanup, with possible page protection and user sanctions if this continues. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, well over half the article is a list of "notable alumni" most of which is unsourced? If it can't be directly sourced, and they don't have their own Wikipedia article, nuke em. Canterbury Tail talk 14:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

All of the ones that don't have their own article are gone. I picked half a dozen others at random, and whilst all of their article contain reference to their education at Ormond, precisely none of those sentences were sourced, so ... Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor abuse on The Eras Tour

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.

---

So first, I re-add a maintence tag for the film section because it was removed saying to start a talk page discussion. Even though the editor who re-added the tag then started a discussion. HorrorLover555 did eventually participate but should’ve commented first. Then, El C semi-protected the page for a year for issues that could’ve been resolved with PC. Ronherry removed the tag, saying it’s a drive by, refusing to participate in the discussion on the talk page despite encouraging one before. I think it’s time to stop this abuse. SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Evidence of Ronherry wanting a talk page discussion he is now refusing to comment in - [102]. SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing what part of this is supposed to be "abuse". The page was protected for unsourced editing, and no one, including yourself, have even opened a talk page discussion at the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a section on the talk page, did you even care to look? I just commented on it! SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that it? It was so vague I couldn't tell what it was about. It was also 2-3 days old and, as you just admitted, you hadn't even bothered to respond at the time if you starting this discussion. How are you going to complain about lack of discussion when you're hardly doing any yourself? Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I was waiting for Ronherry.SwiftFan2024 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

SwiftFan2024 Please read Ronherry's edit summary here. There is already an article for where the maintenance tag was being added, with IP being warned not to argue in the expand section of the maintenance tag for their POV. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In general it’s better to keep the info in one place. SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This does not rise to the level of WP:ANI... talk it out before bringing it here, this thing is a communal platform. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried talking it out, no one responded so we’re here.SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be unsurprised that other editors are not massively co-operative when the edit-summary for your first ever edit at Wikipedia reads Actually the issue IS on the talk page, so maybe reply here instead of reverting and sounding like a hypocrite, ok?. Hm? Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (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:Pierrevang3 aggressive editor constantly edit warring and misusing Wikipedia policy and tools

An RFC was opened on a talk page concerning multiple articles. As the discussion is ongoing, user User:Pierrevang3 then aggresively reverts edits

Trà Vinh province

1 2

Trà Vinh

3 4

Sóc Trăng

5 6

without proper closing of RFC (which has not even concluded) and then justifies his reverting actions because the previous ANI was "archived" 7, RFC has not concluded yet makes his edit the "original" one. The RFC also concerns me and User:Pierrevang3 so by him being the one to take sporadic action on his own and breaking Wikipedia's rules and policies does not follow good faith. This is not the first time either. Also resorts to personal attacks and accusations 10 1 2 and improper use of Wikipedia tools, accusing me of edit warring by placing two edit warring warnings in quick succession 8 9 on my talk:page despite only reverting once because RFC is still ongoing, then proceeds to reject RFC policy through snarky edit summaries. Clearly this aggressive tone and edit warring of this user does not follow good faith.1.43.160.10 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The article on Sóc Trăng province is also part of the general dispute.

Sóc Trăng province

[103] [104] Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Accuses me yet again of something I'm not doing. This is a personal attack. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Tusk001

Tusk001 (talk · contribs · logs) has been involved in multiple instances of addition of box office figures from unreliable sources after mulitple warnings (1,2) and exhaustive discussions on talk page. They are admant on repeating the same even after multiple attempts to make them understand what is wrong, but they retort by personal attacks (3). Thanks — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that after this was posted, Tusk001 went admin shopping, and tried to rope me into barging into the dispute to impose their side of events over the other one. I don't really edit on Indian film at all except the occasional routine wikignoming cleanup of categorization errors when one gets thrown directly into Category:Indian films alongside or instead of the appropriate "Indian [genre] films" subcategory, so I don't know what sources are reliable or not when it comes to Indian films and ain't getting involved — but felt I should note that an attempt was made to solicit my admin hammer. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Has also tried to admin shop @Valereee too. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, @Tusk001, very few things on Wikipedia are actually urgent, and correcting box office figures for films is definitely not one of them. Valereee (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) have added some permalinks to the warnings, past discussions regarding the edits and mentioning about WP:ICTFSOURCES (the guideline followed in Indian film articles for citations), and the personal attacks, into the opening statement, since those were archived, completely or partially by the user. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I also note looking at Tusk001's talk page, it is clear they are using ChatGPT or some other LLM to respond to concerns. See User talk:Tusk001 #January 2024 for example. @The Herald can you please provided specific diffs of attacks? S0091 (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

4 and 5 to be specific. Even though I don't mind them commenting on my [hurt] ego (lol), I don't think this is an appropriate platform for any such remark. Also, I have notified them about WP:LLM previously. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For now, I have issued Tusk001 a warning about the WP:PAs and advised them to start a discussion on the article's talk page along with some additional recommendations. S0091 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Chris Troutman - Portal Fernandez Concha

@Chris troutman

I feel the editor has been unhelpful and hasnt properly analysed the facts. The discussion is stalemated and not progressing. Chris started to treat me in away that I felt was offensive.

Chris said "That's a shame because ability to write directly implicates literacy and is indicative of cognitive ability." Which I feel to be offensive and unsuitable for collaborative working.

User talk:Chris troutman#Portal Fernandez Concha TraceySear840 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Troutman's comment that you're letting ChatGPT reply for you, which is a really good way to undermine your own case. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional context:

• Draft:Portal Fernandez Concha
• User talk:Ruud Buitelaar#Portal Fernandez Concha

Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen @Jéské Couriano - The comments I made are valid and collegiate. The response from Chris is not collaborative and offensive. WP:PA WP:AVOIDYOU & importantly Wikipedia:Civility + Wikipedia:Civility#Assume_good_faith + Wikipedia:Casting aspersions TraceySear840 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Were you using AI to compose your replies? This is a simple, straightforward question, and it should not require a wall of text to answer it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So Chris wrote (diff):

• "TraceySear840: These walls of text are unwelcome and unconvincing. I assume you're abusing AI to write what you cannot, yourself, manage. That's a shame because ability to write directly implicates literacy and is indicative of cognitive ability. Don't be surprised if the editing community turns against you in rapid fashion as we'd more likely just block you to silence you. Do not post here ever again. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)"

Yikes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

TraceySear840, Chris is correct about the walls of text. You don't need several paragraphs to write what you can say in a few sentences. And if you are using ChatGPT or another AI, please stop. Chris troutman, this is way out of line, and I think you know that. A new editor would have risked being indeffed for that comment, and justifiably so. Please, just treat people with basic human decency. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding that it's not the first time Chris has made this kind of out-of-line comments these last few days. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate, please. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

How is saying And this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits complains that they've been bitten? not a personal attack? ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you still doing this? I've noticed that lately it keeps being the same handful of editors who show up every time there's a chance to take down a veteran editor for not being nice enough. You may think that your civility campaign is righteous, but eventually one of two things will happen: either you will get burned out trying to compel everyone to be friends, or the community will run out of patience and force you stop. This is an encyclopedia; if we got rid of everyone who was rude from time to time, we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content. I realize this message will likely fall on deaf ears, but at least now you won't be able to say you weren't warned. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

there are so many people who are rude from time to time that if they all left we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content?? ltbdl (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between basic respect and compelling everyone to be friends. Civility is important for the same reasons one doesn't want to be in a toxic workplace. It's much better for everyone to provide constructive criticism where it's necessary and not insult people's intelligence. I genuinely don't get why this is controversial. I also don't think we should take it as a given that everyone involved in writing an encyclopedia is rude from time to time. I spend a substantial amount of my time in main space and I've never insulted anyone. I honestly don't think I'm somehow special for being able to do that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hear her, hear her!

The idea that we have to tolerate people who frequently insult others because they're the only ones who can possibly prevent the wiki from collapsing is wrong. An editor who is insulting or uncooperative might make a hundred edits a month while also, over time, driving off people who, if they had continued contributing, might together be making many times that number. I believe that we need to give grace to people who are having a bad day, and we should take the level of provocation into account, but in this particular instance, we're talking about an editor who has earned his reputation. Which reminds me: Punching down could probably use some more work.

@Lepricavark, you might be interested in reading about the problem of the meatball:VestedContributor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost interest in this thread after being repeatedly shouted down by editors that I don't think had really grasped the point I was trying to make. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone else in the thread but I think the point we were trying to make is that warning someone for caring about civility is not actually how the community sees this, especially since you said the community will run out of patience and force you stop. That comment definitely rubbed me the wrong way and I felt like I had to say something to counteract the possible chilling effect a conversation that ended there might have. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It's comments like this that make me hesitant to edit at all, for the record. This "it keeps being the same handful of editors" can be turned right back around on people who don't think WP:CIVIL should be followed unless it's extremely egregious. I'm well aware my edit history is extremely small, but I've been a user for quite a while and WP:CIVIL issues are a main reason I hardly edit. I see comments quite frequently when this comes up of "well we have no way of knowing how many people we've driven away from incivility." Hi, I'm one of those people who are reticent to edit because of incivility. I stay on the website because I like reading about topics I'm interested in, but this pushback to any modicum of asking for civility and only wanting to act when it gets as far as slurs or super egregious personal attacks is discouraging from trying to even wikignome, at least for me.Greenday61892 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the project benefits if I type out a cogent reply to this comment instead of just 'stfu' &c -- not just me and you, but everyone else who has to see the conversation or God forbid has to participate in it, everyone who looks through it in archives years down the line and thinks "Ah, I see, this is how editors are supposed to act", and the like. We must set an example not only for ourselves but for each other and for the future. jp×g🗯️ 17:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I gathered from your comment is that you wanted to tell me to 'stfu'. You wrote some vague stuff about how people are going to read this and how we need to set a good example, but you didn't actually reply to any of my statements. So now everyone reading this thread can follow your example by writing out the rude things they want to say so long as they pretend that they aren't actually saying it. All you've done is further convince me that civility enforcement is deeply flawed, inconsistent, and often does more harm than good. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think two things can be true: (1) TraceySear840 needs to communicate better if they're going to participate on the project, and (2) Chris Troutman's comments are out of line. They haven't edited since this discussion started, and I'd like to hear from them. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I re-read WP:NPA#WHATIS. What I said does not, in my opinion, violate that policy. New editor and SPA TraceySear840 is pushing a draft which I declined (weak sourcing and no claim to notability). I get walls of desperation-mode chatbot text in return. Why? New editor is probably an undeclared paid editor not from an English-speaking country because regular fans and hobbyists don't respond that way to a declined draft. All TraceySear840's content edits were to a draft, so no need to report to WP:COIN. If this new editor is relying on chatbot because they aren't conversant in English or just cannot be bothered to write a sentence, then I will be unable to reason with them regarding their draft. I was professional in deploring this sad state of affairs. Anyone who thinks my comments are out-of-line hasten the day we're overrun with this sort of problem which I've been tamping down these past ten years. Please hand TraceySear840 their boomerang as I have other things to do. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chris troutman this is the definition of a discouraging reply. Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Mackensen, but I think we're past the "reply" stage. I looked at the stuff that Tracysear posted on Chris's talk page, and I would find it very, very difficult to keep my cool after trying to read that in good faith--and then the draft's talk page is full of it too. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Defending a pattern of incivility as an admin is not a good look, especially since the ability to keep your cool is basically the main factor that's evaluated at an RfA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an RfA. Using someone's admin status against them like that is a weak move. Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness? If not, it's time for you to find an article to improve. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lepricavark I've seen the "we must tolerate rudeness for the sake of the project" argument trotted out since, oh, 2005 or so. It has not become more convincing in the intervening years. The position you're taking is effectively one of zero accountability. No one has proposed sanctions of any kind, and you're here asking Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness. I was looking for an acknowledgement that he could have handled that situation better. His one post in this discussion was to say, in so many words, I can't be bothered with this nonsense.

Editors come and go. Editor retention isn't just about hanging on to whomever is already here, it's about adding new people and encouraging them to stay. If the first encounter a new editor has is a rough one with a senior editor who couldn't be bothered, then we've just lost an editor, right there. Mackensen (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

My argument isn't with you. It's with the small handful of editors who are bent on a narrow civility-based focus at all times regardless of whether other considerations may also apply. You articulated a reasonable position, which is something that those editors fail to do, but you were arguing against a position that isn't identical to mine. Also, I'm aware that nobody has proposed sanctions yet, but I've seen enough of these threads to know which the wind is blowing. Civility is one of the five pillars, but its most vocal proponents act as though it was the only pillar, and this is what concerns me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You're acting like it's not possible to deal with people who you deem as incompetent without biting at them. There is a middle ground that doesn't require you to use someone's experience on the site or lack thereof as an insult--as And this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits is doing--to get your point across. Greenday61892 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You're acting like it's not possible to deal with people who you deem as incompetent without biting at them. No, I'm not. I highly doubt you could point to any excerpt from my comments to justify that ham-fisted interpretation. One of my chief complaints about civility scolds is that they don't bother to engage fairly with disagreeing points of view. It's happening again here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Genuinely, what other way is Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness? meant to be interpreted besides "if you don't let us do an incivility every so often we're gonna leave?" Greenday61892 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you genuinely not see the difference between someone leaving voluntarily (your interpretation) and someone being run off the site (what I actually wrote)? I can tell that you are reading my comments with an assumption that I'm acting in bad faith, and your negative renderings flow from this assumption. Further interaction will be pointless unless you're willing to actually take my comments at face value. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's connect these two leavings, as it were. One concern expressed is that rude behavior will cause editors to voluntarily disengage. The other concern is that holding rude editors accountable for their behavior will run those editors off the site. Editors are responsible for their own conduct. I've seen the idea expressed (by you, in this thread above), that in effect rudeness is a price that the project has to pay with certain people in exchange for their contributions. The project of course, pays no price. Rather, individual editors pay it, through lost time or hurt feelings. Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that civility enforcement is not as black-and-white as some are making it seem. For instance, there's an editor slightly up the thread who found a clever way of telling me to 'stfu' without actually saying it, thus forestalling any consequences for what I'm sure you would agree is uncivil behavior. Did I feel the effects of the incivility? Of course I did. But even though it happened on a very public noticeboard, I'm the only one who seems to have noticed. Perhaps some of you are chuckling to yourself, 'Haha, the guy who pushed back on civility enforcement is now complaining that someone was uncivil to him.' But if you find that amusing, then you realize that civility enforcement is more nuanced than almost anyone in this thread is willing to admit. Unfortunately, that nuance is not appreciated by the crowds that often gather to condemn long-term editors who are flawed in this particular area (and like it or not, we are all flawed in some aspect of our editing). Obviously, some incivility is beyond the pale and warrants severe sanctions (see the literal grave-dancer below for a particularly egregious example), but as I've matured in my Wiki-experience I've gradually shifted my perception of the line to be more forgiving of the imperfections of those who have devoted many hours of volunteer service. I realize that's a lot to read, but hopefully it helps clarify that I've put a little more thought into this than just if you don't let us do an incivility every so often we're gonna leave or we must tolerate rudeness for the sake of the project. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw it, and I frankly don't understand why he wrote that. I will say something to him. As you say, it's not black-and-white. Two senior editors arguing about civility on a noticeboard is not the same thing as an administrator--in the course of carrying out a task--speaking to a new editor. The tone and content also matter. "STFU" is not the same as openly speculating about someone's cognitive abilities.

I think the other point, one that you have not really addressed, is that we all understand making a regrettable comment in the moment. That's natural. The real source of my concern is that a day later, Chris troutman saw nothing wrong with what he said and dared anyone to do anything about it. Your comments about replacing him effectively endorse that view, whether you intended that reading or not. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. To be clear, I don't endorse Chris's attitude. I don't think it's bad enough to warrant sanctions at this point, but I don't endorse it either. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that the hidden "stfu" wasn't very nice of that editor, you're right on that point. There's absolutely a level of nuance in what counts as incivility, and not all comments are on the same level as that editor who received a (well-deserve) indef for what he said. For context, I don't believe Chris should get a block for his comment — maybe something else that happens to match his username.
The place where we seem to differ in our opinions is that you prefer to be more forgiving to users having devoted more time and contributions to Wikipedia. While I can understand the argument of retaining important editors, I believe that shouldn't be the case, as 1/ their experience should allow them to be an example for newer editors, 2/ giving more latitude to some editors might make them believe this behavior is okay if they're a net positive, rather than begrudgingly tolerated, and 3/ letting some editors be rude to newcomers might scare off more newer editors, meaning keeping them might be less of a "net positive" than believed. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe you have accurately identified our fundamental philosophical difference. As long as you don't think this is a blockworthy situation, I think we're on somewhat common ground. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think it's troutworthy, yes, warningworthy if this whole discussion wasn't there to do the job of a warning, but not blockworthy if the pattern (hopefully) doesn't repeat. Happy to see constructive discussion! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I am taking your comments at face value. You are continuously arguing in favor of being able to violate WP:CIVIL. Whether you meant leaving because you're not being allowed to act uncivil or being blocked because you're not being allowed to act uncivil is irrelevant to the point that you dislike people being more and more fed up with getting bitten at unnecessarily.Greenday61892 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No, you are not taking my comments at face value and you are not engaging in the conversation in good faith. You've set me up as an anti-civility bogeyman, and evidently that leaves you free to put whatever words you want in my mouth and then demand that I defend them. I'm not having it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I literally quoted what you said. Allow me to quote, again verbatim, something else you wrote: if we got rid of everyone who was rude from time to time, we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content. Putting aside the fact that this is simply not true and ignores the myriad of people who, I'll reiterate includes myself, have been driven away from editing due to rampant incivility, being rude is literally incivility. If I'm creating an anti-civility bogeyman, and you're not anti-civility, why are you so concerned about enforcing WP:CIVIL? All I've been doing is taking exactly what you said, verbatim, and interpreting it in the context of what you were replying to. So what exactly have I been intentionally misconstruing of your statements?

Also, do not forget that WP:AGF exists, so please do not say I'm not engaging in good faith when you have nothing to prove that I'm acting the opposite.Greenday61892 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I was already tired of trying to explain that my words mean what they mean, but the ABF accusation is the last straw. I'm done replying to you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, am I taking crazy pills here? I literally only brought up WP:AGF because you verbatim said you are not engaging in the conversation in good faith. How is that not an assumption of bad faith? Greenday61892 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies I understand yelling at someone in the moment. It's not the moment. It's been an day. They've had an opportunity to reflect and collect themselves. I don't consider a good sign when someone's ready to mount the battlements to defend Wikipedia against the Visigoths. Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

But, Mackensen, didn't the response we're looking at come after a series of AI-generated messages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC) ^<diff>

Well, what of it? Is the theory that we can be shitty to suspected ChatGPT users? Walk this out for me. I don't see how that's a helpful approach; it just means we start arguing about whether it's a suspected ChatGPT user, and therefore whether it was okay to make insinuations about the user's cognitive ability. Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Mackensen, did you miss where I said "series"? A whole slew of those crappy messages, one after the other proving that the editor is not of good faith and is not listening? Drmies (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies I did not. I said this above: I understand yelling at someone in the moment. It's not the moment. It's been an day. They've had an opportunity to reflect and collect themselves. Again, what's the theory here? I'm inferring that you disapprove of what he said but think it's justified by duress. I don't agree, but it's perhaps beside the point because Troutman thinks what he said was perfectly fine, and that was after having time to think it over. I don't think I'm asking much, here. There's no coercion. No one's being threatened with sanctions, a block, or even being called a bad name. Fiat justitia ruat caelum this isn't. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Any editor who thinks it's okay to directly question another person's "cognitive ability"—especially because of a hunch they have about the person's intentions—should seriously reconsider their approach before sanctions become necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Whatever, ChatGPTZero was 98% certain that the text I fed it was AI generated. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPTZero also thinks that the bits I fed it from an unpublished manuscript that I am [supposed to be] publishing in the near future are AI generated. I do not think stuff form ChatGPT should be allowed here, but to attack a person's 'cognitive abilities' based on a suspicion of their use of software is plain wrong, but for someone else to seemingly endorse that claim based on the assessment of another piece of software, and one that also happens to be wildly inaccurate... well, I do not think I can put what I think about that into words. Perhaps that's a sign of my own sub-par cognitive abilities. Ostalgia (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"I re-read WP:NPA#WHATIS. What I said does not, in my opinion, violate that policy."

Then you very much need to re-read that section (and the rest of the policy) again, and much more carefully. Consider for example the following excerpt which caps WHATIS: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (emphasis in original). Look, let's make this really, really simple: any time you find yourself speculating negatively about another user's mental capabilities, you are violating WP:NPA, as an absolutely per se matter. It's not even a remotely close call and your asking us to expect to believe a) that you didn't mean this in a disparaging manner, and b) that an editor of your tenure and experience doesn't understand that this behaviour is proscribed by this community, regardless of intent, both strain all credulity beyond belief.

Likewise, other portions of the policy toss your "I was allowed to do this because they were being oh so very dumb" line of rationalization squarely out on its ear: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user."

"I was professional in deploring this sad state of affairs."

No, you absolutely were not. Unless you are literally a trained expert administering a psychometric assessment, you are never being "professional" in any context where you are speculating about someone's supposed cognitive deficits. Least of all when you are opining about another editor you are in a dispute with. And again, I just refuse to accept that you don't know that this is the community's perspective, however much you think context should give you the right.

"Anyone who thinks my comments are out-of-line hasten the day we're overrun with this sort of problem which I've been tamping down these past ten years."

That is one of the most absurdly reasoned and self-aggrandizing false choices I have ever seen on this project, including this particular forum with its long history of such efforts to wrap ill-tempered outbursts in the valor of supposedly protecting the project. In no way do we need to choose between calling out TracySear's variety of nonsense and shutting down your inflammatory disregard for the most basic precepts of WP:CIV.

In fact, behaviour like yours makes it more difficult to stop other varieties of disruption, because it muddies the waters, distracts from the core issues and makes consensus and longterm stability for the project more difficult (among numerous other reasons that are just as obvious). You are not a hero here because you had the brashness to imply another editor was mentally disabled. Give us a break and stop humouring yourself. Or for that matter, believe what you want, but just don't repeat the behaviour. Because I for one will without hesitation !vote for a sanction if it happens again, and I doubt I am the only one, especially in light of your complete WP:IDHT in reaction to concerns here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

1. One issue was TraceySear840‘s use of AI to communicate. Before the time Chris Troutman rebuked this new editor, had anyone ever told TraceySear840 not to use AI (a.k.a. large language model)? If not, then how are new editors supposed to know this?
2. For that matter, do we even have a policy or guideline yet against TraceySear840 using AI? The last I knew, we couldn’t agree on one; we just have a non-binding essay, WP:LLM.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Regardless of Chris Troutman's tone/word choice, there is no reason to permit the spamming of Concha, with nonsense like this 'm reaching out to this knowledgeable community with a fascinating challenge and opportunity: the Portal Fernández Concha article. I have given them a final warning for clear UPE which is the issue beyond ChatBot. Star Mississippi 21:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Star Mississippi, I don’t think this is paid editing. Why would any building owner pay to include a whole “crime” section in their article? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Like Mackensen, I consider Chris Troutman was extremely uncivil: suggesting a user's literacy and potentially their cognitive abilty are defective and that [the editing community]'d more likely just block you to silence you—that is, suggesting they are not welcome on the project—is disrespectful. Chris Troutman was basically asserting incompetence in the manner we are not supposed to invoke it because civility is a basic policy. It's also not a way of engaging someone that's likely to meet with their understanding. On a basic level, as A. B. points out, the community's rejection of AI-generated prose could have been made much clearer to the editor. (We deprecate it the same way we deprecate machine translation, but other projects vary on the latter and may well vary on the former, and both need to be very clearly explained because it's precisely new editors with weak English skills who will be most tempted to use both.) At the same time, I share Mackensen's view that TraceySear840 has so far done a poor job. The article takes a strangely sociological approach to its topic, a historic building. (Star Mississippi, I second A. B.; whatever the impetus for creating this article and for the balance of content, this is not promotional editing.) It would have been more encyclopedic and demonstrated notability more clearly if the editor had translated es:Portal Fernández Concha (which is a clearer exposition and has some useful archived sources). When the article was draftified, TraceySear840 responded with expostulations about how much work they'd put in—which is not unusual for new editors, and the best response would probably have been a calm and simply written explanation of notability, references, and reliable sources with the basic guide to making a new article stick as the top link. However, as the conversation proceeded in multiple places, TraceySear840 bludgeoned, and they do appear to have decided to use ChatGPT or something similar to generate all those posts. Which boomeranged on them, because not listening to explanations about how the community does things, posting walls of text about one's personal aims, and using LLMs in conversation are also disrespectful. ... So. Unless someone else does first, I'm going to completely rewrite the draft so it is no longer about the decline of the immediate area, raids on prostitutes, and so forth and simply about the history of the building. And then re-mainspace it. I've added the historic image that TraceySear840 uploaded to Commons to the existing Commons category. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

      @A. B. @Yngvadottir my read is it's UPE in that they're being compensated to get an article in mainspace otherwise they would not care so much about something absolutely random that they're spamming the project with requests for others to collaborate. To me that's promotional even if it's not paid to write promotional glowing text. But we're all vets here and can agree to disagree. Star Mississippi 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

      Thank you, Yngvadottir, very good summary. I very much agree. And thanks for offering to rewrite the draft. 🌟 Double gold stars. 🌟 El_C 23:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

      You're welcome :-) I procrastinated madly from what I should have been doing last night; it's at Portal Fernández Concha and I've made a few links to it. For the avoidance of doubt, we need better coverage of historic buildings (and architects, sculptors, painters ...) from most countries of the world, and I find it perfectly plausible that that's what TraceySear840 set out to help us with. I got it wrong about how it wound up in draft space: they started the article there as a new editor, and what they were responding to was its rejection rather than draftification. I've pinged them on the talk page, but including another ping here because I'm not sure they've seen how the conversation has progressed. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

      For sure. I'm admittedly a bit of a cynic, but contradictorily, also an optimist. So I'm hopeful something good will follow you encouraging them (and me encouraging you, in turn). El_C 04:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:LLM was supposed to be a one-paragraph policy proposal and it was slowly turned into one of those $2 million San Francisco municipal toilet projects with a 0% chance of passing by the time someone finally slapped a RfC on it. I sure as heck learned my lesson from that! jp×g🗯️ 17:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I have little hope of anyone paying attention to this, let alone doing something about it, but this is the third (that I noticed - there's probably more) ANI report this month where an established editor is uncivil to a newer/less prolific user, is called out for it, and not only does not take it down a notch but insists on the correctness of their position, getting support from other equally established users, including administrators. I can understand frustration, heat-of-the-moment reactions (of which I have been guilty more than once), but standing by such behaviour after the fact, and even worse, endorsing it as a neutral, that I think is plain wrong. It gets to the point where it appears that you can throw WP:CIVILITY out the window provided you're popular enough with a relatively high amount of regular editors. The situation reminds me of the popular kids bullying the new guy who got transferred from another school and then covering up for one another. Hell, last time I participated in one of these reports there was an administrator going as far as to complain that indeffing a decade-and-a-half veteran user for incivility, despite his extensive block log for behavioural issues, would be inappropriate and against Wikipedia's focus on inclusivity. It boggles the mind. One would think that a) being aggressive and uncivil is probably a much bigger threat to inclusivity than removing the person who is being uncivil, and b) the logical way to go about it would be the opposite - a new guy has to learn about the policies he has to abide by (even if he has to learn by getting warnings and blocks) while an established user should already know them and be expected to behave accordingly. Ostalgia (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agree with your observations, popularity or even amount of edits shouldn't give a free pass for incivility. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  The pattern you're pointing out is exactly why I finally spoke up on this one. I've gotten tired of the "well we don't know for sure how many people are driven away from editing by incivility so that's a strawman" given that I myself am one of those people.Greenday61892 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The episodes of Chris Troutman's behavior cited in this thread are clear-cut violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Insulting someone's cognitive ability, attempting to order that same person to never post here again, and saying of another editor this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits complains that they've been bitten? Ludricrous. are all examples of targeting a user rather than talking about content. That TraceySear840 warrants a WP:BOOMERANG for being disrespectful in a different way (spamming a user's talk page) in no way detracts from Chris Troutman's accountability to the Wikipedia community to also adhere to the site's policies on behavior. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: trout

Chris troutman is trouted for making a personal attack on TraceySear840.

• Support, as proposer. I think there's consensus that his comment was a personal attack; if the community disagrees then it should tell him so. Feedback is important. No pun is intended but it's unavoidable. Sometimes language is the enemy. Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support, having myself proposed it earlier in the discussion, although in my case the pun might have been intended. Otherwise there's still {{uw-trout}} (I know, self-promotion...) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It does look like Chris does not have an extensive history of this. If it becomes a pattern I'd like to see more but a trout sounds sufficient given lack of a pattern.Greenday61892 (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose no consensus is needed if someone wants to give him a trout; at any rate, I personally do not think they are effective. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Creation of articles without sources, not acknowledging user talk page discussions

NoEndingFilms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed a considerable amount to pages related to Sir Michael Rocks since registering a few days ago, which is welcome and (as far as I can tell) does not seem to have any WP:COI issues.

However, the user is adding a large volume of content that is very poorly or not sourced. These have lead to comments on their user talk page by Scope_creep (talk · contribs), That Tired Tarantula (talk · contribs) and MicrobiologyMarcus (talk · contribs) which have not been acknowledged, responded to, nor led to changes in the user's editing behavior. Special Edition Grand Master Deluxe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the main page concerned by this topic, however the user's edits on other pages also lack sourcing for added information

NoEndingFilms has created multiple pages for albums of Sir Michael Rocks which did not previously exist on Wikipedia, all of which are poorly / barely sourced. The first pages were created appropriately through the WP:Draft process, however after they were not approved, the user has started creating similarly poorly sourced articles directly, bypassing the draft process.

• 27 Jan: Draft:The Rocks Report (Sir Michael Rocks Mixtape) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 27 Jan: Draft:The Rocks Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --> 2 Feb: Created article outside draft process: The Rocks Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 28 Jan: Draft:Before Shit Got Weird (The Cool Kids Album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 28 Jan: Draft:Premier Politics (Sir Michael Rocks Mixtape) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --> 2 Feb: Created article outside draft process: Premier Politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 28 Jan: Draft:Baby Oil Staircase/Chillout (The Cool Kids Album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2 Feb: Created article outside draft process: Lap Of Lux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2 Feb: Created article outside draft process: While You Wait... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2 Feb: Created article outside draft process: Populair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2 Feb: Created article outside draft process: Populair Pt.2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2 Feb: Created article outside draft process: Broken Window Of Opportunity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Until the user acknowledges the need to source information added to Wikipedia, in particular for new pages, is it possible to restrict the user from creating new pages outside of the draft process? Shazback (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

After coming across a bunch of these on the new page feed and doing a lot of clean up on a lot of them, I would endorse page creation block and mass draftification of all articles and require AfC review before acceptance or manual move. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 00:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I saw that NoEndingFilms had responded a couple of times on their talk page offering to fix the issue once they understood it, but had only recently been given a welcome template, so I left a long explaining message. But what I found isn't so simple. The user isn't creating unreferenced articles: the ones I've seen all have two inline hyperlinks to reviews (since cleaned up in some cases, including by MicrobiologyMarcus, but for example see their last article creation, now at Broken Window of Opportunity, as they left it: the links to Lyrical Lemonade and HipHopWired in the "Critical response" section aren't wikilinks to articles about the websites or links to the websites' home pages, they're reference links. I think reviewers have been missing these references. The articles are under-referenced (including points that need attribution), and I'm not sure the subjects pass WP:NALBUM especially with only two reviews, but it's in large part a formatting problem. However, while any new editor has to start somewhere and will therefore look at first like a single-issue account (is that still in WP:BITE?), I'm also not as sanguine as Shazback about there not being a conflict of interest here. Wording like Chuck Inglish's work on "Ice Skate" further exemplifies the album's unique sound, maintaining a mellow vibe that aligns with the project's overall aesthetic. This collaborative effort not only enriches the album's sound but also reinforces Sir Michael Rocks' status as a style innovator and a pivotal figure in the music scene​ ([[Broken Window of Opportunity], end of intro) and Collaborations played a significant role in the mixtape's promotional strategy. Featuring artists like Mac Miller, Casey Veggies, and Rockie Fresh, the project leveraged the fan bases of these collaborators, expanding its reach. (Lap Of Lux, in the completely unreferenced "Release and promotion" section) are bizspeak; even if not copyvio (I looked for a source for the latter), they are promotional in tone. I've alerted the editor to this NPOV concern as well as the need for more scrupulous referencing, and made them aware of the COI policy. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• My AGF is now much diminished. NoEndingFilms has not appeared here (or responded on their talk page), and has uploaded yet another new page with the same problems, The Cool Kids Before Shit Got Weird (again it has been tagged by patrollers as not only uncategorized but unreferenced). Before doing that, they updated the wikilinks at Sir Michael Rocks. That led me to note that their cumulative edits to that page added not only the discography but the agencies representing the artist. And the only intervening edit in that series is a bot removing the top pic they added, which has been removed from Commons as a copyvio. The album cover images on their new articles have all been uploaded to Commons as "own work" and are being speedy deleted. I'm afraid this now looks like promotional editing. I will make a further post on their talk page. And I suggest the majority of their article creations should become redirects to the artists, with the linked reviews used as references on the discography items. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just draftified most of the articles. Anything that had two or less sources. TarnishedPath^talk 23:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE user with inconsistent pattern of article creations

Drekmikc76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Drekmikc76 shows a pattern of repeatedly creating nonsensical pages, from an unsourced product description changing mid-way into a copypasta, to a one-sentence troll article, to a hoax that they themselves acknowledged and promoted as such. These seem scattered among a pattern of more constructive edits, but the problematic behavior remains. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Something should be done. Just recently, they have added random sources, one about Buddhism, to an article about a supposed statue of Odin, which they created! Aintabli (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - There appears to be a pattern of issues in edits made by Drekmikc76 (talk · contribs), at least when looking at the past 20 in main article space... Selected examples with comments (excluding minor issues which are part of "normal" AGF editing in my view):

1. Statue of Odin in Oslo (23:01, 2024 February 2) - Article created by Drekmikc76 on December 11, in WP:PROD process mainly due to lack of sources. Drekmikc76 inserted two sources which were completely irrelevant.
2. Kecak (22:18, 2024 January 8) - Original research (mentioned as such in edit note).
3. Josh Hutcherson (06:13, 2024 January 6) - Appears (based in part on the file name and on the edit comment reverting his change) to have replaced the photo in the article by that of a the 'Josh Hutcherson Whistle' meme.
4. Rod fishing (22:37, 2023 December 18) - Joke page creation? At least unencylopedic.
5. Epicurus' paradox (00:26, 2023 December 12) - Created a very good article... Which appears to be a direct translation from the portuguese wikipedia without any attribution at all. pt.wikipedia - Paradoxo de Epicuro (version as of 00:26 2023 December 12)
6. Mars Attacks! (08:55, 2023 November 30) - Vandalism, which he reverted ~1h later.

Shazback (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, appears to be vandalism and various careless stuff scattered among more constructive edits. Combined with the pages he created that were later deleted, the total behavior is certainly on the edge of WP:NOTHERE, and likely on the wrong side of the edge. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Robert B. Barr and related pages

• Robert B. Barr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lincoln International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 2600:1008:B040:DCD:2120:F71C:D494:5DBD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user (possibly the article subject) has been adding links to the subject's website. They also changed every vote on the linked AfD to "keep". I am not sure what exactly is happening, but I figured the tampering thing was severe enough to flag up here. If this was not the right venue for this complaint, do let me know. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 05:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I do hope it's not the article subject, otherwise we may have a restless ghost to contend with! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Speaking more directly, NightWolf1223, this person died six years and one month ago, so it is not possible for the subject to have edited the biography since then, unless supernatural Wikipedia editing is involved. Which does not exist. Cullen328 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Snap, I did not realize the subject was dead. Oops. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 12:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we can safely conclude that the person behind the IP is not the subject of the article. That being said, it's also clearly inappropriate to change other people's !votes at an AfD discussion, so I've blocked the /64 range for a bit; if they come back on another range and try the same thing, just report at AIV. It seems likely that whoever is using that IP is the owner of the account Guy4444, since they were notified about the nomination for deletion; that's just a supposition though, and that account hasn't edited for years, so I'm not proposing any action against the account unless it reactivates and does something similar. (I'll go notify them that I mentioned them here now.) Girth Summit _(blether) 12:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is it that the article was created as if he was alive, if he supposedly died 1 year before the article was made? Why is it that https://www.lincolninternational.com/people/robert-barr/ does not mention he is dead?

Also just pointing out: An admin reverted the IPs edits as vandalism and the page now no longer claims that he is dead. – 2804:F14:80D5:A101:9950:7E2A:AD1D:8B3 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

In this thread, people are asking whether Robert B. Barr is still alive, and it's true you can find a New Jersey obituary for someone of the same name dated 2018. The deceased man was born in 1939, but it's not the same guy. The one this article is about is a man born in 1953 who has an MBA and co-founded a good-sized company known as Lincoln International. It employs 850 people. Even so, that IP was busy adding promotional words to the article so is better kept out of the picture. Based on behavior, User:Guy4444 is conceivably the same as the IP but that information wouldn't lead us anywhere because Guy4444 is inactive for 3 years and is not part of the current abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

79.107.197.234

79.107.197.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Disruptive editing on 2023–24 Super League Greece. Editing previous versions of the article, removing contrubutions made by other users in between, also bringing back issues that previously have been fixed.

Evidence:

• Special:Diff/1202890685
• Special:Diff/1201349450
• Special:Diff/1200831825
• Special:Diff/1200133876
• Special:Diff/1199348765
• Special:Diff/1199312969
• Special:Diff/1199238935
• Special:Diff/1198237239
• Special:Diff/1198236827
• Special:Diff/1191930512
• Special:Diff/1191933520

Disruptive editing on Template:2023–24 Super League Greece table. Editing previous versions of the article, removing contrubutions made by other users in between, also bringing back issues that previously have been fixed.

Evidence:

• Special:Diff/1202891154
• Special:Diff/1201352632
• Special:Diff/1200835434
• Special:Diff/1200068746
• Special:Diff/1198975426
• Special:Diff/1193543080
• Special:Diff/1191933700

BEN917 1:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any edits since the one and only warning posted on their talk page. Has there been any attempt to discuss this with the user that I am missing? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The only edits I make are to update the Template:2023–24 Super League Greece table after each match as well as the 2023–24 Super League Greece. Ben has a constant tendency to Kifisia to write it AE Kifisia at the same time that in the Greek Wikipedia, in all the news and sports sites of Greece but also widespread in the world is the name Kifisia as respectively for another Greek team is Larissa instead of AE Larissa and a bunch of other examples of Greek teams and more. So what I'm doing that is bugging Ben is I'm fixing it and undoing the vandalism obsessive editing that's causing problems for me and a bunch of users either named or anonymous by resetting the AE Kifisia as Kifisia. 79.107.197.234 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

In the evidence provided it can be seen that the IP user reverts back to older versions removing all users imputs and updates of the article making minor edits so they can't be reverted back, in order to forward his opinion. That also includes reverting back redirect issues among others. Those are multple violations of the WP:DE policy. The IP user never addressed his issues properly and insists on making disruptive edits, despite my warnings when I restore the articles. Thus, any claim of making edits to only for updates is proven incorrect. Nevertheless, by impling that my edits are vandalism is also violation of the WP:PA policy. Additionally the other users that made (the exact disruptive) editing in these articles are probably sockpuppets of the same man, as its addressed in here. If any more evidence are required feel free to address me. BEN917 13:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack by RAID3N923

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 is vile. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 February 2024 (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.

dispute with another editor

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 was editing scores of games by changing it to show the highest score then the lowest score. Another editor ‪Annh07 reverted all of my changes and called my editing disruptive. As far as I know when there is a dispute between editors then there needs to be a consensus between the two editors. Please let me know what is appropriate or if I am in the wrong thank you Mpdaly86900711 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Annh07 and you have already worked this out. [105]. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

yes thank you Mpdaly86900711 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2024 (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.

Disruptive edits at Philippine Airlines, PAL Express, and Philippine Airlines fleet

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 do not know where to start but this user starts a disruptive edits on the pages I mentioned on a title by merging the number of fleet from a subsidiary to its parents company. I may be look an idiot to reverted again and start an edit war because of that plus I already left talk page on how to resolve the issue regarding their contributions. Any comments about this? Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2024 (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.

Disruptive editing from 142.126.247.128

I have been trying to stabilize some slow edit warring on Family Law (Canadian TV series). For the most part, I have been able to get the registered editors to stop and, and am hoping to get them into discussion. However, there is at least one IP that continues to disrupt the page. That's problematic because in trying to rein in competing factions of registered users could lead to going back to the edit war if the IP continues (not sure if the IP is related or not, but it doesn't appear to be).

I did try to get page protection to avoid this, but was declined.Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2024/02#Family_Law_.28Canadian_TV_series.29

The IP is consistently trying to add an empty episode table for a television season that has not happened yet.[106]

They were reverted by one of the aforementioned edit-warring factions [107] as well as myself [108], [109], [110] and I left a notice on their talk page [111]. Note that I noted in the edit summary and the talk page notice that per the television MOS MOS:TVUPCOMING, we don't add empty season tables. Their response was "'we' can add whatever 'we' want".[112]

It's clearly against consensus of editors on the page (via editing) as well as the television project's MOS. I did only provide one talk page notice template, but did not feel that more would change anything because it appears they know what they are doing, and I don't think additional notices are going to change any behavior.

I'd like to get page protection or a temporary block on the IP to prevent further disruption on the page. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Butlerblog, I have blocked the IP for 72 hours. No, they can't add whatever they want. Cullen328 (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A user named SupportsDonald59 at the Trump 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.

---

• "left wing Marxist Democrats ... smear Mr. Trump's wonderful legacy"
• "the vast majority of us believe DJT was an excellent president"

Bleedingly-obvious WP:NOTHERE. Zaathras (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy needs to be blocked immediately. I think this should be at WP:AIV. Professor Penguino (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. As an admin well-known for strongly disliking Trump, I want to say the block is because the talk page edits had nothing to do with improving the article, and if a Trump-supporting admin (are there any?) disagrees, they can unblock without feeling they need to consult me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully there aren't any, many people (especially BIPOC and LBGTQ+) would feel very unsafe with an administrator who openly supports Trump's racism and pandering to white supremacists and neo-Confederates. Such support should be indefblockable for ordinary users, let alone admins, who after all hold a position of trust. Oompje (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No need to mention your dislike of Trump, if an editor was blocked for a behavioral issue, nuff said. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, if the editor had tried to edit the article without it having extended confirmed protection (thank god), it would have been a bunch of gibberish and vandalism on the page. At least that hasn't happened at all nowadays (2015 still gives me nightmares of when those two editors kept blanking the page). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2024 (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.

Template talk:CSS image crop#Fixing_the_mobile_site's_centre_alignment_problem

I don't suppose I could beg anyone to review this bugfix to make the template work correctly on the mobile site? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 03:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Partial block requested for IPs editing Terry Blade

• Terry Blade

A bunch of Chicago-area IPs have been editing the Terry Blade biography following the block of one of them. The range Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:C164:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked on January 21 just to get one IP. Other IPs such as Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:3C16:A1BA:6370:6FCB:C6C2 have evaded that block. These IPs don't cluster in convenient /64 ranges, so I'm wondering if we can put a really wide partial block on the /32 range, or even on a larger range so that it includes Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:39CF:7D80:C6D:CD81:AD5A. The partial block would stop the IPs from editing the Terry Blade biography. Thanks in advance.

For the record, the biography was built primarily by Polemic-nerd, a single-purpose user who puffed up the accomplishments. Yesterday I accused that user of having a conflict of interest, and they put "retired" at their user page.[113] I don't think they have completely retired, since these Chicago IPs are still active. Polemic-nerd was blocked briefly on January 20, followed by a checkuser block on Special:Contributions/2601:240:CD01:C164:886C:6DA5:24E2:7B2F who only made one edit to the Terry Blade page. That links Polemic-nerd to Chicago IPs.

More distantly, the Terry Blade biography has seen activity in the last two years from IPs geolocating to the Maryland side of Washington DC. Virtually all of the IP activity at the biography has been from Washington DC or Chicago IPs. This is significant because Terry Blade himself is from the Washington DC area and now lives in the Chicago area. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/deletion and User:Hey man im josh

User:Hey man im josh is obstructing edits to pages related to RFDs. This began with persistent reverts to Category:Redirects to an article without mention. Originally User:Tavix reverted with the terse (and empty/unsound) rationale "not an improvement". When the undone revision was restored, another revert followed:

• 01:17, 29 January 2024‎ diff by User:Tavix (Undid revision 1199870129 by C. A. Russell (talk) not an improvement)
• 02:51, 29 January 2024 diff by User:Tavix (Undid revision 1200232265 by C. A. Russell (talk) See WP:BRD. I reverted you, the next step is to discuss if desired)

Note the absence of any actual rationale or clear objection—the exhortation to follow WP:BRD—an essay (not a Wikipedia policy page or guideline) that prominently describes itself as an optional strategy for seeking consensus—seems rather more invoked here as an attempt to WP:GAME the process.

In light of reading this fairly straightforward declaration of intent for what it is, as well as the absence of any actual stated objection *as well as* the absence of any attempt by the editor invoking WP:BRD to "discuss", I restored the edit. User:Hey man im josh then took it up. To his credit, this revert, the third of four total, was the first containing any semblance of any actual rationale:

• 22:20, 29 January 2024 diff by User:Hey man im josh (Undid revision 1200405008 by C. A. Russell (talk) this is a change that should be discussed prior to implementation.)

(NB: emphasis on wikt:semblance. The rationale is flawed; as noted in the edit summary that followed, this is neither a change to a policy page nor is it a even a proposal—it's aligning the content of Category:Redirects to an article without mention with actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines regarding Redirects and the RFD process as it already exists.)

The fourth revert followed:

• 02:00, 30 January 2024‎ diff by User:Hey man im josh (Undid revision 1200689490 by C. A. Russell (talk) Take it to the talk page to discuss if you're interested, there's clearly push back against this)

Subsequent to this fourth revert and in light of a total dearth of actual attempts to open and hold a discussion on the part of the editor trying to offload burden onto the opposing party, a warning was placed on User:Hey man im josh's talk page regarding edit warring. That notice was immediately reverted (a revert that occurred in between the original placement of the notice and an attempt to add a heading for the new talk page section as a consequence of incorrect formatting with the se of {{subst:Uw-3rr}}).

Subsequent to this, User:Hey man im josh reverted for the second time a change to another page, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header:

• 22:23, 29 January 2024 diff by User:Hey man im josh (That's redundant. That's why it states if deletion has been proposed.)
• 02:03, 30 January 2024‎ by User:Hey man im josh (Restored revision 1200616500 by Hey man im josh (talk): Entirely unnecessary. The point is descriptive enough as is. Entirely encourage you to start a talk page discussion if you feel otherwise.)

Note well the attempt to continue to shroud the acceptability of these reverts under the guise of a call for consensus-building. As a point of fact, there actually is a discussion on the talk page related to this change. See Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Default outcome. Emphasis on related—it's not being discussed as a contentious edit. Notably absent, however, is User:Hey man im josh (as is any objection from anyone else) despite the ostensible interests in discussion.

I think this is sufficient to demonstrate a pattern.

(In the interests of disclosure, User:Tavix and User:Hey man im josh have characterized me as initiating personal attacks earlier this week when I described an RFD as appearing to be more about gamifying Wikipedia's RFD process than it is about improving Wikipedia.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

NB: I have just received notice that there is a separate report initiated by User:Hey man im josh at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it really THAT big a deal to want a discussion to take place before changing long standing text? This feels incredibly premature. I'm still not sure what prompted your aspersions towards me recently (and your unwillingness to withdraw them) or why I'm the specific focus of this discussion (Tavix reverted you as well). I must ask, why are you so unwilling to discuss it on the talk page prior to re-adding the same text for the fourth time? Hey man im josh (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) C. A. Russell, this is a dense and difficult to parse complaint, but the immediately obvious thing is that your edits are contested by two veteran editors (and admins) in good standing. From an WP:ONUS and WP:BRD perspective, you should not be edit warring, but rather, working to facilitate a discussion to resolve this outstanding issue. I, however, am very sympathetic when it comes to the ethos of Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Still, I'm not sure this is it. As for the WP:AN3 report, I'm looking into it, but at the time of my writing this, Hey man im josh has failed to prove you violated WP:3RR. El_C 03:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Closed the AN3 report as no violation. Keeping the (admin) discussion in one place. El_C 03:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully:

1. WP:ONUS is not the page you want. This is not about verifiability. This isn't even about article space.

2. WP:BRD is, as I stated, an essay. Not Wikipedia policy. Not even a guideline. It explicitly describes itself in multiple place as optional. I will state explicitly that I'm opting not to use the WP:BRD strategy here because not only am I not convinced it will be productive, I am convinced that it will be unproductive. Every interaction on this and related issues have been fraught with attempts by the editor in question to change the subject and/or move the goalposts, appeal to non-existent policy, appeal to existing policy (or guidelines) by name but mischaracterize what exactly that policy actually says, and (with the 3RR incident) inaccurately recount the relevant facts. It's a sheer exercise in fatigue. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

To address one quasi-reasonable (but not especially pertinent) question: User:Tavix stopped after two reverts and has not (yet?) carried the dispute over to other articles and exhorted me to discuss where, in fact, there *is* a discussion that exists, I have participated, others are participating, and you two are not—despite the stated ostensible interests in discussion. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

1. 04:56, 28 January 2024 – good thing this abomination is a category page and not actual policy; it's now clear why RFD has turned into a gamified mess over the last year or so...
2. 02:42, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200203580 by Tavix (talk) revert #1
3. 12:08, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200234996 by Tavix (talk) revert #2 of unexplained revert for page not in alignment wrt actual redirect policy and guidelines
4. 01:51, 30 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200615340 by Hey man im josh (talk) this page is not a policy page, and this change is not a policy change; this edit is descriptive, and what's described here is already "implemented"—not a proposal or a wouldn't-it-be-nice prescription

You didn't mention a discussion prior to this ANI, even when myself and Tavix urged you to take it to the talk page. Did you ever consider that it might be a good idea to mention this or ping me to the discussion? That would be one of the ways a discussion such as this is premature. It could have easily been solved with a casual message or ping. Instead you reverted. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing the subject. What talk page are you talking about? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No one has really covered themselves with glory here. It's not unreasonable to check the page of a page you're reverting, but there were ways to stop this from boiling over. Anyway, everyone knows where the discussion is and will be participating, yes? Mackensen (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I raised this issue here because of the obstruction aspect. Despite Wikipedia:Assume good faith being a behavior guideline—a great one, even—it doesn't however require us to look the other way i.e. totally ignore instances where actual bad faith is at play.

The incident in question is over the reverts to both Category:Redirects to an article without mention and the reverts to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header. The bad faith exhortations in the edit summaries for the reverts to the latter page (i.e. exhortations that the change should be discussed—where there is a discussion and the editor in question has made no attempts to participate and indeed doesn't even seem to have checked for consensus) are supporting evidence that the exhortations across *both* pages are actually obstructionist in intent rather than about seeking consensus. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you've assumed good faith based on your comments at RfD where you accused me of gamifying the RfD process. I used a very commonly accepted nomination rationale, which is that the term being redirected was not mentioned at the target. This comes down to WP:V and including some type of context for why the redirect exists. Additionally, I'm struggling to understand why you chose to edit war instead of mentioning this discussion when you were reverted. It's important to communicate on Wikipedia and this would have stopped any type of escalation. Based on your reverts, and the location of the discussion not being instantly obvious, how would I know about this discussion? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue for your (or my) position about RFD. This is ANI.

Based on[...] the location of the discussion not being instantly obvious, how would I know about this discussion?

This, not unlike the recounting of facts in the ANI/3RR report you opened up, is erroneous and misleading. The location of the discussion is the talk page of the page you reverted. Which you still haven't participated in, even after now having been made aware of it—nor have you backed out your revert exhorting me to "start a talk page discussion". -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• C. A. Russell has been blocked twice for personal attacks (2020, 2023), is often combative in their interactions with others (see RFD for example), and in November 2022 removed an argument with a deceased editor from their talk with the edit summary "I'm glad you're dead" and added a hidden comment reading "PS: fuck [another editor]. This behavior and reverting is more of the same combativeness. I was thinking of blocking, but I'll let another judge. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is begging the question, irrelevant, and prejudicial. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  My goodness, this is utterly abhorrent. I know blocks aren't punitive and this is technically a 'stale' comment, but that is the worst thing I have ever seen written on this website for sheer distastefulness. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's unbelievable. I'm speechless. I would have indeffed on sight. How was this not reported at the time? El_C 04:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  That makes two of us. I'm still somewhat considering an indefinite block even now for it, although it would require a healthy dose of IAR to ignore the preventative, not punitive element of the blocking policy. But that's how shocked I am by the vile comment. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Their reply to Money bringing it up is just as shocking. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Even though it happened in 2022, I don't believe someone who could say something like that—and remains seemingly unapologetic about it here—has a place in the community. With great fuckin' prejudice. El_C 05:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  are you fucking kidding me man Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• C. A. Russell's previous block in May 2023 stemmed from poor behavior at RfD (ANI thread). He recently returned to RfD, casting aspersions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24#Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle. That, coupled with the edit warring in a couple of other redirect-related pages shows that he is not willing or able to participate in a collegial manner with respect to redirects. Since this has now become a pattern, I would recommend that C. A. Russell be topic banned from redirects indefinitely. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@C. A. Russell: You are correct that BRD is not policy, but WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS is policy. Since you are not getting consensus through editing, you need to get consensus through discussion. RudolfRed (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for staying on topic. Unfortunately, you (though not alone) seem to have overlooked that there are two pages involved here.

1. Category:Redirects to an article without mention was reverted four times on the basis, ostensibly, of there being no consensus
2. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header is an entirely separate page that, in the midst of edit warring over the previous page, User:Hey man im josh flipped over to to undo my changes there, too

To the extent that it has been discussed, the "consensus" about the edit (such as it is—the original edit is still just two days old, but no objections have been stated including (crucially) from the editor in question performing the revert and exhorting me to "discuss" it) is broadly favorable.

To reiterate: this ANI is concerned with edits across two pages. The edits by User:Hey man im josh to the first are debatable and skirting the line, absent any evidence of wrongdoing here—they at least have the veneer of acceptability. The edits to the second page, however (a) stand alone as evidence of that the suggestions to discuss are in fact not in good faith and furthermore (b) cast doubt upon the interpretation that the edits the first page truly are in good faith.

To summarize: the reverts to these RFD-related pages by User:Hey man im josh are targeted and obstructionist.

They are obstructionist for the aforementioned reason—the ostensible appeals to consensus and discussion are rather more to stop something rather than it is a good faith attempt to determine whether and how that something is the best way to achieve the desired goal (if indeed it should be achieved).

They are targeted because at the point where User:Hey man im josh is reverting changes with the edit summary to start a discussion on the talk page for this page, too—despite there being discussion on the talk page related to this change—these reverts are the result of an aim to just revert my edits. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Not impressed with Russell's wikilawyering, not impressed with their assumption of bad faith and aspersions against Josh, not impressed with their edit-warring (AN3 was declined on technicality, but intent to edit-war was obvious, as they themself are still arguing that they editwarred instead of talking because BRD is not policy and they don't think talking would be productive). But all of that pales in comparison to Money's damning diff, which may be stale, but their cold, lawyering response to it is not, and as far as I'm concerned that alone disqualifies them from membership in our community. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  as they themself are still arguing that they editwarred instead of

  That's not an accurate characterization of what I said. That's not a particularly honest way to go about this.

  The User:Moneytrees-/changing-of-the-subject-to-past-transgressions-related stuff is (again) prejudicial and out of scope, besides. It can both be true that I did something for which I was blocked before and that User:Hey man im josh is being disruptive to Wikipedia's RFD pages. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, everyone knows where the discussion is and will be participating, yes?

@Mackensen, where's the discussion? I don't see a discussion at WT:RFD or anywhere else.

That cat page begins with the assertion that "Articles should mention any person, place, thing, or term that redirects to them". The talk page has an unanswered question from @A smart kitten about the implications of this statement for our licensing requirements (e.g., in the case of {{r from merge}} in which subsequent editors decide not to mention the most popular brand name of facial tissues in Ruritania). RFD#DELETE itself only suggests deletion "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned" – a much narrower statement than the description on this cat page. @Pbsouthwood has another relevant question at Template talk:R to article without mention, again with no reply. Nowhere do I see any discussions about whether this cat should have these directions. Has nobody actually started these discussions? Did they get archived already? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, no offense, but it should be User:Hey man I'm josh that should be blocked. He was the one who reverted those changes on sports such as England 2022 (Association football event), which is supposed to be redirected to UEFA Women's Euro 2022, and Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle, which is supposed to be redirected to 2022 Peach Bowl, considering the given evidence in the article. C. A. Russell was telling complete facts about England 2022 (Association football event). C. A. Russell, in my opinion, should be unblocked indefinitely. Abhiramakella (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Russell was blocked for making disgusting remarks about the death of a fellow editor, not for the content dispute about redirects. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Abhiramakella: I want you to understand that Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle was deleted as a result of a community discussion at this RfD, it was not something I did on that I was solely responsible for. Participants in the discussion took issue with, and agreed with the nomination rationale, the redirect not being mentioned at the target or explained in any way (WP:V). I notice that you've reached out to two users ([114], 2) about this so I felt it relevant to mention. The other link you mention, England 2022 (Association football event), is not deleted and is actually looking like it will be kept. With that said, it's been noted that you removed the RfD notice, which would make that the third time you've removed an RfD notice (two days after my previous two notices). You're welcome to make your argument for why a redirect makes sense and should remain, or be retargeted, but you need to stop removing the RfD notices. It won't stop the discussions from taking place. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG here. IMO, Abhiramakella should be temporarily blocked for repeatedly removing WP:RFD tags from nominated redirects. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Just realized, C. A. Russell never participated in the discussion for England 2022 (Association football event), so I have no idea what Abhiramakella is taking about. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - open to review

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 went for a walk around the block, considered my actions carefully, then decided that the best course of action to protect Wikipedia from further disruption was to block C. A. Russell (talk · contribs) indefinitely. This was for a combination of the heinous personal attack mentioned above, their failure to show any level of contrition for it (let alone an unreserved apology), their ongoing wikilaywering, their assumptions of bad faith against others, as well as disruptive edit warring. All of this combined means I believe they meet the standard required for blocking indefinitely to protect ongoing disruption and our sense of community.

As always, I welcome review of the block from my peers. Daniel (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is the right call. The "I'm glad you're dead" so shocks my conscience that I think it's reasonable to say any block of an editor displaying that kind of bile is per se preventative. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse - clear continuation of same disruption from the previous block in November. Indef block is the only thing that will ensure the disruption from 2022 and 2020 through 2023 doesn't continue into 2024. Thanks, Daniel. Levivich (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Good block. That comment was beyond the pale, and the lack of remorse is even more abhorrent. There's no place in our community for that behavior. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Call it deterrence, call it basic decency. Thank you for taking decisive action, Daniel. I was at the cusp of doing so myself. El_C 05:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Agree 1000% with @Dumuzid. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Good block. Good riddance. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse. I wouldn’t have brought up the past behavior if I didn’t think it was relevant to this discussion, it’s a continuation. It’s Wikipedia, it’s never that serious. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I hadn’t read this 2020 ANI either— nothing really changed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse. I was about to propose a CBAN but this'll do as I don't see how a bad unblock might result in this case. I propose the WP:POLEMIC on their userpage be removed too. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse: Listen, man, who cares if that "I'm glad your dead" is stale? Someone capable of doing that is someone we don't want around Wikipedia. Period. Full stop. Ravenswing 05:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. Probably not totally by the book (i.e., using stuff from a while back) but one of the few valid uses of WP:IAR I've seen over the years. Well done. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. While that individual comment was indeed from a couple of years back, there was also a more recent element (the wikilawyering, assumptions of bad faith, edit warring, as well as a failure to show understanding of how bad that comment was when challenged on it) which assisted with making the block preventative for future disruption also. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse. There's WP:GRAVEDANCING, and then there's... actual grave dancing. Even without the current edit warring and ABF, this is still a by-the-book block. This is the exact type of thing that WP:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility is meant for. There seems to be zero introspection or chance of the atrocious behavior stopping, so the preventative purpose is satisfied. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse. "I'm glad your dead"? Yeah, don't bother coming back after that. That is way beyond the pale. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Non-admin endorse. This kind of comment has absolutely nothing to do here. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse, and make it a siteban. That lack of humanity has no place on Wikipedia, on any WMF project, or in any collaborative and collegial environment. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 13:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse. I was not aware of that comment when I commented above. Mackensen (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Um, yeah, endorse. Cards84664 13:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Just read the conversation; Endorse. Toketaa^talk 13:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse, and would also support a site ban. That kind of comment and the response to it being brought up is truly abhorrent. That type of behavior does not belong in our community and the user should've been shown the door immediately. The Night Watch (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. On the one hand, pushing for a full-fledged siteban is probably just needless piling on. On the other hand, I don't really see a path for C. A. Russell to return to editing. We'd only allow them back if they showed remorse for their words, but at this point I doubt many of us would be convinced of their sincerity given the coldness of their replies above. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. As a participant at the 2023 ANI, I had wondered why the block was only for 72 hours, and why Russell wasn't allowed to acknowledge or apologize for his problematic behaviour. Jay 💬 17:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse as well. The November 2022 comment, and subsequent apparent nonchalance about it, is enough for an indef (I think all these endorses arguably make this a community ban, as well). This is the kind of user toxicity we had to take a stand against in the mid-2010s; we should have zero tolerance for it now. That we let it go for over a year is on us, and we cannot rectify it swiftly enough, especially when the user demonstrated so much since then that it was not a onetime aberration. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Obviously Endorse, if I'd seen the "I'm glad you're dead" comment at the time we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse, and support site ban. Celebrating the death of a fellow editor is utterly unacceptable. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Well, I hope they understand the meaning of consensus now. I doubt it, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• The literal grave dancing here is something we should protect anyone from. No one should work in an atmosphere where that exists, regardless of how long ago it happened. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. That comment is beyond the pale and justifiable to indef block. I'm open to consider reversing the block if C. A. Russell makes a fulsome apology (not those "I'm sorry that you think my comment was wrong"). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Is it possible to get that horrendous comment/edit deleted? I 100% endorse the block, but it seems distasteful to leave it up. Nemov (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Support, that's a level of disrespect that doesn't have its place there at all. Given that it was made in the edit summary, the fact that it's still just as much there as when it was added is a problem. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if WP:REVDEL allows for it, but I'd endorse any use of the tool to at least hide the edit summary, if not the content completely. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  What summary? /wanders away whistling. Oh, and endorse indef. An editor who would make that sort of comment has no place here. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Good call on Revdel. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse per Jay. Nothing else I really want to say, other than I was the primary WP:PA target of the issues that resulted in the 2023 ANI report. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse strongly per my review. He deserved to get blocked for all this incivility and someone like him doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia for rudely (and literally) grave-dancing for the passing of an editor we should all be mourning about. Good job, Daniel. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Nothing to add other than to thank Daniel for their work in making this "workplace" less toxic. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse and I would consider this a Community Ban. That comment was beyond the pale, and the user's behavior since has demonstrated they are not willing to edit in a collaborative manner. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 1 February 2024 (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.

Unsanctioned BOT

A7CD2EI2NRTWY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be operating an unsanctioned BOT to add invalid categories at high speed to a bunch of articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked and all edits reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• @WikiDan61, if it was a bot, it was rather a slow one  :) ——Serial 19:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Generally, we ask the editor to stop before going to ANI (19:29), not after. And generally, we don't indef an editor who doesn't continue making problematic edits after being asked to stop (at 19:30). Levivich (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: I brought the matter here because I thought the rate of editing was not going to be easily stopped. I can't take any credit for the eventual indef block; I would have thought a temporary block to prevent further damage would have sufficed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

    It wasn't really that fast. It was 44 edits in 22 minutes, an average of 2 edits per minute. What harm to the encyclopedia would have come had you just posted a message on their talk page and waited a few minutes to see if they continued editing or stopped editing? At worst, an extra 5 or 10 edits to revert? And adding a redlinked category isn't like posting hundreds of pictures of pornography or anything... this was not urgent enough to skip the "talk to the editor first" step, in my opinion. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Mechanized battalion

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.

---

Mechanized battalion (talk · contribs · logs) needs help with civility. At Task Force 1-41 Infantry:

• Edit summary: "I wrote 90% of this article and I am the one who created it. Quit screwing it up."
• I appealed to this editor, and they responded by calling me a Nazi (which they removed when asked).
• Today, I started a discussion on the article they "wrote 90% of", and User:Mechanized battalion responded "Grow up and get a life". Any attempt to discuss changes to Task Force 1-41 Infantry are met with insults. Any help would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Because you make mountains out of mole hills. Quit harrassing me. I financially support Wikipedia unlike most. Mechanized battalion (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed that comment. I can't decide if a final warning or a block is the way to go right now. Mechanized battalion, you are not being harassed. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That photo he is complaining about has been there for years. It was a real time photo of a burning Iraqi vehicle destroyed during a night operation. Of course it is not going to be crystal clear. I have contributed a lot here. Mechanized battalion (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't mean you get to yell at people. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

And Magnolia is right: it's a terrible photo, it does not really illustrate anything in the article beyond the basic "stuff was blown up", and I also don't understand why you're placing all those images on the left. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Mechanized battalion claimed here they "created" the article Task Force 1-41 Infantry. The edit history shows User:Don Brunett created it, and was blocked indefinitely in August 2016. I ran both though Editor Interaction Analyser and they edit the exact same obscure articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Mechanized battalion for one week. Calling another editor a "Nazi" without evidence, even if withdrawn, is an unacceptable personal attack. Cullen328 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The block is now indefinite, due to the evidence of block evasion presented by Magnolia677. Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I should have looked better: that account is old. I ran CU, but found User:OldSoldier2012. Magnolia677, what do you think--same editor? Drmies (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

And TPA revoked for doubling down with the incivility and battleground mentality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2024 (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.

Two IP blocks followed by new user Crisrod 9124 doing the same thing

• 152.231.191.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2800:860:701E:8033:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Crisrod 9124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Someone from Costa Rica has been genre-warring in music articles. They were rangeblocked as Special:Contributions/2800:860:701E:8033:0:0:0:0/64 on January 20. They were blocked again as Special:Contributions/152.231.191.238 on February 1. Other involved IPs include Special:Contributions/152.231.190.63, Special:Contributions/179.50.242.135, and Special:Contributions/186.5.165.158. Separate Ways (Worlds Apart) and Der Kommissar (song) were put into protection on January 16 by Daniel Case because of this vandal.[115]

The username Crisrod 9124 was registered on February 4, and Crisrod 9124 began systematically restoring the edits of blocked IP 152.231.191.238. (Example 1, example 2, example 3.)

I see a clear connection. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I see a clear connection as well. Blocked for obvious socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Ieditpagesmhm behaving abusively at slightest incident

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 was completely uncivil when reverted for adding unsourced material. When I informed them to keep their insults to themselves, they kept going, abusing me further. I don't think anyone else needs to be subject to this user's behaviour. Possibly an alt account of 2A02:C7C:94B9:C800:E48E:8698:A99F:68E. GraziePrego (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:47, 3 February 2024 (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 Adding partial block

Hi, could we add Manuel Luís Goucha to the list of partial blocks for this IP range 2A00:23C7:F915:8901:E874:F73A:26D5:AE14 due to persistent vandalism? Thanks, 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Also, blocked the /64 range for 3 months with a non partial block for good measure. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Parminekhosravi continuing unsourced edits after final warning

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.

---

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

Editor continuing to add unsourced material and WP:OR after multiple warnings (see their talk page). After their final warning yesterday ([116]), they still did this. Examples of earlier unsourced comments or unjustified deletions: [117], [118], [119], [120], etc. R Prazeres (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

They got blocked. Possibly in response to this post. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2024 (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.

172.56.232.3

This IP address (172.56.232.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has recently been replacing translingual text on many articles, including Kyokushin, Banpo Bridge, and many others. I have no knowledge of if this is policy or not, so I would like to request others to look into this user's contributions. I have reverted one of their edits, and they have reverted it back. I have not reverted it again for fears of a WP:3RR violation, so I would like to know more people's opinions. Thank you. 2003 LN6 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is at MOS:KO. The IP editor is removing Wiktionary links that are unlikely to be helpful. For example 극진 on the Kyokushin page is just a Korean transliteration of the Japanese name and has no other meaning here. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Earth6282

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.

---

• Earth6282 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.74.218.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Disruptive editing, some bizarre edits, edit warring, serious lack of civility. These seem to belong to the same person. Wareno (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, that was quick. Keep up the good work. Wareno (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2024 (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.

Cross-wiki vandalism here and on Commons

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.

---

Dwelchactress is a vandalism-only account. On Witney, the account has added four images, uploaded by themself, which are just edited versions of the existing photos to add an image of Denise Welch (who this account appears to be impersonating) to them. As this is a case of subtle enough vandalism and it involves edits to Commons, I'm taking it here rather than the usual AIV. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved: The account has been blocked here, and images deleted on commons. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:55, 5 February 2024 (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 copyright violations by User:SabinaKawsar

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.

---

Despite warning, all of SabinaKawsar (talk · contribs) contributions continue to be copy-and-pasted from the bjsports website. There has been no engagement with messages places on their talk page. Block requested to prevent further disruption. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've INDEFfed until such time as they choose to communicate and make it clear they understand the issue and will change the behavior Star Mississippi 15:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:13, 4 February 2024 (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:Alebir and the article Jannik Sinner

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.

---

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

Ever since he won the Australian Open, the article Jannik Sinner has been a target for disruptive editing. Multiple IPs and User:Alebir have been particularly interested in replacing German town names with Italian town names, removing reference to Sinner coming from a predominantly German-speaking region, and removing reference to Sinner being a native German-speaker. All of them have in common that they removed sourced material and didn't provide any kind of explanation (there is none, of course, but they didn't even make an attempt). The IPs were temporarily dealt with here. This leaves us with Alebir, who has edited the article as explained above three times so far ([121], [122], [123]), and is unwilling to explain his edits either on the article's talk page or when asked to do so on User talk:Alebir. I suggest a temporary block. Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The towns are in italian territory of course the Italian names have precedence and regarding German being his mother tongue is false because he speaks a dolomitic dialect completely unintelligible with standard German. Alebir (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alebir: Will you promise to immediately stop editing that article and start a discussion at Talk:Jannik Sinner? You've received multiple warnings about how you're breaking policy. City of Silver 22:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor indefinitely blocked for "Disruptive editing: edit warring, single purpose account, failure to discuss on talk pages, failure to establish consensus when challenged (BRD)". Daniel (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2024 (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.

Sanity check

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

Can I have a sanity check please? I am right that we don't want trivia adding to articles (in this case, the plot of an episode of Seinfeld being added to Buccaneer) and that we frown upon people switching between logged-in and logged-out editing in order to subvert 3RR? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections for the trivia, and WP:LOUTSOCK for editing as an IP and with an account. The latter, if done deceptively, can lead to a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it was done deceptively as well to avoid appearing as too much of an edit warrior, but I may just be assuming bad faith. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 18:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing was done deceptively. I am new in wikipedia. Please see my updated "In popular culture" section which is not "trivia" but adds valuable information to the "Buccaneer" entry. It is also well referenced both primarily and secondarily Yotamabramson (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You need sources that establish its significance to the article's subject. Not just sources that verify facts. It's a common misunderstanding. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Regardless I don't think this is an issue and is just a noob with like 55 edits @Yotamabramson just refresh yourself on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

playing with rules, ignoring any sources at StoreDot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HueSurname A user, HueSurname, has been consistently reverting any new edits, irrespective of their source or relevance. This includes information from reputable sources such as The Guardian and Electrek, among others, which are being dismissed as "press releases" without valid justification. The current state of the page is heavily biased, overemphasizing statements from the CEO (and youtube video) and outdated promises, while neglecting recent developments and balanced viewpoints. This persistent exclusion of relevant and reliable sources has resulted in a disproportionate representation of the subject.

In accordance with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and reliable sourcing, I propose the following:

• A review of the recent edits and the sources deemed unreliable by HueSurname.
• An evaluation of the current content for balance and adherence to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.
• Consideration of a temporary restriction on HueSurname's editing rights if it is found that their actions violate Wikipedia's editing policies.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. --2A02:2149:8BDB:B00:E9A0:470:B1A5:6F1E (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I just took a look at the sources in the previous revision before he reverted it, and yes, they removed information from The Guardian and Electrek. Probably can get an admin to put a temporary block or simply a warning on their talk page. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The Electrek reference was buzzword salad from various press releases. The Guardian source is fine and was removed because it supported promotional language and nothing more; the source itself is fine if it were used for proper purposes. Why is an edit from more than a year ago being brought up now? By some random IP address editor? HueSurname (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• As the big notice atop the page says, This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This was already resolved by talk page discussion a year ago, and there is no chronic behavioral problem being alleged, so I think that this should be swiftly closed as stale and moot. If one doesn't like how the talk page discussion a year ago went, and wishes to challenge the edit from January 2024 that re-instated the consensus from back then, then the article talk page is the place. This is an extremely ordinary content dispute, but for the IP opening this thread. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Eyes on AfD please

This LTA is back to their antics and another set of eyes, hands would be helpful as some of us head to bed. Thanks! I assume no edit filter would help here despite the predictable habits Star Mississippi 02:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What username are they under now? Or has it been dealt with? Professor Penguino (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. I remember scrolling one time through this page while playing MKWii and noticing a lot of comments regarding the user. I'm sure they're back to their old ways and trying to really annoy us. We got to keep a close watch on AfD and make sure that they're not doing any pesky stuff. Obviously, I can't, since I'm usually in bed by at least 11:00. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

BlueVizoR

• BlueVizoR (talk · contribs)

The above editor has been given multiple warnings for their editing issues since starting here in August of last year; they started out trying to push that somehow the Pluto TV version of Spike, a defunct channel, is somehow more important than its pay-TV replacement, the Paramount Network, along with overloading templates for the networks of Paramount Global and Warner Bros. Discovery with anything that's ever existed for those entities. They also have front-dated the articles for defunct networks with predecessor companies where those channels have never existed for them and 'corrected' items in articles that are complete falsehoods, such as this example for The CW.

Lately, they have been modifying image sizes in infoboxes. However, as they're editing in mobile mode for every single edit, they're unable to discern how these changes affect the article in regular viewing mode. They have been warned many times to stop editing image sizes without comparing in desktop mode, but outside one clueless reply in September on their talk page for that CW edit, have not acknowledged any talk messages whatsoever. In their latest wave, I implored them to acknowledge multiple messages on their talk in an edit summary, with no response, so it's clear they know about their user talk page even in mobile mode, but are choosing to not listen to anyone. One of their latest edits shows a complete lack of CIR, and I'm worn from trying to keep them from doing any further damage. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• An indef is called for, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. I can't see why this user would even bother to contribute constructively after multiple warnings. We told them, but they wouldn't listen. So I agree with Jusdafax. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have indefinitely blocked BlueVizoR for disruptive editing. In order to be unblocked, the editor must agree to communicate with other editors and respond to their concerns. I see that a large percentage of their edits have been reverted, so they are improving the encyclopedia far less than disrupting it, and they are creating unnecessary work for other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Do you mean disrupting it far less than improving it? JM (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, Cullen means what he said. What he means is that the editor is doing more disruption rather than improving the site itself. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Somehow I read it wrong and then rewrote it wrong... this is a sign that I'm too sick to be here right now, I'll take a break lol JM (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I mean that their disruptive editing has damaged the encyclopedia much more than any of their possible marginal improvements, which are not readily visible to me, JM2023. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I thought you were trying to say, but I accidentally read it wrong and instead thought you had written it wrong, I've got to be more careful JM (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's fine. Again, every editor, including the admins, tend to make mistakes quite a bit. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Something horrifying happened to me this afternoon (based on my time zone, Eastern Time)...

Pinging the two editors who know about this IP: @Toketaa and @Writ Keeper. Remember that IP, User:63.115.31.130, which Writ Keeper blocked until 2026? Well, it got pretty horrible this afternoon. I was sitting during lunch at my school, browsing through Wikipedia, when I noticed on my phone that I had like 6 alerts from Wikimedia Commons. I opened them up, and yeah. It was bad. This IP had written racist statements on my Wikimedia Commons talk page, saying I'm a "curry-munching fagmonkey who needs a pair," "I should get a real job instead of sitting on Wikipedia," etc. I reverted those edits, thinking the IP was just trying to annoy me again, and then it became worse during my journalism class. Somehow, some way, the IP had leaked my mom's first name on his next message. And I don't even know how he did it. Nobody knows my mom's first name.

Now thankfully, he got globally blocked by a steward, Superpes15. Unfortunately though, while he's blocked on MediaWiki and Meta-Wiki for sending messages like this, he hasn't been exclusively blocked on Wikimedia Commons, and his global block only lasts until Feb. 7. I'm still a bit shaken up from this event, and I'm nervous that he might start these messages again. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this on Commons earlier today (he was harassing another editor in a particularly vile way). If he comes back - it's from a high school in Massachusetts - you can make a request at m:SRG for a longer block. I don't see any useful contributions from that IP going back a long way. Antandrus (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Should I add a school IP notice? Feels appropriate for this IP. (Edit, it's already added.) I like Astatine (Talk to me) 03:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Roger roger. Also we should keep the IP and where it leads in mind, I remember of reading on the school IP notice that we can contact the school if this continues as bad as it is - though I can't remember if that's still an option. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 03:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure necessarily if one user or several others are editing from the IP, but I also remembered that he kept creating accounts with names attacking me, which I knew were 100% socks. Thankfully, all of them were blocked. I'm grateful to the admin who did that. Still have to keep a watch on the IP address itself, though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry you had to go through this. Given the degree of harassment going on here, I'd recommend sending an email to WMF Trust & Safety. In the meantime, a few things: (1) perhaps an admin could temporarily semi-protect NoobThreePointOh's user and talk page to avoid getting a bunch of harmful messages (you'd have to reach out to an admin on Commons for it to apply over there -- WP:DISCORD and email are options if you'd rather keep it off-wiki); (2) you may want to reevaluate what personally identifying information you share in public places. Send me a message if you're not sure what I'm talking about. It's not ideal that we have to thing about such things, but the reality of making public decisions on a public website that allows anonymous comments is that you will attract a jerk once in a while. (3) if you're worried about notifications, there are a lot of options available at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Adding one more thing, if a Commons admin is seeing this, there's some revdel work that needs to happen in the history of NTPO's usertalk. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to send a message to the SD attached to this IP and let them know of this? I think with the scope of the actions taken here it might be a good idea for someone in the facility to know. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 03:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Might ask Trust & Safety's opinion on that. Some of the edit summaries/messages are overt threats. Probably wouldn't be considered "credible threats", but it's all extreme enough that it might be worth sending to someone. Looks like it's not their first IP -- another one in Maynard, MA, looks to have been used to mess with Y2hyaXM, too. At minimum, persistent disruption by students can lead to range blocks that ultimately affect the ability of other students (and teachers/staff) to be able to edit Wikipedia, which is something they may be interested in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel N3PO should decide if that's a good idea. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 03:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A few more of their IP addresses can be found in the edit history of w:Sharon Green Middleton—they've been targeting me for the past few months after I reverted one of their racist edits to that page. Y2hyaXM (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'll get on the line with Trust and Safety. Edit: sent. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 04:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, after just 6 hours of sleep, I surprisingly feel much better now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Since I've sent the email to Trust and Safety, I haven't gotten a response yet. So I'll keep on it. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 22:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That's good. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The times I've contacted them, they are not prompt to respond (not even a quick receipt with tracking-number). That's not a good look for them IMO. It seems like they are higher-level and eventual handling/longer-term support and sometime handoffs to [arbcom, CU/OS, etc] at periodic meetings rather than immediate handling of acute issues (unless I guess severe enough for WP:EMERGENCY?). DMacks (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear that, @NoobThreePointOh. If anything like this happens again, please send me an email and I will handle it for you. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity Yeah, no problem. The incident has just gone from my memory now, so I feel much better. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh: I protected your user talk for some days; if you're not ok with that, just ping me. Lectonar (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. now I feel really good. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Joy and “self control issues”

User:Joy has some issues with self control. Yestarday I've recieved some threats on my IP's talk page and on article talk page. Today he's still continuing with bullying.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:46.188.178.195
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serb-Catholic_movement_in_Dubrovnik

Examples:

• "Please find a better hobby, don't try to abuse Wikipedia like this, it's just bad."
• "You're very adept at this kind of wikilawyering, which makes me believe we're dealing with repeat business here."
• "You've been notified of the rules of decorum a sufficient number of times already; further violations will lead to a block." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.142.181 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your first step is to make sure that you are not abusing Wikipedia, are refraining from Wikilawyering, and are following the "rules of decorum", which I interpret to be the policies and guidelines related to editor behavior. To be frank, these comments are curt and not very friendly, but they address editor conduct rather than rising to the level of actual personal attacks. Based on the evidence you have presented so far, I do not see anything here that requires action by administrators. Try respectful discussion with the other editor instead of anything that could reasonably be construed as wikilawyering. Cullen328 (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Than you for looking into it, I only responded on this user's attacks. I hope you had the sam discussion with User:Joy about WikiBullying, especially about:

• WP:POV railroad
• WP:No personal attacks
• WP:No-edit orders

46.188.142.181 (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a classic, in the same 24h I've been accused of "promoting a Greater Serbian agenda" and "retarded ustasha kleptomaniac claims" by two different anonymous warriors. --Joy (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you're doing something wrong in your editing and communication with other editors. You started by accusing me to be "Kubura" You have replaced every mention of "Croatian" to "Slavic" in my edit by forging the quotes of several authors to suit your (and Greater Serbian) POV. It is sad that you're trying to prove the Serbian identity of Dubrovnik in XIX century by denying Croatian identity since XIII. 46.188.142.181 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not tell you you were Kubura, I told you you were parroting their edits while removing 6-year-old citation-needed tags from them. It's hard to continue assuming good faith from you when you keep misinterpreting everything in some sort of a malicious manner over and over again. Perhaps I'm not as patient as I once was, but there's only so many ways to try to engage someone who clearly isn't receptive to it. --Joy (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing should not have editor permissions

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 user should not be an editor on Wikipedia at all due to unprofessional and extremely rude behavior.

I was threatened multiple times in multiple ways in multiple messages by this user. They should not be editing for the brand Wikipedia. This is my first bad experience ever with Wiki after 3 plus years as an editor myself and 10 plus years of usership. I had to make the brand aware of @DoubleGrazing inappropriate behavior and hope this is my first and only bad experience with Wiki. It is unfortunate that this had to be escalated but I genuinely do not want other users to have a bad experience like I did. I'm learning how to correctly contribute to Wikipedia and will hopefully receive help from other editors and or moderators that are more professional and respectful.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartcake (talk • contribs) 15:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Smartcake You have made serious accusations; serious accusations require serious evidence. Please provide your evidence in the form of diffs detailing threats and of taking bribes and undisclosed monetary compensation. If you are not prepared to provide this evidence, you should withdraw your unfounded accusations and instead hear the advice you are being given. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I edited my response and removed any claims I have no evidence for. Thank you 331dot and others for educating me on Wikipedia Smartcake (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your current post still doesn't contain any evidence. As 331dot said, please provide diffs that show the things you're claiming. — Czello ^(music) 16:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is in my message portal/message history on Wikipedia @Czello I edited my response. Smartcake (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You need to make your case here and provide your evidence here. We won't go looking for it. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You can't really expect people to go digging for it. If you want people to take your report seriously you need to bring the evidence here. — Czello ^(music) 16:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Smartcake: I have already asked you not to make unfounded accusations, and yet here you are again. You can call me rude if you wish; that is a subjective concept, and you're entitled to your opinion. I don't particularly like to be accused of threatening anyone, but even that I can live with, untrue as it may be. However, I happen to take the problem of paid editing very seriously, and will not put up with repeated mud-slinging of that sort without a hint of evidence.

And just for the record, I am not a 'moderator', never have been, and most likely never will be, nor have I ever claimed anything of the sort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have edited my response and still strongly feel you DoubleGrazing threatening me today warrants having editor permission revoked but that is Wikipedia decision not mine. Smartcake (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of these threats. Canterbury Tail talk 16:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have good news for you if you think they shouldn't have moderator permissions: Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. Anyone can place a speedy deletion tag on a promotional page, it doesn't require any advanced permissions. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Smartcake I strongly suggest you retract the outrageous baseless accusations, and see WP:BOOMERANG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have edited my response @Theroadislong Smartcake (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't factor comments after they've been posted; this includes your own, especially if doing so would give a misleading picture of what has been said. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous at this point. You say that there is evidence, yet I don't see any. You promise to put it up: where is it. If anything, this is the clearest example of WP:BOOMERANG I've seen. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Canterbury Tail beat me to the block, so I obviously endorse it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Came here to do and say the same. Enough is enough. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Enough. They've admitted they're promoting their clients, paid or not. With the aspersions, personal attacks, and admission of promotion I've blocked them per WP:NOTHERE. No need to waste more time here. Canterbury Tail talk 16:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to touch the brakes here to prevent pile-on of a newish editor who doesn't understand how things work here. We could all take a step back, draw a line, and move forward with no further poor comments from them, and not keep escallating while they try to find the evidence they claim exists. But Canterbury Tail raises the new, unrelated and serious problem of being less than honest about their promotional intent. So I'm no longer inclined to go easy on the other concerns, but instead that also adds to their incompatibility with being an editor here. Here are the details I noticed: [124] [125]. Not sure if CT was also seeing those and/or others. DMacks (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with DMacks regarding the recent(ish) uptick in overly-enthusiastic newer editors who are overly preoccupied with ANI and admin areas in general. I would hope that improving the encyclopedia would be more enticing than basking in drama, but alas, it appears not to be so. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 7 February 2024 (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.

Bonthefox3 and adding the "controversial" tag to talk pages, again

• Bonthefox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous block

Bonthefox3 was previously blocked by DMacks last month for indiscriminately adding the "controversial" tag to talk pages, after many warnings. Even on Talk:Cat, for example, which I'd think is pretty uncontroversial.

They've continued again a month later, adding the tag to numerous pages about bras, bikinis, and underwear. I'd just ping DMacks normally in this situation but Bonthefox3 seems to be adding these tags at light speed and not responding to warnings. Endwise (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Right after my 31-hour block on January 8 expired, they resumed the behavior, and I warned it would result in another block. Even today, when called on it with level1 and then level4 warning, they promised to stop, then even did it again on one of the same pages (always without edit-summary) that another User:Meters specifically identified (in usertalk and editsummary) as inappropriate. So that's edit-warring also. And then jumped to editing the Wikipedia:Harassment policy page to make a factual change to the definition of Harassment in the first sentence. Their userpage is full of all kinds of deceptive userboxes and talkpage evidences inability to communicate clearly in English (let alone honestly or constructively respond to concerns). DE? CIR? Take your pick. DMacks (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they need to be topic banned from adding templates and tagging in general. Canterbury Tail talk 14:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

And now they're tagging articles of clothing as being part of the pornography project. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your one-week block is exceptionally generous, Canterbury Tail. I spot-checked a few, and they are generally bogus, so I undid the lot of them that others hadn't already. DMacks (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that myself. I'm considering changing it to an indef and they need to convince the community to get their editing rights back, due to their wilful breaking of promises and stubborn disruption. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've changed this to an indef. They need to convince us all to regain their editing rights, not just wait out a short period of time. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the other talk pages that were tagged. I think they may be tagging things as controversial based on whether they are controversial on vi:. Definitely not helpful though. Secretlondon (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Jaymailsays

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.

---

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

This user has received many warnings from different users, mostly for tendentious editing, BLP violations and edit warring.

At least seven warnings, five from different administrators:

• [126]

• [127]

• [128]

• [129]

• [130] (1 warning from admin and 2 warnings from other users just in the last month)

And more warnings previously from other users:

• [131]

• [132]

• [133]

• [134]

• [135]

Their talk page is so long that all those warnings are easily overlooked (I didn’t notice them the first few times I was there). It is obvious that this user is creating a time sink for the community and also continuously disrupting the project. Given their recent multiple problematic edits and reverts that other users have also complained on their talk page, (e.g., Brendan Kavanagh, [136] unreasonable threatening of blocks against other user in edit summary, etc.) and their edit warring behaviour, BLP violations and tendentious editing, etc., I believe further disciplinary action is warranted. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

While I am pretty sure these complaints had merit, could you evidence that please? Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There are over 12 warnings mentioned above filed by many different users including 5 administrators (but not including me). Which one do you want (me) to evidence?

FYI, more evidence can be found on thier talk page. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This page has hundreds of watchers. Your report amounts to "other people have complained about this guy, here are some links which might or might not give you the means to assess the merit of those complaints, about which I offer no opinion". This is a kind of meta-policing which can waste a lot of editors' time as they go down rabbit holes looking for evidence. Please, if YOU have evidence of disruption, present links to that disruption with your assessment briefly given and the remedy you seek. The last thing we want is for ANI to be a place for complaints of the kind "this editor has been warned a lot; might be worth looking into everyone!". Bon courage (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time I file a case at ANI. I expected that there would be help from senior editors (e.g, to provide evidence) like you in case my post above is not good enough from your point of view. I hope you are not implying that I’m the one creating the time sink. I have already provided some evidence above in addition to the links to warnings. I’m not sure whether you’ve read them or why you hadn’t commented on them.

Phrases like: “If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.” and “... can result in you being blocked from editing” have been added to their talk page more than once by different editors and administrators. If the phrases are meaningless, they should be removed from all warning templates.

My report is not “ other people have complained about this guy” as you said. It is: “Twelve editors have warned this guy, including five administrators.”

I have already spent time providing the 13 links above. Two editors other than me plus two administrators had raised concerns on their talk page in the past 2 days. If you believe that the user should be allowed to further waste the community’s time and disrupt the project, I’m fine with that. You tone really scare me off. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You did a good job of providing diffs, but I agree with Bon courage that they do amount to, "other people (12 of them) have complained about (warned) this guy". Just as courts don't allow hearsay, so too with ANI; those warnings are proof only that the user has been warned. They could have been given in error (even administrators make mistakes!) or somesuch. If you feel there is a problem, you're welcome to provide diffs of Jaymailsays doing the things they've been warned about. We're all volunteers; many editors don't want to dig through someone's history because there may be a problem, so to make it easy for them to action something, it's best to present all the evidence in a row (in a format like you did with the warning diffs, above). I hope that helps clarify things. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah ... I’m just trying to be a “good citizen” and report “offences” that I know. I’ve provided the information on “when/who/where/what” already. Further information is just one two clicks away (the warnings on user talk already have diffs the links to the articles). I don’t know/think that I have to be the detective too ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC); edited 17:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

the warnings on user talk already have diffs ← I checked the first couple and they didn't. Bon courage (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Echoing what Bon courage said above; the ones I looked at didn't provide diffs. Some led to pages, but I'd have to dig through the history, and don't have the context to know what diffs are worth investigating. Please understand that A) I don't [think] I have to be the detective means you're expecting someone else to do the work for you. B) You probably don't WANT them to take action based on user warnings; anyone can post a warning, whether warranted or not. I've seen disruptive editors posting retaliatory warnings on their reporter's talk pages. Requiring diffs of behavior, not warning, protects the innocent. If you don't want to go through that trouble to make reports, that's okay, I'm just telling you what increases the odds of an administrator acting. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I can’t agree that “disruptive editors posting retaliatory warnings” is comparable to this case. I don’t think we have as much as twelve disruptive editors or five *disruptive* administrators there. If so, we may say any administrator acting on this board *disruptive* too. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I’d be happy if people can be patient and see if other users will help providing more evidence, or, better yet, help providing diffs themselves instead of saying something that seems to be putting the good citizen to trial (immediately after a case was filed) ... but it’s nothing to do with you EducatedRedneck, it is likely because a user (the one posted before you) isn’t getting along very well with me ... I’m sorry that you got involved ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2024 (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.

Eckstasy

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

I was reading Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey after redacting her deadname (which, per MOS:GENDERID, doesn't belong, but that's another story for another day) and Eckstasy posts a comment: very ridiculous that Wikipedia has been made a politically correct playground for lefties, instead of being a factual source of information. Having the "dead name" would remove any confusion of biological identities. I feel like this is a personal attack. Also, it seems this editor isn't interested in doing constructive edits anymore: a lot of their recent contributions were reverted, with one on Huw Edwards even being revdelled. What to do? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, what a history. Lots of reminders why I used to think Wikipedia was a trash website back in the early days. Back in those days, Holocaust denial got a finger wag, and if you were blocked for sock puppetry, your friend could just unblock you after being contacted offline. Anyway, indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Tia Canita- Competence, copyright vios, etc.

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

Tia Canita, as you can tell by her talk page, is a persistent problem. She continually copies episode summaries from the seaon's page into the page for the article. Her grasp of the English language is also problematic, as many editors have had to clean up her articles due to grammar, spelling, and usage issues. At the very least, her autoconfirmed privileges should be revoked.

See The Walking Dead (season 11) episode summaries compared to New Haunts, Rogue Element, The Lucky Ones, Warlords, and The Rotten Core. Warlords shows how poorly she grasps the English language, as she tried to change the plot wording, but turned it into an incomprehensible mess. Afheather (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

At no time did I violate the author's rights, I only tried to improve the joints to those who accused me, I asked them from all hearts that didn't bother them to help me improve them, please. Tia Canita (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You copied and pasted from one article to another, maybe making minor changes, or in the case of Warlords, turning it into a huge mess. That is a copyright violation. People shouldn't have to follow behind you fixing your mistakes. Instead of making a mess of English articles, why not write them for the Spanish wikipedia? Afheather (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. Good lord. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee is making personal attacks against me.

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.

---

Background of the Situation:

A few weeks ago I discovered a sentence on the page 2018 United States Senate election in California that I considered to be violent hate speech against the elderly. Originally I handled this situation very badly. I removed the sentence. When people reverted my edit, I was furious. I couldn't understand why anyone who wasn't a far-right hate monger would want the sentence to stay. So I edit-warred and made personal attacks that I shouldn't have made on this talk page. I should of handled myself better and assumed good faith, which was very hard to do at the time. I am deeply sorry for what I did. I was blocked for doing this. After my block expired, I promised that I am done with assuming bad faith on fellow editors and now am ready to have a good discussion. I wanted to have a productive discussion about this issue. I started another section of the talk page for the article for this purpose.

Why I am reporting the actions of User:Boing!_said_Zebedee:

On the section on the talk page Talk:2018 United States Senate election in California my behavior was completely fine. I was respectful and was no longer making personal attacks. However, User:Boing!_said_Zebedee then decided to go into the discussion making nothing but personal attacks. He started off with an extremely rude and unhelpful comment, saying that what I was claiming was "utter nonsense" without explaining why. Then he said that me and my claims were stupid. Then he threatened to seek a topic ban although I had already been blocked for my wrongdoings had had corrected my offending behavior. He threatened to ban me simply for disagreeing with him. That shouldn't be how Wikipedia works. Then he baselessly accused me of being a troll. Again, all I was doing was attempting to have a reasonable discussion.

After I called the user out on these personal attacks, he then quoted a personal attack I had previously made in a sad attempt to deflect from what he had done. He conveniently left out the fact that I had already apologized many times for the comments and promised to not do anything of the sort again. He then threatened to ban me from the site, although I had already been punished for my actions and had stopped doing them.

This behavior was clearly hypocritical and unacceptable. When I made personal attacks, I was blocked from the website. I then apologized for my actions and stopped doing them. Now User:Boing!_said_Zebedee, while criticizing me for the things I said, ironically made a bunch of unfair personal attacks against me. It was completely hypocritical and absurd. Because I was blocked for making personal attacks, it is only fair that User:Boing!_said_Zebedee should also be blocked for making personal attacks, and should apologize afterwards. 67.60.186.104 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to support your claims. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The personal attacks can be found in this talk page section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2018_United_States_Senate_election_in_California#Discussion_of_whether_the_section_of_the_article_talking_about_Feinstein's_age_should_be_removed 67.60.186.104 (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a 5 year old discussion. Unless you can come up with a pattern of this happening, this should be closed. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 18:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this the right link? This discussion was four years ago. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The relevant comments by Boing were made on the 28 May 2019, nearly 5 years ago. Suggest speedy closing this as a complete waste of time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for clear block evasion. "When I made personal attacks, I was blocked from the website." Also, this is User:DefenderoftheElderly who was blocked on that page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that was closed fast. I was just about to ask User:RickinBaltimore if the account that the IP admitted to creating on their talk page, User:EpicTiger87, should also be blocked. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume Rick means User:DefenderOfTheElderly. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2024 (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:FreePalestine2024 keeps falsely editing Singer Eden Golan

Keeps labeling Singer Eden Golan as supporting Genocide. Zzzander (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Dollars to donuts thats not the only person that should be indeffed here. nableezy - 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio issues and revert war.

Hello, I have an issue with a copyvio template and text being restored after repeated warnings.

Muhammad Abbas Sheikh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and WikiFixer2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Geardona (talk to me?) 01:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h and revision deleted the copyvio. Looking to see if further action is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I have suspicions on all of their edits to that page, too big not enough time. Geardona (talk to me?) 02:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find anything else that was clearly copyvio, at that article or at Basit Ahmed Dar, the next one I checked. I'd encourage further scrutiny. If disruption, either copyvio or edit warring, resumes, I'd be likely to indef. I would not object if another admin wanted to extend the block based on prior behavior, which includes uploading copyvio images to commons (not our purview) and then adding them to articles here (within our purview). They were not warned on this project about copyright issues until earlier today. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Racism

This page → https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deslocalizaci%C3%B3n Contains a racist caricature of asian people. This is unacceptable, it's asian hate

Please remove immediately

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Yann_Wehrling_(%22delocalisation2%22)-01.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.63.120 (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's Spanish Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing that English Wikipedia admins can do about vandalism on Spanish Wikipedia; you need to contact the equivalent page to ANI there. If you need help with this, see the Embassy or the Spanish Wikipedia equivalency. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Paid editing scam involving User:BradKins

User:BradKins has twice used my account name in edit summaries in a strange attempt at avoiding attribution for page moves.

In November 2023, they tried to move Draft:Lamar Richardson to main space with the edit summary "Moved by wikishovel".

Now they've tried it again at Manfred Little Konzett, with the edit summary Wikishovel approved this page. No idea why they chose my name: I've had no involvement with either page, and as far as I can tell no involvement with any edits by User:BradKins. Revenge for previous SPIs is one possibility. The article creator of Manfred Little Konzett appears to an innocent victim of a paid editing scam: they wrote that they were approached via email by another user (whom I'll assume was BradKins), and has just now confirmed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manfred Little Konzett that they were asked for payment for this.

This isn't the first time my name's been used in a paid editing scam: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#User Wikishovel asking for money to publish our company. Wikishovel (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked. Looks like they also tried to "impersonate" AlanM1. At least these strange attributions in edit summaries should make the ring easier to spot in the future. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

207.144.23.222 edit warring

Repeatedly reverting warnings and editing my messages, see page hist. Could someone revoke tpa? JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced the declined unblock requests and removed talk page access for the duration of the block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 15:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@JayCubby: Could you please modify your signature to comply with MOS:ACCESS? You current colour combo makes it virtually unreadable (at least to me).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I've also left a request to that effect on their talk page. Bazza (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Done! JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 17:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's even less readable for me... (check the contrast checker, you'd want at bare minimum 4.5 of contrast and it's best to aim for 7) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this ok?

JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 17:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that works! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the admin comments be restored to what they used to be? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Quissie

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

The new user Quissie appears to be making lots of unsourced or copyvio edits. I'm wondering if it is some sort of AI bot? It might be good for an admin to simply undo all of them, since there's a lot. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at more of their edits, I think this is a real person, but they don't source things and they introduce errors in grammar or facts. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Noting that Inter has temporarily blocked Quissie and that several editors (including myself) have reverted some of the aforementioned edits. I'm inclined to believe that they are a real person and are not editing in bad faith, but rather with a bit of zeal coupled with not fully understanding some of the relevant policies and guidelines. I don't think there is anything else to do unless some pattern of problematic editing and/or lack of communication emerges once the block expires. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Recentcontribution2000 and nationality changes

• Recentcontribution2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nearly all edits by Recentcontribution2000 (talk · contribs) consist of changing/modifying the nationality. They started off by replacing "Russian" with "Ukrainian" for 18th- and 19th-century artists, even if there was already source cited (see for example this). Other times they would use low-quality sources for this. I warned them about MOS:NATIONALITY and how ethnicity should generally not be used unless they could first demonstrate that most sources refer to an artist in a certain way but they decided to again continue with mass changes adding "of Ukrainian origin" without any sources. See for example this edit on Kazimir Malevich. This may be something covered by RUSUKR but I am not certain. Mellk (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

All of my contributions are complimented with researched and verified sources, I have corrected any of my consensus errors and read up on the consensus of naming and nationality. Everything i am editing is both historically accurate and important contextually. Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Further: I'm seeing a double standard/bias for Ukrainian born artists who grew up in the Russian Empire. See Chopin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin -- born March 1, 1810 in what is called "Poland", but was at the time not Polish land. Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

See also this edit on Ilya Repin. They did this based on "Resembles more closely the Ukrainain article (the artists birth country)" even though there are a bunch of references there. Mellk (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

All references acknowledge Repin's Ukrainian origin. for further reading: https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/finnish-museum-acknowledges-painter-ilya-repin-long-classified-russian-as-ukrainian-1234694820/

Artist Ripin and journalist Hilyarovsky corresponded in Ukrainian. They were united by their love for Ukraine

Repin, Malevich and 5 more Ukrainian artists who were appropriated by Russia

One of the world's largest museums, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, recognized Ilya Ripin and Ivan Aivazovsky as Ukrainian, not Russian, artists

Vsevolod Mikhailovich Garshin (1855–1888) Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

One edit to this initial claim by Mallk -- All of the pages I was editing came from the wikipedia page titled "List of Ukrainian Artists" Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that per WP:RUSUKR this user, who has 29 edits, is prohibited from making the edits mentioned above. I have now made it clear at their talk page. If they continue (which means if they make one more edit like this) the account must be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

References

User:The Banner keeps harassing me

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 started somewhere in 2023. I don't know why, but The Banner keeps harassing me. He accuses me of breaking the rules. He keeps undoing my edits. Sometimes even without giving any reasons whatsoever. And now he threatens me with losing editing privileges. I don't know if he even is admin or not. He knows I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia so he just bullies me and do whatever he wants, without giving any explanation. In July [[137]], he again accused me of bad behaviour, but when I confronted him with the truth, he just stopped replying on my talk page. And now, he keeps accusing me of pushing point of view. But the reality is, HE is doing this, not me. Let me explain: There is a legal dispute between football clubs FCSB and CSA Steaua Bucuresti. It spans many years, court-cases and even articles on Wikipedia. As a side note, FCSB used to be named "Football Club Steaua Bucuresti", but lost this name in favour of CSA Steaua. FCSB was stripped of the "Steaua" brand and deemed to never had the rights to legally use the "Steaua" name. It's a fact acknowledged by Wikipedia for years. So obviously, I tried to redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&redirect=no from FCSB to FC Steaua București records dispute as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&action=history. He doesn't approve. How I am pushing for CSA Steaua point of view (like he accuses me), when my edit is focused on the neutral article regarding the "Steaua vs FCSB" dispute? He wants it to redirect towards FCSB, which is clearly intellectual property theft. I also tried to redirect this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:UEFA_Champions_League_winners&action=history. Again, it's the wrong name and the record is disputed. It's a well known fact. I only tried to redirect it to the article regarding the dispute. He is accusing me [[138]] of pushing Steaua's point of view (and VANDALISM?!) while, in fact, he pushes FCSB's point of view and encourage intellectual property infringement on Wikipedia. Why, I don't know. I always tried to respect the rules, to give sources and to explain my edits. But I don't have the time or the energy to keep arguing with him or be subjugated under abuse. Please do something about this. Dante4786 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I get you think you're right. But you don't get to accuse another editor of intellectual property theft because they dispute the change you want to make. It's not property infringement for us to use that redirect to the club. The rest of this is primarily a content dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not about him disputing the change I want to make. It's about intellectual property theft because FCSB can't use or be associated in any way with the "Steaua" name. It's like stating on Wikipedia x is innocent when he is fact convicted in real life. It doesn't reflect reality and it encourages (not is, per se) intellectual property infringement. Also, it just isn't a neutral aproach to push the FCSB-POV. CSA Steaua literally fought in court for FCSB to be stripped down of that name. Shouldn't Wikipedia acknowledge the outcome? Why push forward an edit that is confusing and that violates the rights of CSA Steaua? One team has the right to use the name, the other doesn't. At least redirect the page to the article about the dispute. Also, AFC Steaua (Asociatia Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti) is arguably a different team, that also used the ,,Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti" name between 1998-2003. Dante4786 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is harassing anybody here it is you, User:Dante4786, accusing those who disagree with you of intellectual property theft in what appears to be attempt to dictate content. These sorts of accusations have a distinct chilling effect and verge on legal threats.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I am only stating what the Romanian law is stating. https://www-economica-net.translate.goog/clubul-patronat-de-gigi-becali-nu-mai-are-voie-sa-foloseasca-numele-steaua_130606.html?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp. I am not accussing, I am explaining why this sort of edit can't stay as it is. I am explaining my reasoning. And third parties are also obliged to comply with court decisions. I am also asking you, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Dante4786 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats is a good page if you want to have a read. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no need. I don't work for either entities, I couldn't sue even if wanted to :) I'm just explaining my reasoning about a LEGAL debate. Dante4786 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the confusion! It's always better to make it clear as it could've been misinterpreted that way ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about to clean up the confusion around Steaua București, resulting in FC Steaua București records dispute as a compromise. Dante4786 did not take part in that discussion. After a break, he immediately starting objecting against the consensus. To the point he started changing a template to his own wishes without any prior discussion (here and later again (again reverted but not by me). Dante demands that I explain why I revert his unexplained changes. I see no need for that with unexplained edits. In my humble opinion, the edit in the template is vandalism, or at least POV-pushing. The second edit on the template (that I did not see earlier), came with a curious legalese summary: Wrong name for FCSB. And the record is disputed. Wikipedia doesn't encourage intellectual property infringement. The same demand for explanation came for this unexplained edit. Maybe I am too harsh, but breaking open the long discussion to reach consensus in tough to witness.

@Scolaire:

The Banner talk 20:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am in favor of there being an article about FC Steaua București records dispute. From my understanding, somebody proposed for the page to be merged with FCSB and I wrote on the talk page that I disagree. Also, really, are you going to bring up consesus achieved on 2nd January, by a handful of people? Did you even check who was involved? One of the users involved is currently banned. Another IP made his second edit ever right on that debate. How is this any fair? @Scolaire: challenged my position in a fair manner and I responded with PLENTY of sources. I replied with 3 pretty big paragraphs, arguing against all his point, not letting anything behind. You, on the other hand, started acussing me directly from the get-go and undid my edits even AFTER I gave my reasoning. Like I said, I was triyng to edit something that was a clearly known fact. You undid my edit, I edit it back, gave my reasoning and YOU UNDID IT AGAIN. So it doesn't matter to you if my edit was explained or not. You decided from the start that I was wrong and nothing that I can say could change your mind. And when I reported the unfair treatment on my talk page and your talk page, you ignored me. Only after I said I will report you, you gave a pseudo-explanation. Dante4786 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I had never seen your threat of bringing me to AN/I until I got the notice of it. The Banner talk 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I admit, I had overlook that threat. And I even overlook your comment You are pushing point of view and you encourage intellectual property infringement. on my talk page. A second time that I see that legalese argument. The Banner talk 22:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi again! The process is usually "bold edit → revert → discuss". If someone reverts your edit, instead of editing it back with your reasoning, the best course of action is to write your reasoning on the talk page, and then wait for other editors to give their opinion (otherwise there's a risk for it to end in edit warring). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Ok, thank you for the suggestion, but the problem is, he already ignored my reasoning, when I tried to edit the second time. And it isn't the first time he read my position on the subject and replied with false accusation, only to stop all together when I challenged him with valid counterarguments https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dante4786&oldid=1167705437 As you can clearly see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_records_dispute&oldid=1199302981, I am willing to discuss with other editors. But if he ignores me and nobody else replies, should his incorrect edit stay for ever? This is why I reported it here, for a 3rd party to see. I don't want to argue with anybody, I tried to ignore and forget (since July), but what's the point when he does the same thing again? It's tiresome to have a dialogue with somebody who doesn't really want to listen. And I do like Wikipedia, that's why it bothers me when he insists with something which is misleading. Dante4786 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a new one, I've never seen anybody interpret a disagreement over a redirect on Wikipedia as theft. I've left the OP a warning for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said on my talk page, I'm only defending myself. I reported an abuse. And please explain how can I present my point of view regarding a LEGAL dispute (Steaua vs FCSB), without using LEGAL reasons??? The SUBJECT involved is ABOUT intellectual property. One party stole (the name) from the other party. It was never my threat, it was never A threat. Like I said before, I don't work for the entities involved, I CAN'T sue even if I wanted to. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never threated with legal actions. I only explained how articles on Wikipedia shouldn't break the legal rights of other entities. Again, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Please explain how any of this is an attack. I literally commented on the content, on the use of "FC Steaua Bucuresti" regarding a team who is forbidden by the law to be associated with that name. It's literally a fact, it isn't my opinion, it isn't an attack on any editor. I gave sources (and until now, no one challenged them), I explained my position with plenty of details, what more can I do? I am blamed of pushing a POV by somebody who actually is at fault of this. Dante4786 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court where such things are adjudicated. I think some muddled language concerning the naming dispute may be an issue here, but ANI is not where this can be resolved. Take it up on the relevant talkpage, and be extremely careful to frame any argument around sources, not what you perceive other editors to be doing. Your comments up until now give the impression that you are blaming other Wikipedia editors, or are accusing them of harassment for disagreeing or not understanding what you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: No, Wikipedia isn't a judge. But Wikipedia does try to reflect reality and current affairs. Am I wrong? Yes, English is not my native language, sorry about that. But please, answer me this. If x person is convicted in real life, can an article on Wikipedia state the contrary, that he is innocent? That is the equivalent of what I am trying to express. The current redirect doesn't reflect the present and, besides this, is also confusing and misleading. Because the subject is complex, I tried to make a redirect towards the article which is focused on the dispute between A and B. I didn't try to push for either A or B. But I am accused of being unfair. And when the false accusations persist, when my edits are undone without justification, even after I explained myself, when my questions are ignored and I receive only threats of being banned and so forth, am I not even slightly entitled to feel harassed? I literally gave sources and nobody challenged them. Should I just wait and let the article spread misinformation? I apologise if this wasn't the correct place to report the abuse. Like I said, I do try to respect the rules but I don't know the the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Dante4786 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia isn't an offense, but accusing people of not following a farfetched, tortured interpretation of a lawsuit that we're not a party to, in a court that has no jurisdiction here, in order to to further a result not in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, certainly is.

Playing fake internet lawyer is not an exception to WP:AGF and you're skirting on the very edge of WP:NLT. Just because *you* don't have the ability to personally engage in a lawsuit doesn't allow you to use legalese as a threat to attempt to shut down another editor's ability to post or skirt Wikipedia's consensus-making apparatus.

Your best bet would be to apologize, agree to drop the subject, and withdraw the complaint. I would guess that it's your best chance to avoid sanctions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what farfetched and tortured interpretation of a lawsuit are you talking about? I literally gave sources. Many sources. For you and others to read them. Here, on my talk page and on other talk pages. What more can I do? Nobody is challenging the content of what I am disputing. The redirect points are misleading and I was unfairly treated. And how can I give my reasoning on a LEGAL debate, without using LEGAL reasons? It's not a threat. Again, the whole subject is about intellectual property. A legal dispute between two entities. I don't think the redirect points present the LEGAL dispute in a fair and neutral manner. How can I explain this without providing LEGAL reasons? If the subject is about intellectual property, of course we are going to have to talk about intellectual property infringement. It shouldn't be taboo, it's a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. I don't know how else I can put this. And no, I won't apologize for reporting harassment, which in good faith, I tried to ignore for months. But I do apologize for reporting it, in the wrong place, if that's the case. Dante4786 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided *any* valid legal reasons. The court literally ruled that a specific defendant couldn't use plaintiff's intellectual property when connected with their business. That's all. It has nothing to do with anything on Wikipedia.

What we call entities is determined by consensus from reliable sources and our policies, not an extremely tenuous interpretation of a court case that, even if accurate (which I highly doubt), would have zero effect on us as there's no jurisdiction here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I did provide valid legal reasons. And here's another one: Full Faith and Credit Clause. And in European countries, principles of legal enforceability and judicial authority underpin the obligation for third parties to respect court decisions. I gave sources and I explained my reasoning. I can't contradict you when you don't give counterarguments. You just state "no, you didn't". I also explained from a non-legal point of view, explaining how the current redirect points spread misinformation and more confusion and contradicts other articles on Wikipedia. And to reiterate, both in EU and in USA (and in pretty much every civilized country), 3rd parties are obliged to respect the decision of the court and the intellectual property and rights of other entities. To explain this with a more recent case (it's not the same thing, but maybe this makes it easier to undertand): some gave developer released a new videogame. Everybody describes it in an informal context as "Pokemon with guns", but it's not a Pokemon game. The game developer doesn't use these words and neither do Steam, Sony, Microsoft and so forth. They, as a 3rd party, have to respect the rights of the real owner. And even YouTubers hesitate to show a patch for the game (a patch that install pokemons), because it violates the rights of the real owner of the brand. Unfortunately, you already stated that you doubt what I'm saying, without further elaborating. You don't assume good faith. And Wikipedia redirect points doesn't reflect the current reality. Another example would be this: On Amber Heard articles, to state that she and her ex-husband DID NOT accused each other of domestic abuse. Or worse, to state that she was NOT found guilty of defaimation. It's not about opinions, it's not a personal interpretation. It's about FACTS. To acknowledge or not the current state of a present legal debate. A debate where there already is a final decision regarding the name. Dante4786 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You should probably consult with an actual lawyer. That's not actually what full faith and credit entails. A CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A trademark prevents others from using a mark in the course of *business*. It does not prevent third parties from referring to a company in a certain way, discussing a company in a certain way, or titling an encyclopedia entry.

And from your Amber Heard mention, it appear you're also confusing defamation with trademarks, which suggests to me that any more discussion to try to dissuade you from a path in conflict with Wikipedia's ideals is an unproductive use of time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to echo CoffeeCrumbs regarding people playing fake Internet lawyer. The Full Faith and Credit clause impinges on how states in the United States interact with one another. Neither European soccer clubs, nor Wikipedia, nor you have anything to do with it. If this absurdity is indicative of your arguments with The Banner, then we're well into WP:BOOMERANG territory, and your best bet is to quit while you're behind. Ravenswing 01:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

No, no, no. You misunderstood why I mentioned The Full Faith and Credit. The point was to show how 3rd parties are still obliged to respect court documents, even though they weren't actually involved in the case. And to further elaborate my arguments, I brought up how things are done in European countries (since it's a subject which I am more familiar to and is actualy related to the case we are discussing). Please ping me, @CoffeeCrumbs: and @Ravenswing: so I won't miss your response. And no, I wasn't trying to compare defamation with trademarks. Come on guys, actually read what I'm writing. I was giving a hypothetical example, to show how Wikipedia would look if it didn't reflect the verdict of that case. As in "x is stated to be right on Wikipedia, when in reality x was demosntrated to be wrong in court". That sort of thing. Everybody says I shouldn't give legal arguments in a legal dispute but I when I try to give an analogy, it's somehow also a bad thing. Dante4786 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This argument is nonsense. It is illegal to write about the "Tank man" of Tiananmen Square in China. You'll note that we still have an article about it. We do not give preference to laws or 'court documents' from other jurisdictions. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't even give preference over consensus to laws or 'court documents' from our own jurisdiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirects point to whichever target the reader that types that title is more likely to be looking for. You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for. If legal issues arise from what Wikipedia editors do using their best judgement, legal department of the WMF will handle it. That's where the legal arguments should be directed. Where exactly is the problem with your approach? It is here: Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? We can't worry about that stuff with every edit. There are established matters where we take legality into account, copyright violations for example. At other times, we do what's right, irrespective of whether or not it's legal in a certain jurisdiction. It only matters whether it is legal in the US most of the time. I am sure there are many state parties that would consider some of Wikipedia's coverage of religion, sexuality, national policies and international disputes as illegal. But they can't touch Wikipedia because it is under US jurisdiction. So, they block Wikipedia in their countries. They may prosecute editors in their own country if they identify them. That is why editors are advised to take such personal risks into account when contributing. It's bad enough without having people come into discussions talking legalese. We as a community have decided that we won't have it. Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments or don't edit here and persue legal dispute with the WMF.

You are making legal threats. Admins are being nice to you by trying to explain instead of blocking you. Either drop that stuff, or go to WMF legal with your concerns. We will consider taking legality into consideration if and when WMF legal advises that we do so. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for." Exactly! Thank you! That's what I was trying to explain, until people got focused on the intellectual property infringement part. Like I said, the subject is clearly very complex and confusing, especially for foreign readers. I believe this discussion here proves my point even further. That's why I'm asking for the redirect points to be towards the article focused on the dispute. In this way, the redirect points will be helpful and people will read by themselves and chose which side to believe. Currently, the redirect points encourage FCSB's point of view and are not consistent with the articles on Wikipedia. I'm asking for the redirect to be neutral and not push the POV of either parties, FCSB or Steaua, but towards the article focused on the dispute. "Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments" This is literally not possible. How can somebody explain their reasoning about a LEGAL dispute, without giving LEGAL arguments? And please stop interpreting dialogue as a threat. It was never the case. LEGAL arguments are a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. Dante4786 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because you can't figure out how to do something does not mean it's impossible. Read WP:REDIRECT. Then try to formulate your argument wholly on the basis of its guidance. If you succeed, start a talk page discussion (then, there's WP:RFD). If you find you can't make that case, edit something else. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

So your suggestion is basically to not explain my reasoning about a legal dispute. You can not formulate your arguments without diving in legal terms. You can't talk about physics without using a specific terminology, you can't talk about biology without using arguments which arise from biology and so forth. You can't answer "how to put out a fire" without actually explaining how to put out a fire. Dante4786 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You can describe the dispute in an encyclopedic way with legal terminology, but not use this legal terminology as arguments about what to write about. It's a use-mention distinction, in the same way as you can use biological terms to talk about biology, but not argue that's it's biologically impossible to write the article. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you cease to ramble on about things you demonstrably know little or nothing about. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and you were not hired to represent a party in a lawsuit. If you cannot sway consensus for your view, then the thing to do is lose gracefully and walk away. Ravenswing 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"You can describe the dispute" But we weren't talking about "describing". "To describe" and "to give arguments in favor or against" a point of view is not the same thing. What's more, you moved the discussion completely from the content/subject and took it towards the semantics. "cease to ramble on about things you demonstrably know little or nothing about" Huh? What exactly are you accusing me here? "Wikipedia is not a courtroom" I NEVER SAID IT WAS. I acknowledged the fact Wikipedia can't solve legal dispute. But that's the thing, IT'S ALREADY SOLVED IN REAL LIFE. My whole point was that the redirect points are misleading, since they do not reflect the current state of affairs regarding a SOLVED legal dispute. Dante4786 (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's solved in real life.

That solution has nothing to do with how we reach consensus. An *American* court has no power to compel speech from us in this context, let alone a Romanian one. Somehow, you have reached this idea that because a Romanian court has recognized that a particular entity possesses the right to use specific trademarks, that it now compels private entities to tailor their speech in a manner consistent with that. It doesn't. If we reached a very odd consensus, we could redirect FC Steaua Bucuresti to the entry for Burger King or Santa Claus or Henry VIII of England.

If you had attempted to do so, you may have been able to craft a convincing argument that your preferred usage of FC Steaua Bucuresti is superior, swaying enough people into changing consensus. Instead, you're trying to browbeat editors using a court case that has no jurisdiction over any of the issues discussed here while misusing legal terms such as "full faith and credit."

No admin has yet taken any actions on this issue. This would be the best time for you to apologize, drop the stick, and agree to not cite court cases that have no jurisdiction over our process of reaching consensus as reasons we *must* conform to your wishes. Sanctions are *preventative*, not *punitive* and if you made a good faith effort here to avoid these behaviors in the future, I'd wager basically most admins would consider this manner closed for the time being. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Going through @Dante4786's history on the subject is quite enlightening and frustrating. Not only have they been accusing @The Banner of vandalism, but they have been doing this for some time, sweeping for every mention of their preferred name for this football team, making changes, and calling each one "undoing vandalism" amounting to dozens and dozens of edits.

This is clearly a long-term pattern of ignoring WP:AGF rather than a single incident of aggressively accusing another of vandalism. While I feel the filer should still be indefinitely blocked until they agree to drop the faux-legal accusations against people, there's a strong case here for a topic ban on FC Steaua București (the problems seem limited to this topic rather than the wider topic of Romanian football clubs or football clubs generally). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Support a topic ban from FC Steaua București. Unfortunately the behavior of this editor has muddied the waters to such an extent that even if The Banner has harassed them its not apparent. If either the legal threats or alleged harassment occur on other topics after then we can address it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't respond to generalities. I have nothing to hide. In proof of this, I sometimes (like now) involved third parties, just to solve an issue and prevent from being called bias. Like getting a page protection from REAL vandalism. Also, keep in mind, the legal dispute of Steaua vs FCSB has a long history, with many updates along the line. I tried to reflect this in my edits AND GAVE SOURCES whenever I was questioned. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_records_dispute After the neutral FC Steaua București records dispute page appeared (and somewhat put together in an attentive manner by other editors), I concentraded my redirects towards this page. And again, I do not threaten the editors with legal actions, stop putting words in my mouth, it's not nice. I was demonstrating how some edits on Wikipedia don't reflect real life affairs. Dante4786 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Third parties as in alternate accounts? The Banner talk 15:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Again with the harassment. Didn't you report me for this (or was somebody else?) and it turned out I was falsely accused and this is my only account? WHICH IT REALLY IS! But don't let me stop you. Search again, search my IP, search whatever you want, do all the necessary checks, I have nothing to hide, this is my only account. Dante4786 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So I ask you a question, and that is straight harassment again?

And yes, I once filed an SPI against you due to the massive sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on the Steaua-articles. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goalandgoal/Archive. You were cleared, the real sockpuppets were hammered. The other SPI against you Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dante4786/Archive was not of my hand. The Banner talk 15:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You are not asking, you are subtly accusing. Big difference. And you keep accusing, even AFTER I was verified and cleared of the accusations. But like I said, don't let me stop you, please report me again. I have nothing to hide and you just proved my point. Dante4786 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You tried to prove your point by bullying me over an SPI from 2021. And when I look at this edit, I do not see any AGF or will to compromise or reason. The Banner talk 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, that post was a reply to me; I found it reasonable, and I felt it assumed good faith. Not showing an inclination to compromise, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we can't reach a compromise after further discussion. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

24 hours and several posts later, I no longer find Dante reasonable, and it is plain he is not interested in compromise. I agree he should be blocked and/or topic-banned. Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a will to compromise? What are you talking about? How can you lie like this? This is me asking for the middle ground. My opinion on the subject (as stated there) is this: ,,It was never valid and it was never about a separation. But I do admit, people did, at some point, think this was the case. So, for the moment, the middle ground would be to write about the separation, but to describe it only as an allegation." If I wasn't willing to compromise, I would have asked for the entire subject to be erased. Dante4786 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

As I am accused of harassing anyway, per his argument You are not asking, you are subtly accusing, I think that Wikipedia is indeed best served by a topic ban for Dante4786 on Steaua-related articles. The Banner talk 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So, after falsely reporting me for having multiple accounts (something you have admitted to), you straight up ask for censorship. Well done, mate! You could at least stop with the victim blaming. Let's not forget, you started this by accusing me. How much more do I have to defend myself until you stop with the sockpuppetry accusation? REPEATED and INVALID accusations constitute harassment. You are literally wasting my time. Dante4786 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I give up. What you do is plain harassing me. The Banner talk 22:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Enough. Dante has clearly failed to AGF with Banner, has been consistently rude and making false accusations, and generally been a drain. I'd say indef as WP:NOTHERE. They are either willing to go to bat for their preferred club against our policies, or simply cannot comprehend our policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree with the direction this thread has taken but I don't blame anyone in specific, not even User:Dante4786 and certainly not User:The Banner. First, we're in the wrong forum. I'm wondering why this conversation isn't taking place at WP:Redirects for discussion, for example. Nobody in this discussion has made that suggestion. Am I incorrect? Next, it appears to me Dante4786 is having significant difficulty being understood correctly in English, and they've confessed the language issues have been part of the problem. I'm seeing a bunch of conflation issues which might be approached with different wording satisfactory to all. Because Dante4786 is the OP and because they raised behavioral issues, we're here now so we should try to solve this. ANI is a bad venue in which to give behavioral assessments unless a contributor is willing to bring diffs and Dante4786 doesn't have that experience. IMHO, this thread has amplified the problem instead of solving it (because we're not dealing with diffs or sources, this all comes across as personal disagreement, and not a redirect for discussion). I'm inclined to suggest to Dante4786 that they take an apologetic tone here, and then start a RfD. Several editors here are capable of helping Dante4786. I'm of the opinion that if The Banner (or another editor) were to assist Dante4786 neutrally in creating that appropriate discussion, this thread would be unnecessary. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are incorrect. The problem is not the redirect, the problem is Steaua București and the mess around ownership of the club, a split, renaming, reforming of the split off and countless court cases. The fact that even the court cases are not consistent, makes it even more difficult. In the past a whole bunch of sockpuppets and aggressive IPs were disrupting discussions. The Banner talk 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I do think the entire Steaua București subject matter must be frustrating to edit, for all the reasons described. And Dante4786 certainly is responsible for their own edits, whatever they may be. Their unfortunate habit of personalizing discussion does not play especially well at ANI. I don't think they mean other editors ill, or even intend to personalize. When Dante4786 says "intellectual property infringement", I believe they are speaking of the limitation already imposed on FCSB (the result of such changes via court judgement), and not an accusation of any wikipedian. Without speaking ill, there's a lot of unnecessary heat involved with this discussion and most of it comes from the OP, despite their good-faith intention. That's my reading. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. —DIV (1.145.41.30 (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC))

  I agree in part that mentorship ought to be part of a solution that preserves the filer as a contributor, but I do really think that a topic ban is a minimum; this is a very specific topic that's a long-term issue for this editor, with a massive chunk of their preferred name changes, going back years now, labeled as vandalism by them. The best place to demonstrate they understand that verifiability and consensus are key issues, I feel, would be in a topic in which they don't appear to be so invested. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you are incorrect. I suggested that they try to formulate an argument for their position adhering to WP:REDIRECT and not invoking irl legality, and if they succeed, put forth that argument first on the talk page, and failing that at RFD. They replied that it was "literally impossible" for them to make that case without making legal arguments. Now, as long as they stick with their positions that (a) it's impossible to have a Wikipedia discussion without bringing in Law and (b) The Banner has been harrassing them, we are at an impasse. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  When the article's subject matter is legal dispute (as is the case here), Dante4786 reasonably asserts it's impossible to discuss without using "legal" vocabulary. It's hard to disagree that Dante4786 appears disruptive, but I don't believe that's their intention. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I did not tell them they couldn't use legal vocabulary or allude to the legal dispute. I specifically highlighted one aspect of their argument, that Wikipedia was violating legal rights of an entity by having a redirect point to a certain target, and told them that was a no-go. They've been completely unable to grasp the distinction between discussing the legal dispute academically and arguing an irl "Club [X] v Wikipedia" case that they've conjured up.

  I can envision a proper RFD on the dispute on the basis of correct name vs common name, or "information you're looking for" vs "information that best serves you" or their argument above about WP:NPOV. But I think you're failing to appreciate that there is absolutely no way to have a productive discussion, while they are not getting it. I could start a procedural RFD with weakass arguments that I don't really care for but then they are likely to swoop in and flood it with their arguments involving irl legality and we'd have the same mess over there. It's them that cares about the redirect's target. The only viable solution is for them to somehow begin to grasp why they need to and how they can adhere to WP:REDIRECT and skirt WP:NLT. I have not seen any post from them that gives me the confidence that they have come to understand that. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD: "start a RfD" Thanks for the suggestion! I think I will do that when I have the time. I need to read about what that implies and think how to make my "pleading" in a foreign language :) But I won't apology, I am sticking with what I wrote. I would like not to make any further comments, because I don't have much free time and I already expressed, the best I could, my position on this. But just as a final remark (or clarification): I went here because The Banner started accussing me again of vandalism and threatening me with loosing editing privileges. I didn't know where to go and as understood, this probably wasn't the right place. I apologize for that. The Banner has a history of falsely reporting me for sock puppetry. And as admitted here, he wants to get me banned. "I think that Wikipedia is indeed best served by a topic ban for Dante4786 on Steaua-related articles" Even though I tried my best to follow the rules, always wrote in good faith and gave plenty of sources and explained in high details my position on the subject, on different talk pages. (Edit: and no, I never made any legal threats) These are my final words. Thank you for taking the time to read this! Dante4786 (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your final words here. Feel free to contact me via my talk. I have some suggestions about how to phrase disagreeable assertions in such a way your intention is made more clear and less threatening. Normally I would say stick to what the sources say. In this case we may have to make that even more specific. In any case, thanks for disengaging. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD and anyone else who thinks that this is just about a redirect: this relates to a whole family of pages, including FCSB (2019 discussion), CSA Steaua București (football) (diff), FC Steaua București records dispute (diff), Eternal derby (Romania) (diff), Steaua București in European football (diff), Template:Steaua Golden Team (diff), other clubs (diff) and players (diff). It's the same thing over and over for the last six years. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And, they were saying Wikipedia was complicit in an illegal act, in 2019 (thanks Scolaire). The foundation isn't liable for editing decisions; individual editors are. So, how is that not a legal threat against other editors involved in the topic? Not only did nothing change in five years, I don't think anything has changed after this long discussion. I would support a topic ban from FCSB or Romanian football. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Before my first comment in this thread I did a lot of the linked reading. Lots of disruptive folks seem to edit in this cluster. In that context, our Dante4786 is a very minor-league offender indeed (compared to many others). This might even be considered a contentious topic. I'll have to do some reading on that--I've never made such an assessment but this looks pretty messy (and is within my remit as an uninvolved sysop). Allow me to ask each of you: If you were an admin, would you consider this a WP:Contentious topic and why? (please read that enforcement page before commenting) BusterD (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Under which area? I am only aware that this is about the Romanian domestic football scene. While Romania is in Eastern Europe, my understanding is that EE CTOP is for international and interethnic conflicts arising from the interaction of Nazi and Soviet past with these societies.

You are an uninvolved sysop here, yes. And you can enforce CTOP in designated areas, but you can't designate an area into CTOP, no. And CTOP is less forgiving, not more, unless you've changed your mind.

I have not looked so closely into it, other than Dante's involvement that's been brought up. So, I would certainly welcome insights you can bring from a more thorough investigation. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to write again, but I feel I am accused of new things.

1. Scolaire Wait a minute. Are you trying to have a nice conversation with me on one talk page and then imply here that there are problems with my edits on other pages? Scolaire, did you really looked at those edits? Do you understand them? Some edits I undone were from editors who now are banned. I am not a conflict-prone person. I saw, for example, that the Eternal Derby is a lost cause so I just dropped the subject. I won't do more edits there until there are new developments on the subject. And why do you reproach me for ASKING in 2019 for FCSB to change its title page? I followed the rules, I had a discussion and I gave up when I saw people didn't agree with me. You imply I'm the bad guy here. Why won't you show how many articles were truly vandalized from new ip-users and how many swear words I had to undone from other banned editors? One of them, who is still around here, is still allowed to edit on Romanian football even though he wrote in Romanian on one talk page that "he can't stand Steaua" and that "Steaua fans are autistic". Did you ever saw me write like that about anybody? Do you understand with what I had to deal with?
2. Usedtobecool Romanian Football is what I follow. It's the only subject I am knowledgeable about. It's the only subject I can write about in a foreign language. I can't and I refuse to edit on subjects I don't fully know. It would be disingenuous and unhelpful for me to do that. If you plan to ban me on Steaua or Romanian Football, then you can go ahead and give me a full block, because it would be the same thing, I won't edit on Wikipedia again. Dante4786 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dante4786: Yes, I am trying to have a nice conversation with you on Talk:FC Steaua București records dispute, but you keep shouting me down and twisting things round. When I looked at your contributions I saw the same behaviour on page after page, year after year. You most certainly are a "conflict-prone person" I would have said nothing, but BusterD said that the discussion should be taking place at WP:RFD, which gave some people the impression that it was only about that one redirect, so I felt I had to set the record straight. If Steaua București is all you are interested in writing about, perhaps you should read WP:Single-purpose account: Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." Scolaire (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Scolaire I am so glad you are bringing that up. I am shouting you down? You made very specific requests. I answered EVERY ONE of them. After that, you backpelled on your words and made new requests. I again answered and gave sources and so forth. I answered as best as I could and gave as much details as possible, so you would be happy with the reply and understand my stance. I didn't shout down even The Banner. I kept asnwering him as well, even though he was pleading here for my ban. Still, me answering all of your points wasn't enough, you moved the goalpost again. I'm sorry but you don't respect my time. Of course it is hard to agree with someone, when one of the parties involved in the debate doesn't know what they want or they keep changing their mind. While I asked from the beginning for the middle ground, you want things to be your way and your way only. I repeat, my view on the subject is different. If it was up to me, we wouldn't even talk about the "separation" because as I see it (and not just me), it was never a thing. In fact, if you aknowledge the facts, you will see it is disproved. I am not trying to trick anyobody hear, I encourage you all to read what I wrote, sources included. But to make everyone somewhat happy and achieve a common ground, I requested for the "separation" to be shortly described as an "allegation". That's it. You won't accept even 1 word while I accept a big compromise. I'm sorry but I can't, in good faith, agree with a false statement. Your own source contradicts the content of your edit. But just like I said there, I will try to reprase things, in a new manner, maybe on the weekend (or when I have the time) so that everybody agrees on it, while providing further sources. As for Single-purpose accounts, I am so glad you mentioned that. Again, I have to remind the so called consensus you insist on respecting, was achieved on the first days of the year (when many people are still on vacation), with just a handful of editors, one of which is banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.140.217.166 or on their first few edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.138.220.238 . As for me, what do you expect for me to say? Do you think this is a gotcha-moment? Do you want for me to write on subjects I don't understand? No, that would never happen. I don't want to screw other editors' work. I only write on things I am knowledgeable about. I'm honest and I will remain honest. If that's a bad thing, fine, do what you want. If the opportunity arises and I think I can help on other subjects, then I will do it, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_Mercenary_(2021_film)&oldid=978463879 If not, not, I will stick to things I know and fully understand and can write about in English. I don't think people can (or should) write on multiple subjects. It's not realistical. Editors should stick to their areas of expertise and the subjects they are interested in. And while I probably have my biases (like everybody else) I try to keep them to a minimum. While I have over 200 edits on Steaua's page, I only have 6 on Dinamo's page (for clarification, I'm mentioning this because Dinamo is Steaua's main rival). So, as you can see, I try to be as neutral as I can. I don't try to stir things up or provoke or anything like that. I want the truth, nothing more. Nobody is perfect but I do edit in good faith. I even recognised my shortcomings, like not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia or how to write in a particular format and so forth. Dante4786 (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is what I previously wrote here, on 26 January: "Also, really, are you going to bring up consesus achieved on 2nd January, by a handful of people? Did you even check who was involved? One of the users involved is currently banned. Another IP made his second edit ever right on that debate." I was referring to Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. I just didn't remember what it was called. You aren't bringing anything new to the table. I complained about the very same thing, I already knew about single-purpose accoounts. Sure, you can accuse me of the same thing, you can accuse me of anything you want, that's your choice, but don't believe mentioning Single-purpose accounts was a surprise for me. And don't expect me to lie because of it and mask that I am primarily interested in certain subjects. Dante4786 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for topic-ban

This has gone on with little productive movement. Three or four editors have asked Dante4786 to drop the stick so everyone could move on and multiple posters trying to mediate now appear frustrated. So, I propose that Dante4786 be topic-banned from pages involving FC Steaua București, broadly construed, for six months. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I don't believe anything here is so egregious that more severe sanctions are warrantedThis would give Dante4786 the chance to demonstrate the issues are limited to this topic, to review policies concerning verifiability and consensus, and a pathway to contribute again in the not-too-distant future on a topic that is clearly important to them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  I share the concerns of @HandThatFeeds that we could be back here in six months with the same issues, but of respect for @BusterD's not-insignificant efforts to try and work with @Dante4786 and guide them to a more productive path, I think it's reasonable to leave this door slightly ajar and hope this is sufficient a warning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've got the user talking reasonably on the talk page. User:Scolaire is assisting. I'll make an effort to help them understand the social norms which may make the language issues more challenging. If it's decided to block the user, it's unlikely I'll be the admin that does it. BusterD (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I find a six month period to be within the realm of reasonable. Best case, the user takes some time off and comes back under the topic ban, edits other topics and picks up some useful policy and guideline knowledge. There's always a person in there, folks. We often disagree, but we don't have to be mean. Often folks refuse to give up an attitude. This user responded to feedback and is making their own affirmative choices. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Support having read both this discussion and the talk page in full. Dante needs to put down the stick and walk away. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment. No offence, BusterD, but you're setting the bar pretty low if you consider "And again, you make requests while ignoring mine" as "talking reasonably". I'd like to see some actual positive contribution by Dante before taking this proposal off the table. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support though I expect we'll be right back here either when he violates the topic ban, or returns to the same tendentious editing in 6 months. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support I wanted to give BusterD a chance, which has now played out. Topic ban needs to be in place in case they return. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Dante clearly has no intention of ever changing his behaviour. He says he is leaving Wikipedia but he could easily change his mind. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Quite a few people have said that they were leaving only to come back a few weeks later when the attention on them has faded, so a topic ban seems reasonable as a failsafe. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subject's last mainspace edit was eleven days ago, before they commenced this thread. Since that edit, the user has attempted to use talk pages and this noticeboard exclusively. I see no misbehavior during that intervening time. I would argue the user has restrained themselves, has attempted to make themselves heard, has gotten frustrated and has said suboptimal things (unnecessarily and perhaps unintentionally personalized). But they have not edited disruptively on pagespace. Not once since they asked for help here. In any case, I have offered to mentor them when they return. BusterD (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Seeing this edit, I do not get the idea that he even understands what the issue is, not to mention do something about it. The Banner talk 05:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And except for placing the retired template on the user page, it was their last edit. I agree understanding is the problem. The user has admitted this as well. They've been dark in pagespace for two weeks. So we're banning them in case they change their mind? BusterD (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  IMO, the ban is for disruptive editing and POV-pushing around Steaua București. I think the 6 month ban is rather short but I am willing to give it a go. Dante has more long gaps in his editing, so I have to see if his retirement sticks. And yes, I am now back after a short wikibreak (I was loosing my cool) due to his harassment of me. The Banner talk 13:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  So in your opinion the topic ban is punitive, for "disruptive editing and POV-pushing around Steaua București." It's not preventing any immediate threat. As an admin, I'm not allowed to block for punitive reasons. The banning policy does not make such a clear distinction. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @BusterD, I do not believe anyone is being punitive here. I for one do not hang out at ANI looking for my next kill. I only landed here because my watchlist updated with a section that had "harassment" in its name. I am confident that rest of the editors have also participated here in good faith, have tried to resolve this with advice and discussion, kindness and compassion, or have carefully evaluated whether those options have been tried before and how likely they are to succeed in the future. The editor stopped editing. But they did not stop accussing The Banner of harrassment, they did not accept that they could do better with respect to WP:NLT, and, although you offered, they flatly rejected your mentorship, because they concluded that accepting mentorship would be an acknowledgement of shortcoming on their part. Now, against that backdrop, as an admin, please consider your responsibility to the encyclopedia and the rest of the editorbase, and especially to editors like The Banner and others who have had to deal with this editor for five years. They did not jump to ANI after one or two day of disruption from Dante. Indeed, it was Dante who brought themself to ANI. Does The Banner not have a right to continue their work without having to see accusations of harrassment all over their watchlist? Do the rest of the editors not have a right to seek a more collegial environment to engage in something productive without constant disruption from an WP:SPA who shows no signs of collegiality? We are not banning them to punish them. We are topic-banning them from the area in which they have been disruptive in order to protect other editors in the area, for the sake of their productivity and their mental wellbeing. It is in fact preventative. It is always admirable to seek to resolve a situation with mentorship rather than sanctions but administration duties can not take a back seat to such efforts. Sometimes conflicts resolve with mentorship in place, other times sanctions become necessary and any mentorship should run concurrently but not in lieu of sanctions. This is the latter case, in my opinon, and evidently others'. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think you've got it backwards, BusterD. The topic ban is due to this editor's disruptive behavior in the area. If you consider that purely punitive, then all our topic bans are punitive and the whole thing falls apart. This is about preventing disruption to the encyclopedia, and the fact we don't trust a user putting "retired" up on their page is beside the point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 8 February 2024 (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:Eric

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.

---

The user is deleting my edits with invalid reasons. I really do a lot of research, I consult the English language vocabulary "Collins Dictionary" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english), I make 100%, or almost 100%, accurate edits, and a user who doesn't know the rules well (he wrote "Parmesan" with a lowercase initial ("parmesan"), removed useful wikilinks (such as the wikilink "Italy" in the infobox), and, not happy, deleted italics from uncommon English language terms, such as "tortelloni"). I request a temporary block for this user. JackkBrown (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not use descriptions like you are ruining the encyclopaedia in edit summaries, especially for something as trivial as a change in italics. For the dispute itself, have you tried discussing it with Eric on one of the talk pages, before bringing him here? Requesting a block for disagreeing in the italicization of a few words is more than overblown. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: it's not just about italics, understand me, I've been working a lot these days, and not only these days, and I don't want my (right) changes to be undone in a second. JackkBrown (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Working on a collaborative project means that people might object to your changes (and believe themselves to be right, just like you do). In this case, if you don't agree, it is best to discuss the issue with them (and explain your understanding of the rules), rather than immediately bringing them to the drama board. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Eric was correct to de-link Italy per WP:OVERLINK. Also, why hasn't you tried to resolve this with Eric on their user talk page m EvergreenFir (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

JackkBrown As highlighted at the top of the page, this page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I would suggest that you withdraw this report. Also, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, I have done so this time. TSventon (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2024 (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.

JackKBrown again

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.

---

Has this editor made any attempt at being less disruptive? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Partial_block_for_JackkBrown closed without consensus, but some of the very, same issues are popping up. Is it time to ban them entirely from project space? Star Mississippi 03:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

so, let me get this straight, a user who has improved most of the articles in Italian and enriched the encyclopaedia must be excluded from the project? I thought Wikipedia was a healthy place... JackkBrown (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Making personal attacks in edit summaries doesn't really help with the healthy place thing... ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You'll notice I said nothing about your access to editing articles. You manage to edit content productively, and should focus there since that is why we're all here. Star Mississippi 03:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I'm the first in this encyclopedia to always be attacked for every little thing. You (plural) have almost never rewarded the fact that you have improved this encyclopedia. JackkBrown (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

...you brought an editor to ANI for a silly content dispute. I'm sorry, but you're not the victim here. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I have been criticised for every single thing, even, and especially, for the right edits (I'm very precise in this encyclopedia); it's obvious that sooner or later I lose patience and do the same (obviously I was wrong too). JackkBrown (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

JackkBrown, accuracy is well and good, but it is absolutely impossible to be very precise about things like whether a given Italian loanword is common enough in English usage that it no longer needs to be italicized. There will always and inevitably be subjectivity involved and edge cases that do not have black or white answers. These matters are relatively trivial, and expanding and improving actual Italian culinary content is vastly more useful than quibbling about italicizaton. You and I and other editors discussed the word "sweetbread" the other day at the Help Desk. As a result, I was motivated to significantly expand the article Sweetbread and added content and five references about sweetbreads in French, Creole and American cuisines. How about sweetbreads in Italian cuisine? You are the expert. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

although having read the three different talk pages about the capitalization of parmesan and italics over tortelloni, I'm beginning to wonder if editor interaction is also a problem. Star Mississippi 13:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: the bad thing is that I have consulted all the English dictionaries to check whether a food is known or not, and then I find my laborious edits deleted. Until this situation is resolved, I will no longer edit any articles. JackkBrown (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Until this situation is resolved, I will no longer edit any articles.
— User:JackkBrown 15:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I find this hard to believe if the edits after this comment are anything to go by. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Less than a day since they said they would no longer edit any articles until the situation is resolved, there are already more than 70 edits to food-related articles alone, mainly featuring edits of the same type we're talking about here in the first place.

I'd certainly like some clarification, @JackkBrown, because few things make me lose trust in a person as quickly as when they immediately do the opposite of what they say they are going to do. And there's a practical reason too; any actions the community may choose to talk may differ on the level of trust there is in the editor doing what they say they will. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I was wrong to say what I said, many many apologies. A little curiosity: Why do you (and everyone else) always use "they" when referring to me (even in other threads)? JackkBrown (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: People don't know whether you prefer "he", "she", or any other pronoun. Singular they is a common way around this in English. Bazza (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: right, I hadn't thought of that, but I prefer "HE", thanks. JackkBrown (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Great to know! If you want to, there's an option in Preferences to select the pronouns that are used by default for you (in system messages and stuff like {{pronoun}}). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: thank you! Done now. JackkBrown (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I think JackkBrown should be banned from what I presume to be WP:? No, because there needs to be a line of communication for situations like these. Do I think they should take an extended leave of absence from the project? Absolutely. Once again there are constant questions from this editor at the help desk seeking assurance that what they're doing is correct. In the amount of time they've been registered I'd hope that they're confident enough to make what they think is the right decision, but that doesn't seem to be the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think he's well meaning, but it's increasingly apparent there's a WP:CIR issue here, likely due to the language barrier. That's not to say that there aren't many productive things they can do, but they've made the curious decision to focus on types of edits that especially require the most fluency in English. Some of the personal conflicts appear to also be language issues.

It certainly doesn't help that they toot their own horn about how valuable they are and how precise they are. If they were anywhere near their "very precise" self-description, there wouldn't be most of these conflicts or various Teahouse floods. At the very least, they shouldn't be involved in any edits involving capitalization/italicization/formatting, though wording it to not be overly harsh may require some deftness. Their assumed grasp of English is going to be a constant issue unless something is done. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: "their assumed grasp of English". I have stated several times (see, for example, my user page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JackkBrown) that I don't have a great knowledge of the English language. As for the rest of your comment, by precision I mean that when I make a mistake I go back and correct it, so, having established that most of my changes are correct, those that aren't I correct, even months later; so, without arrogance, yes, I'm very precise. JackkBrown (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a very non-idiomatic use of the word "precise". Any native English speaker would understand "I'm very precise" to mean "I don't make large errors", not "I clean up after my own errors when they are pointed out to me" (a completely different idea). I think if you want to convey the second one, you should find a better way to do it (i.e., not use the word "precise"). --JBL (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You've repeatedly used the word precise in a way that is unfamiliar to English speakers (including myself), others have to clean up your errors, and you have regularly spent time insisting how accurate or precise you are, how you don't get enough credit, and so on.

So again, if you're not well-versed in English, then why are you specifically choosing to focus so much of your effort on specific style areas that require the most fluency in English? There are only so many times someone can be dragged to ANI on the same issues before the community loses patience. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, my first post at WP:ANI. To offer a complementing perspective:

• Not here to expand content. The concerned editor isn't really here to expand content; for example, they recently asked me how to add a source, which they said they had never done before. As I recently summarised, the editor appears here to support content expansion by, as this noticeboard has previously noted, usually minor, cosmetic, and individually-inconsequential changes to the wikitext. This choice of specialism is somewhat strange, given that the editor's background and editorial interests presumably render them a better fit for content expansion than this kind of support.
• Why not expand content? My instinct is that the editor does not feel that they have a sufficient command of English to expand content, which I think is a pity, especially given how many free, accurate (AI) translation tools now exist. As someone frequently editing Italian-language articles with a limited working knowledge of Italian, I make copious use of such tools, and recently created my first article on the Italian-language Wikipedia from an English translation in this way. In a series of five edits, fluent editors kindly fixed my mistakes. Of course, a concern in the other direction is that Italian-language articles are usually poorly-cited, but from my interactions with the editor, finding and formatting citations could feasibly fit their interests.
• Helping WikiProjects? The editor could even be a great help to WikiProjects by identifying articles requiring clean-up or expansion, especially on Italian-language topics; I think it's no bad thing to encourage the editor to develop their contributions in this direction, but in a way that doesn't involve starting frequent talk page discussions.
• Other considerations. Nevertheless, previous discussions on the noticeboard have highlighted how the editor is enthusiastic and encourages others to be consistent in their editing practices, something which I personally have also found helpful in my interaction with the editor. Then there are two other concerns: the editor's lack of charity in interactions (something I have experienced) and their abuse of talk pages to solicit help and contest edits.

I suggested that the editor could remove a lot of the heat on them by getting off mobile web editing if they possibly can, which can remove the annoyance many editors feel from seeing a string of minor edits from the user by encouraging previews. Finally, I think encouraging the editor to contribute to Wikipedia in some of the ways suggested above could be a really fruitful approach; banning the editor from project spaces would effectively block this encouragement. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@IgnatiusofLondon: exactly! With the knowledge I have of Italian subjects, if I had been a native English speaker I could have gone beyond the five improved articles. However, English-language articles on Italian topics aren't poorly cited, they are less cited than the Italian-language Wikipedia, but the Italian-language Wikipedia doesn't value sources (for example, gossip sources are accepted), whereas in the English-language Wikipedia, a lot of attention is paid to sources, so the English-language Wikipedia is a million (or billion) times more authoritative than the Italian-language Wikipedia. JackkBrown (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: JackkBrown deleted an earlier comment apologising to Eric:

I would like to publicly apologize to User:Eric for not being kind to him at all. It doesn't matter what I think, the main thing isn't to be rude, and I was. My apologies, Eric. JackkBrown (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2024

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I deleted it by mistake when I posted the last comment. Just as well, it's even more prominent in the template. JackkBrown (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been watching JackkBrown for a bit now after an interaction on his talk page, and have been debating whether or not to bring him to ANI. There are a number of issues here, not all of which are language-barrier issues.

• In addition to italics and capitalization, he is fixated on fixing redirects (including template capitalization) and whitespace in templates, despite being told by multiple editors numerous times about things like WP:NOTBROKEN. When asking another user for advice on how to avoid making purely cosmetic edits, he came up with the idea: if I think I'm about to save a cosmetic edit, I can check for missing commas in the text, so that there are no problems if I save the edit [139] suggesting that these edits are still his primary focus, and the other things are an excuse.
• He also has an obsession with adding the "Use dmy dates" template to every article / updating the date on the template. As I understand it, you can update the date on this template if you have made sure all of the dates in the article conform to the standard. However, the fact that he changed the mdy template to dmy on the United States page (without changing any of the dates, which were obviously mdy), makes me wonder if he knows what he's doing in that regard.
• He does not appear to use the preview feature, resulting in multiple minor edits in a short span of time, or even undoing his previous edits. This is especially noticeable on non-mainspace pages (see, for example, his edits to this page or to his own talk page), which can result in multiple notifications to users. He continues to do this even after being asked multiple times to slow down, use preview, and read over his edits before submitting them. He also not infrequently edits his comments even after others have responded to them.
• When his errors are pointed out to him, he protests that he doesn't make very many mistakes, and when this claim is shown to be false, plays the victim. Yet he lashes out at others for minor mistakes, such as with Eric above or with User:IgnatiusofLondon in these two edits (he has since apologized to both of these users). He also has the strange claim about precision above, and the following quote on his own talk page: the problem is that I edit quickly, and very very very carefully, so unfortunately I don't pay much attention to this ban on cosmetic changes (emphasis in original). Of course, if he did edit as carefully as he claims, he wouldn't be making as many mistakes as he does.
• He's been criticised for his lack of edit summaries before. Though he now claims to have enabled reminders when leaving a blank edit summary, the edit summaries he leaves are often not helpful.
• Then, of course, there's his overuse of the Help Desk and other such forums. At one point I saw that he had 5 topics live on the Help Desk, and in two of them he had asked completely unrelated followup questions because he happened to have someone's ear.
• N.B. this user somehow has two separate talk page archiving systems: [140] [141], which are both full of these sorts of things.

Although he does a lot of good work, he also makes many not-so-great edits, and his apparent inability to take advice from others and amend his ways ends up wasting a lot of time. Smdjcl (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carrite: it's really disrespectful, rude and horrible towards me to say this. I take care of the pages as a whole: English grammar, MOS:CAPTIONS, MOS:GEOLINK, punctuation, correction of dashes, various templates ("circa", "literally", "flatlist" and "plainlist"), upper and lowercase initial letters, italics, etc. JackkBrown (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it disrespectful for them to point out a link? Star Mississippi 02:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I refer to his sentence "suggesting that these edits are still his primary focus, and the other things are an excuse." JackkBrown (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand, they meant that the cosmetic edit is the primary focus of the kind of edits mentioned above, with the rest (e.g. missing commas) being an excuse. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I never denied that you did other things. In fact, by saying you do a lot of good work, I implicitly acknowledged it. If all you did was useless edits like the ones I pointed out in that bullet point, I wouldn't call it good work. But the comment I highlighted does in fact suggest (though not prove) that you intended to add other things to your cosmetic edits as an excuse to make your less-acceptable edits acceptable. Whether or not you ever actually did that of course is another question, but the suggestion is there. Smdjcl (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Smdjcl: no, it isn't to make them "less-acceptable"; I, simply, modify a page as a whole, so if I want (example) to correct the grammar of a sentence, since it's the same edit, I also modify the rest. JackkBrown (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits to redirects and whitespace like I mentioned are generally frowned upon. Your comment said that if you were about to make an edit like that, you would add something else so that the edit would be okay. That implies that the other things are secondary, only added to make those edits acceptable. It may well be that you never ended up doing that, but that is what that comment suggests to me. If others disagree with my interpretation of that comment, I will happily retract it and apologize for my mischaracterization of you. However, your dispute of one relatively minor point in my overall comment isn't helping you. Smdjcl (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Which @Carrite didn't say, so you should retract your blaming of them while discussing the issues raised with the editor who did so. Carrite simply raised another discussion Star Mississippi 03:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there's been a mistake somewhere, the comment above isn't even from Carrite but from Smdjcl. Carrite's only comment in this whole thread is one below about Wikipediocracy. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• I know some of y'all don't like Wikipediocracy (different strokes, etc.) but a heads up there is a thread about this user/situation there. Public Area > General Discussion > Just Asking Questions. Perhaps illuminating or not. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  .....As of 2/5, WPO mod Zoloft has moved the thread out of the spotlight to the registered-users only area now, following an observation that "He's hardly unique, and focussing on the one individual tends to obscure the broader issue" of "Wikipedia's systemic inability to adequately control the well-intentioned but [CIR-related] time-sinks..." Carrite (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Support CIR block; the evidence in these ANI threads seems clear to me. What really jumps out is 50,000 edits in the first year (!). Is that a record? I've seen tens-of-thousands-in-the-first-year before, but I don't think I've seen 50k. Imagine, someone who doesn't really speak English, but makes 50k edits to the English wikipedia in their first year! Can you imagine doing this at another language wiki where you're not fluent in the language? How absurd. Also, they're indef'd at itwiki for block evasion (so not the first account, explains the 50k edits in the first year) and on itwikinews for being an LTA. Both are Global Sysop blocks. I don't know if they have merit, but ... well, I haven't tracked it down, but I'm going to bet the prior itwiki account had the same problems in Italian that we are experiencing in English. Bottom line: time sink due, at least, to language barrier. Levivich (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Support I didn't want to land here and was hoping a p-block would be sufficient but the further this discussion has gone on, the further it's clear they don't understand nor intend to change their edit pattern which extends beyond their perceived fluency in English. And thanks @Levivich for the heads up on the accounts. My spidey sense was going off but not enough for SPI Star Mississippi 00:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: hi, could you please read my last two comments in this thread? I only ask you this, I will not comment on any of your decisions towards me, I have no right to do so and I must accept, with profound humility, whatever decision is made. I would just like to add that I have understood, finally, that the user with the wrong behavior towards other users, who has sinned deeply of total lack of humility, who has not listened enough to the very useful advice regarding my defects, well, I have come to the awareness that I'm this user. Now I would like to take a pause for reflection and think about everything that's wrong and then, perhaps, continue to be active with the project, because I could also think about limiting myself to a maximum of 20 changes per week (example); it won't be easy, but I know I can do it. JackkBrown (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You have promised to limit yourself or stop editing on several occasions,and you have yet to follow through.

Despite probably 50 edits here since, you haven't apologized to Carrite for @Carrite: it's really disrespectful, rude and horrible towards me to say this. (when they didn't say it)

Your editing future is within the community's discretion, not my opinion. BUt I would strongly suggest you take on the feedback you've received here and why you're blocked on other projects. It's clear there is some problem with your editing. If you want to edit in the future, you need to make some changes. Star Mississippi 01:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I apologise to him in private. JackkBrown (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Very good; I'm glad you've apologised. For future reference, as a general principle, I think because your comments were public, so should your apology be public. To retract what you've said, I recommend you strike out your comment accusing Carrite (see Template:Strikethrough). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 I think you're most probably right, Levivich. ——Serial 17:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: I specify that I don't write new texts, but I understand perfectly what's in this encyclopedia, also thanks to paid translators. JackkBrown (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you "understood perfectly what's in this encyclopedia" or made "100% or almost 100% accurate edits" (your words), we wouldn't be here in two very long discussions about the same behavior barely a month apart.

I started this thread thinking you needed a mentor and to stay away from making style edits, but your attitude of superiority and your lack of forthrightness in answering any concerns are putting me close to a CIR block. It certainly does not help that you said you would make no more edits while the situation was unresolved, and before even a whole day had passed, you had made a hundred edits in the same problematic territory. Now, you were not prohibited from making those edits, but as I said above, not doing what you say is a quick way to lose trust. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: all right, I admit it, I need help and, in order not to admit my shortcomings, I make myself look (non-maliciously) superior, but the truth is that I have many faults and I need to improve (I'm trying, so far unsuccessfully, to take a pause for reflection). JackkBrown (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Admitting your own shortcomings is a great (and difficult) first step — congratulations and good luck! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I should take a bath in humility and put myself on a par, equal with others, without feeling superior; unfortunately it's a defence, because as a non-native English speaker I start at a disadvantage; I hope you understand me. I didn't just admit it out of fear of the block, but because I can no longer stand pretending to be superior to those who, like you for example, have much more experience than me. JackkBrown (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I hope I can take a pause for reflection, I have to make it (it's hard, difficult for me not to edit for, say, a week). JackkBrown (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Good luck, I trust you! It's always healthy to take breaks from time to time, really! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a temporary block (one month) for JackkBrown. I hope some time away from Wikipedia might help. If anyone has any suggestions as to how to deal with the persistent deluge of questions at the Help Desk, I'm all ears. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 JackkBrown has said: I hope I can take a pause for reflection, I have to make it. So a temporary block might be in everyone's favour, and to make good of what he has said, I hope the concerned editor also replies in support of this suggestion. His recent erratic edits to his userpage suggest the editor is really taking the discussions on this thread to heart, and that's always a good invitation to step away and reconnect with other things in life. In his time away, I suggest JackkBrown consider some different approaches to contributions he can make to support Wikipedia, as highlighted in this thread.

Finally, I am concerned that the editor has recently, in this thread and in a reverted edit on their user page, began talking about "paid translators". This feels like an unnecessary expense, and one that doesn't entirely engage with the concerns expressed by the community in this and previous noticeboard discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 it would be nice if the description of the block included my support; that would make the block even more important. JackkBrown (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get something actioned instead of letting this fade into the archives like last time? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (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.

Removal of user rights

I would like to request that all my user rights be revoked, including extended confirmed. Hurricane Noah (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hurricane Noah, all done. Please do advise if you'd ever like some or all returned in the future. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:NewPedia24

While going on my recent changes patrol, I came across a very strange number of edits from one user in particular: User:NewPedia24.

Their user page is (and please don't misinterpret this as a personal attack) a complete mess as of this writing. [142] They say on their talk page that they support the Communist Party of Russia... and like Ronald Reagan? [143]

But I'm not getting to the point. Their edits borderline on vandalism, and they outright admit that they have a strong opinion on the subjects of the articles they edit. Take their edit to the Rage Against the Machine article, in which they say in their edit summary "Hate it so much I am a moderate haha". They added the descriptor "far-left" to the lead with no sources. [144] Then, weirdly enough, they reverted their own edit. [145]

This isn't just a one-off thing. They've done it many times. They did it on the "Sadegh Omidzadeh" article, and again on the "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" article.

It personally seems to me that they aren't here to make an encyclopedia, but would like to hear them explain their actions - specifically their editorializing and their vandalism. I will notify NewPedia24 on their talk page, and ping them here. @NewPedia24: What do you have to say for yourself?

Please don't read this as a personal attack, and remember to stay civil. Sincerely, Professor Penguino (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as NOTHERE. This from today coupled with a very patchy editing history of bizarre editing, in addition to what Professor Penguino outlines above. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel: I just wanted to point out that your block notice (and the ANI notice too, really) is completely covered by a sea of userpage boxes that they added to their talk page... – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Should I remove them? I noticed that my ANI notice was buried under all that stuff, but wasn't sure whether I had the right to. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I removed the user boxes. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that's fair, it was pretty much violating the purpose of user talk pages (as mentioned at WP:OWNTALK). That and I couldn't figure out a way of just sectioning it off. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping them from adding more user boxes to their user page. Their talk page needs to be functional - and hopefully not a complete mess lol.

Anyway, have a nice day! Professor Penguino (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Some IP is trying to hack my account

This evening, I discovered a bunch of failed logon attempts and an email about a temporary password. I was off-wiki during this time.

I have two-factor authentication, so they aren't going to get anywhere, and my password hasn't been guessed. Should I ignore it or escalate it? I've got the IP address (clearly not mine) and can forward that to Trust and Safety, or whoever deals with these matters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure whether you should report it, as it may be different for admin accounts, but if it happened to me and there were no indicators of compromise, I wouldn't personally. To reduce unwanted reset password emails though, you can enable the "Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided." setting in Preferences. FozzieHey (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Likely some LTA, I yesterday had the same clearly as a consequence of some protections I made on Commons. If you are sure it did not have any consequences, just ignore it. Ymblanter (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that! Professor Penguino (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It happens to me from time to time too...I just ignore it. Lectonar (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Attaullah Tarar

There's a backlog at WP:RFPP so this isn't getting attention. Attaullah Tarar is a WP:BLP who recently has made news in their home country. The article is under sustained attack from IPs and new accounts – several edits a minute – all of which appear to be unpleasant. A bit of protection for a few days would be nice. Thanks! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, over 250 edits in one day. I've semi-protected the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr Fir! Much appreciated. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I've also answered the request on the talk page and will be taking a SSR-esque approach to any edit requests demanding edits that contravene policy. That said, I can't be on 24/7. I have the article and talk page watchlisted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:14_novembre

User 14_novembre is doing some strange things, like this edit posting a fake AfC acceptance notice on someone's talk page. In fact, it's hard to find too many sensible edits in their history. They're now requesting additional user rights, at least pending changes reviewer and auto patrolled.

Per this convo User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_61#Re:_Block on Bbb23's talk page, they seem to be a LTA, Calicanto2023, who is blocked on it.wiki. Calicanto2023 also has edited on en.wiki, albeit not much. They've also been here at ANI referring to that.

I don't know if this is technically socking, I don't know if they've yet done (here on en.wiki, that is) anything necessitating a sanction, but it looks to me like it may be heading that way. I'll leave this here in more capable hands. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

14 novembre's recent comments at the Teahouse have been cryptic and unhelpful. I left a note on their talk page. I was unaware of the other issues until now. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The user is a prolific sock at it.wiki. See this list. The problem is most of the accounts are either not registered at en.wiki or have 0 edits at en.wiki. Calicanto2023 is I believe one of the few who has.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 @Cullen328 @DoubleGrazing That is the point. All these sockpuppets on it.wiki have no contributions on en.wiki, unless a few, which are prior to the creation of this account. So I actually don't think it could be considered a serious violation of WP:SOCK. Also, I am using this account and not Calicanto2023 just because I prefer this username. I also point out that the activity of creating SP on it.wiki has stopped more than 3 weeks ago, as I realised that to hopefully be unblocked in the future I had to do so. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, I oppose granting any advanced user rights. 14 novembre, in my view, your editing is bordering on disruptive. If you continue on that path, a block is a real possibility. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Why? 14 novembre (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you kindly provide an example of disruptive editing? 14 novembre (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Your obtuse and unhelpful behavior at the Teahouse is a perfect example. Cullen328 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I do not understand where this "obtuse and unhelpful behavior" is. Could you please provide a specific example. Thanks 14 novembre (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Asking Arjayay and Iljhgtn if they could upload a movie poster for you repeatedly, last I checked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh Was that disruptive? No. 14 novembre (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you please provid a specific example. sure, CIR on the teahouse. Babysharkboss2!! ^{AC/DC (Talk Page btw)} 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2 That is nothing serious. One can't be blocked for 1 slightly inappropriate edit. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

apologies, wrong comment. THIS. no idea isn't a constructive or helpful comment. Babysharkboss2!! ^{AC/DC (Talk Page btw)} 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

At WP:TH#Gujarat model Hindu fascism and xenophobia is infiltrating Wiki, you responded to a very emotional question about a highly controversial topic area with No idea. At WP:TH#Citing sources, your single word answer was No, which was incorrect, later followed by it is not an issue, which was unresponsive and unhelpful. In both cases, your unhelpful, incorrect and cryptic comments derailed the conversation, at least temporarily. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Well that was one occasion, but if you see my 329 contributions you can see that there is a significant history of constructive edits, which have undoubtedly improved Wikipedia. Please reply if you do not agree and you want to go on with this procedure. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we should hear from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain what the purpose of making more than 40 tiny edits over 15 minutes on your user page was? None of those edits seem significant or constructive to me. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUMMY 14 novembre (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As explained on the page you linked, dummy edits are for using the edit summary to add information that you forgot to add before. None of the edits mentioned have any edit summary, so what was their purpose? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby None. It has been I mistake. I will not such edits again. 14 novembre (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's too early for you to answer questions at the teahouse. The same applies for commenting at administrative noticeboards, going to admins' talkpages to share your opinions on who should be blocked and for how long, and requesting advanced permissions. You need to focus on articles. Editing articles is the only way to show your home wiki that you are serious about being a contributor. And, it is the only way to convince admins here to continue to give you that chance. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It took me at least 1000 contributions to get pending changes, and about 5000 to get rollback. Plus, I had to demonstrate my skills of reverting vandalism on the site. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2@Bbb23@Cullen328@DoubleGrazing@Ingenuity@NoobThreePointOh@Usedtobecool Well, thank for your answers. I will take into account what you said. Good evening 14 novembre (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• At a minimum, no advanced permissions. But their conduct at the Teahouse is not helpful. This should serve as a final warning to begin editing productively, or they will lose access to edit. Star Mississippi 21:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Ingenuity OK. I shall take this advice into account. 14 novembre (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Lotobomymaster

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.

---

The locked account LotobomyMaster has made another account named LotobomyMaster2. If anyone can set up a sock investigation and request for locking that would be cool. Toketaa^talk 13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this should have been on the SPI. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

But the investigation page hasn't been made yet and I don't know how to do it. Toketaa^talk 13:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPI and find the box that says "How to open an investigation" and follow the instructions. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So, what you could do is, if you have Twinkle, go to the user page, click on TW in the top right corner, select ARV, then click the drop down menu and select sockpuppet from the menu. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't use tools. Toketaa^talk 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, the account has already been blocked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The block might have been in response to the post here. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

oh someone did it already while we were having this conversation. Toketaa^talk 13:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Probably the fastest sockpuppet block ever. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved At this time, I wouldn't bother with an SPI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet another thread at ANI from this editor that didn't need to be here, and should have been submitted elsewhere. See User_talk:Toketaa#Use_of_ANI for context. Needs to stop. Daniel (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't know about SPI at the time of typing. You can partial block me from here if needed. Toketaa^talk 14:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toketaa, For most functions, you can go to the search box and simply add WP: ahead of the topic you wish to find out more about (and locate the relevant noticeboards). For example WP:Sockpuppet; WP:Conflict of interest; WP:Copyright violation, and so on are shortcuts to some common topics for which we have guidance and policies. Also, Twinkle is very helpful and easy to use. I recommend you consider trying it out. — Diannaa (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The top of this page has a listing of commonly needed areas as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toketaa, was there any reason why you reverted to restored poorly-sourced (WP:PRIMARY) material not once but twice? Daniel (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not know what was happening. I just tried to revert the one that was flagged as vandalism. Toketaa^talk 14:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

17:44, 5 February 2024: edited to remove the content. 17:47, 5 February 2024: edited to add the content. If you don't know what is happening, maybe just leave it for others? Scolaire (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I was just confused there, first I reverted the flagged vandalism, then rollbacked to the last edit before the edit war started. Toketaa^talk 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A bit late, but just to add: if the socking is that level of obvious, AIV is often a better place to report it than SPI. Easier to report, and saves clerk manpower. (If there would be a 100% sure case for an impersonation block if they turned out to be different users, AIV is the place, otherwise SPI) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

DE Block

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.

---

Toketaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unblocked because they magically quit socking and badgering editors long enough to get the standard offer (User_talk:Toketaa#Appeal_for_standard_offer) and I understand why they were procedurally unblocked. (Funny that they didn't know about SPI at the time of typing). But their disruption in the short time back has already been more trouble than their edits are worth. I was toying with a project-space block, but I'm really wondering whether we need their edits at all. If folks are in support of one more chance (again), I think this really should be the final straw because they seem both unable and unwilling to listen to the advice provided. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice made to user, courtesy pings to @Daniel Case @Bbb23 @NinjaRobotPirate @331dot who have actioned their blocks/unblock requests Star Mississippi 00:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this situation. However, I'll note that people are always going on about how "reblocks are cheap". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not know how to open an investigation, I did know what SPI was. Toketaa^talk 14:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say just 6 month partial block me from SPI and ANI and maybe RFPP and AIV, but if you wanna do indef partial its ok with me :) Toketaa^talk 15:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand; you are one single annoyed administrator away from being indef blocked sitewide. A block I am 99% sure will never be undone, based on your history. We are not interested in what block you think you deserve. You are going to (a) have to use your own willpower to avoid posting in project space, (b) not revert edits you don't understand just because they've been "flagged" as vandalism, and (c) generally stop being a timesink for other good faith editors, many of whom have been trying to help you. p.s. if your response to this is "I didn't understand SPI", I'll block you myself right now. Zero more careless edits. Literally zero. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I believe that Toketaa should be indefinitely blocked sitewide. They've been unblocked for only a month, and they persist in exercising poor judgment in a number of areas, not just in project space. The core of the problem is their immaturity and inability to control their impulses, which, unfortunately, are often wrong. They also often acknowledge rebukes and seem to say they will do better, but they fail to do so. I do not believe they are malicious; nor do I believe they are socking again, but they are not an asset to the project. Some examples of bad judgment. They patrol edits by others as a sort of counter-vandalism. Yet, they often don't warn users when reverting them, even though they've been told by another editor and by me that they should. They also revert users for things other than vandalism, but don't provide an edit summary. Warning editors and providing edit summaries are not required, but undoing another editor's work without an edit summary is not something anyone should be doing - unless it's vandalism or at least something akin to vandalism. They even have on their userpage (not sure when they put it on because they mess around with their userpage frequently) the following: "I revert all vandalism but only warn user accounts, not IP's." OTOH, it's very honest, but OTOH it's not a thing I'd brag about. Same thing in a userbox that they revert users "manually", not with Twinkle. That's because they don't like using "tools". Okay, their privilege, but why not? Apparently, I didn't object to the user being unblocked (must've had some discussion somewhere other than their Talk page because it isn't there and Daniel Case, who was the unblocker, said he would consult with me). Anyway, if the user is indeffed, I recommend an extended standard offer, at least a year before they can request an unblock and explain how they've changed. I just can't imagine that less than a year would cut it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  You assented to the unblock here.

  I do think they're sincere about wanting to do right, but I admit I don't know them as well as others here seem to and thus I defer to their judgement about a reblock. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link. I agree about their sincerity, but, unfortunately, good intentions go only so far given all the points I've made above about their editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Welp... Goodbye... Been nice to see you :( Toketaa^talk 13:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• This (especially the edit summary) is just bizarre. Support indefinite block for CIR-related reasons. Daniel (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ill just support, no rebuttal. Bye. Toketaa^talk 20:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Cynic in me wonders about the connection to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Something_horrifying_happened_to_me_this_afternoon_(based_on_my_time_zone,_Eastern_Time)... @Daniel Star Mississippi 01:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Reading that thread, I don't understand why NoobThreePointOh says that Toketaa "know[s] about this IP".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 I remember on that IP's talk page, I found one comment from Toketaa saying to the IP that Writ Keeper blocked the IP. So I'm just saying it based on assumption. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Was reverting the blanking but the block notice got caught up there so I had to add it back. Toketaa^talk 02:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's my take on it, too, it's actually fairly typical of Toketaa's interference in things that don't concern them. To the extent Star Mississippi is implying that the IP and and Toketaa are the same person, I seriously doubt it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Was gonna say this earlier on that thread but after FloquenBeam's comment I stayed silent for a while. Toketaa^talk 02:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry @Bbb23 that isn't what I meant to say. I'm just finding Toketaa and Noob's meddling a little curious. I have no doubt that Noob was harassed. But Tok is worried about folks finding them and Noob jumps in with an LTA so I think there's something else going on here. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi Definitely nothing with me. I'm just here to have a general discussion on certain comments. In fact, the LTA one where I commented is certainly true. I actually remember that user continuously closing AfDs, which is something I still kept in my mind until now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Welp... Gotta go to bed now, so this will be my final comment. Farewell, and see you in around 1 year and 3 months. Toketaa^talk 02:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• This thread was started by Star Mississippi. My reading of their comments was that Toketaa should be sanctioned for their conduct since being unblocked last month, but SM wasn't sure whether it should be a project space pblock, a sitewide block, or a final warning. Since then, the thread has not attracted a great deal of attention. Daniel and I have explicitly stated that Toketaa should be indeffed. Daniel Case, the unblocking admin, appears to consent to a reblock. Floquenbeam, in their usual blunt style, gave Toketaa a zero-tolerance warning, but did not expressly object to a block. Toketaa, in their odd manner, supported an indefinite block, and posted "Blocked INDEF. Goodbye." to their userpage in anticipation. I'd like to wrap this up and will indefinitely block Toketaa unless someone objects (I believe I've pinged everyone involved). To be clear, my block would not be a community ban as there was no formal proposal or clear consensus to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  No objection. See you in a year and 3 months. Toketaa^talk 16:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Confirming your assessment of my comments. The disruption I was most aware of was project space, which is why I started there. And confirming I have no objection to the original unblock. There was no policy based reason to retain the block. Star Mississippi 16:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Confirming I agree with your summary and support the proposed action. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• I just indefinitely blocked Toketaa. As far as I'm concerned, this thread (main and sub) may be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2024 (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 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:GoutComplex's noncompliance with WP:RS

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

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this issue, but I noticed that User:GoutComplex made a non-referenced edit at Empire. I reverted it and encouraged them to find a good source, but a review of their talk page shows that many editors have come to them with unresolved complaints. I feel that this reflects the community time being wasted in repairing their faultily-sourced edits and would appreciate an administrator applying some sort of harsher penalty than a talk page message. For what it's worth, their contributions seem to be overall good, as seen here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/GoutComplex]https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/GoutComplex

Thank you!

Sincerely, JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added the standard links for GoutComplex at the top of the section. GoutComplex's use of sources was reported here a month ago, so there are recent differences here. They did not edit while the previous report was active and have only posted two replies to advice on their talk page, including a thank you for a standard welcome message. TSventon (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

GoutComplex has been editing for a year with over 2000 edits. I see their editing as problematic for two reasons firstly when I look at a sample of their recent edits almost all show sourcing problems. Secondly they have not responded to advice. Also they hardly ever use edit summaries.

Check of recent edits

Latest twelve Decline and modernization of the Ottoman Empire diff unsourced Empire diff unsourced 117th United States Congress diff unsourced 117th United States Congress diff unsourced 116th United States Congress diff unsourced Legalism (Chinese philosophy) diff change to section heading Ainu people diff unsourced Austria-Hungary diff move reference to end of sentence Ashoka diff unsourced Xinjiang diff unsourced Maat diff this misrepresents the source Temples, tombs, & hieroglyphs : a popular history of ancient Egypt by Barbara Mertz. The added sentence Under Akhenaten's rule, the concept of Maat represented honesty in art, heat, and innovation confuses definitions of Maat as "truth", "justice" or "candor" and Mertz's views on sun worship My own, admittedly subjective, feeling is that it was the spirit of animation and creation implicit in the heat and light-producing sun that was the object of Akhenaton’s adoration. Legalism (Chinese philosophy) diff copy edit, no source needed 30 January Inari Ōkami diff partly added before a reference to "Religions of the Tao. Art of Faith II. Episode 3. 2010. Sky Arts.", partly unsourced. I doubt that GoutComplex watched the 2010 television programme, but they may have done. Michael Wood (historian) diff claim about a TV programme sourced to the book of the programme, not independent Michael Wood (historian) diff correction to the above Culture of Iraq diff Throughout the region's history, Iraq was second only to India in how many religions originated from it and how many its culture influenced.{{Citation needed|date=January 2024|reason=I heard this on a TV episode called Iraq, Cradle of Civilization, but another source is needed}} better source needed

TSventon (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

JuxtaposedJacob, can you explain what you mean by "their contributions seem to be overall good", as most of their edits I have looked at have sourcing problems. It may be that you are looking at a different sample of their edits. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @TSventon,

I tried to give the benefit of the doubt; I also went on his contributions and noted the seemingly-small number of reverts compared to live edits.

Have a great day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for creating edits that get reverted. I did not know that creating summaries was advised to be quite important. In the future, I will create better sourced content.

Every single one of my contributions to the Wiki has been a good faith attempt, including various deleted alt accounts since 2015.

What can I do in the future to clear any lingering situations up? GoutComplex (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't the issue, what you need is to source content inside the text itself through <ref></ref> tags. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I did refer to that with my third sentence. I will always do that from now on unless I am doing an edit where I am just correcting the flow of an article or sources merely just imply a fact that I would like someone to clear up if another source I do not know of elaborates on it, such as my contributions here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_(Taoism)#In_art_and_culture GoutComplex (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand now that it is not appropriate to insert a statement with no source and instead a {{Citation needed}} tag with "reason=I heard this on a TV episode called Iraq, Cradle of Civilization, but another source is needed", as you did in one of your most recent edits[146], a few days ago? NebY (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Now I do now that you said it. I was just looking for someone to contribute a better source that was more modern about this in the future. GoutComplex (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

GoutComplex I can see that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but you didn't reply when several editors criticised the sources you are using on your talk page and in the previous AN/I report. (Almost) everyone makes mistakes and gets corrected when they start editing, the point is to learn from your mistakes. That is why I advised you to respond to advice on your talk page. My general advice is that a book about the general subject of the article is more reliable than a book about a different subject. TSventon (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just come here after reverting the problematic edits here Special:Diff/1204754874 and here Special:Diff/1204755126. I'm trying to understand what these additions were suppose to add value wise, on top of the fact they are wrong. (A 64-bit integer is not a length of characters, and a character is typically 8 to 16 bits each.). I'm now reviewing, and likely reverting, further recent edits of this sort. Even where the sources used seem to be reliable, the conclusions the editor has drawn from them seem... off. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoutComplex Can you please disclose your alt accounts? There's no such thing as a deleted account. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ping @GoutComplex again as they have not yet replied after 48 hours. TSventon (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Timeshifter behavioral issues

I brought this up at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 27#Sort under template discussion becoming uncivil, but no response so I brought it here since the behavior is intractable and seems chronic.

I recently created Template: Sort under and Timeshifter made a request on its talk page for a change that I consider to be his personal preferences and that I disagree with. His recent responses have become too heated, personal, assumes bad faith, and very uncivil. He responded with some profanity: "BS". He stated that he will apply the changes and that I should find consensus against it: "Unless you find consensus against that I will put it into the CSS myself." Apparently he thought I supported his preference even though I disagreed from the start, but a misunderstanding is no reason to act this way and threaten to circumvent reaching consensus. This isn't the first time, and I'm not listing all occurrences.

In a discussion last month (January 2023) at Template talk:Static row numbers#Column label unspanned look, there was personalization about me: "Why do you go into these massive fights over adding the smallest bit of additional info? It is extremely annoying, and a huge waste of time."

In an discussion two months ago (December 2023) at Template talk:Sticky header#Class sticky not working on mobile, he started talking about himself, other content, then me as a developer that ended with me abandoning any template fixes I was working on. Although he somewhat apologized, it's very difficult to discuss content with someone who personalizes conversations or can't stay on topic.

@HouseBlaster, Redrose64, SMcCandlish, Gonnym, and JohnFromPinckney: pinged since I've seen them in similar discussions with him in case they want to add anything. I mostly see these kinds of discussions with him on help and template talk pages like at Help talk:Table. In general, when his opinion is agreed with, he is easier to work with. Jroberson108 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I could go into a long list of uncivil stuff from Jroberson108 also. But we have never called each other names, and there were no personal attacks from either side. There were plenty of disagreements.

Jroberson108 has a habit of WP:OWN with almost anything he works on. By the way here is the "BS" in context:

"And what is this disrespectful BS: "You've provided no solid metrics to back your claim of 'templates get used more' or 'saves time'." I told you it saved me time. That should be good enough since you know that I edit a lot of tables.

That is not a personal attack. It was me pointing out his disrespect.

By the way after much effort on my part I finally got someone to reply concerning Template:Sort under. They suggested going to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables. I did so. See:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Template:Sort under

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "BS" isn't profanity, it's a "minced oath" to avoid actual profanity. And profanity doesn't automatically make something a civility problem anyway. This does seem to be a weird and unproductive argument. I would think a single-discussion RfC in one particular place, with all the other threads closed and pointing to it, and relevant pages notified, would be enough to resolve this, especially if it's neutrally laid out in very simple "here are the options; pick one" terms. I don't think either of you've been ideal in this (starting with Jroberson108's "You don't need to continue pushing your same opinion", which was testy and standoffish enough that it seems to have flipped Timeshift into "resist at all costs" mode). We're all human (I hope!), and shit happens. (See? Profanity, but not an attack.) I can't see any cause for an ANI action here, this template functionality and output-layout matter (what? a disagreement about a style issue? how could that possibly be?! LOL) simply needs more eyes and brains on it to reach some kind of a consensus. Edit: The thread at WT:MOSTABLES is probably good for this, just {{discussion top|{{moved discussion to|...}}}}...{{discussion bottom}} any other open threads about it to prevent the WP:TALKFORK issue.

To pre-emptively give some input: I would suggest that more options are better, but only up to a point (KISS principle; and the observation than a left-aligned version of such a control widget would not be of use in an LTR language is probably correct). Concision in class, parameter, and other names is generally better, but also just up to a point (they need to still be intelligible). Default behavior of the template should probably be what best matches default appearance of sortable wikitable controls (principle of least astonishment). If some particular variant is expected to be needed over and over again, make a simple template wrapper that does that version with a shorthand name that doesn't require lots of parameter futzing.

PS: I don't recall what similar discussion I was pinged about; I don't pay much of any attention to usernames, and just look at the content of what's posted and what the reasoning is, when it's practical to ignore who it's coming from.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

How can you seriously say there were no WP:PA when I literally quoted one example above that is about me as a contributor and not the content.

According to BS, it is profanity, which is both unneeded and unwanted. This is my first time seeing it used in a discussion.

If you look closer, he got upset over my "You don't need to continue pushing your same opinion" remark, which wasn't meant as an attack, but I apologized anyways, then we moved on and he even thanked my apology edit. As I mentioned, it was fine until there was a misunderstanding, then it went down hill from there. I understand he might have been upset, but there are better ways to respond without blowing up unapologetically to where there is nothing more that can be said, which for me appears intractable. Granted that I'm new to asking admins for advice and approaching ANI, the description at the top this page matched this situation so I posted here.

There is nothing disrespectful about me questioning the source and metrics of statements about others used to support someone's opinion. You may have included yourself in part of it, but they still talk about others, which is what I question. "Now you are back to your original position of ignoring my point about simplicity working to make templates get used more." and "Those, like me and many others, who want to save time, will use class sort-under, knowing it is the more popular choice." aren't just about you. From my perspective, it just sounds like POV, assumptions, or projecting, which I usually ignore unless its repeated. My response was You've provided no solid metrics to back your claim of "templates get used more" or "saves time" and pointed to no discussions showing consensus for "many others" or "popular". If there are metrics or consensus for these statements, then it would have changed the discussion completely.

BTW, wanting consensus isn't WP:OWN, it's just WP:CON. Jroberson108 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time seeing it used in a discussion. Oh come on, that is BS, which is common word in the English language. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will say that I've noticed other instances of Timeshifter being overly-combative about getting their way. Most recently, there was Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Add_year_to_article_title., in which Timeshifter framed their desire to include the year in the article title as a crusade against self-centered Americans (not an unfair criticism in general, but the article's title certainly isn't an example of it), which spilled over to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(events)#US-centric_common_names,_or_names_that_only_mean_something_nationally when they realized they weren't going to get their way, and is full of the same bold-typeface shouting against pretty much everyone else who opined. There are other examples I can think of off the top of my head, but as they're all probably years-old at this point, I'm not too fussed about them. Regardless, and without comment on OP's behavior, I do think the complaint has some merit. It's not the worst thing, and I certainly don't think it merits a block or anything, but it is annoying, and I think Timeshifter would be well-advised to cool their jets when people disagree with them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will start by saying that I believe that Timeshifter is a boon to the project, and genuinely believe he engages in discussion in good faith. I will also mention that at Help talk:Table#Linking to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js he demanded increasing levels of consensus against including a link to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js—a tool which has nothing to do with tables—at Help:Table. There was also Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter and Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter, another classic WP:1AM attempt at including a WP:FRINGE POV. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond to the "boon" part. I agree that he is a boon and probably the one editor I've worked with the most in my fixing of templates and a gadget for the last couple of years. Jroberson108 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A comment made today at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility engages in personal commentary about another editor: ... I will not change your strong tags back to regular bolding, now that this discussion has sadly resolved in the favor of your current point of view. If you want to waste your time on this useless activity, then knock yourself out. In fact, after you completely convert all bolding to strong tags on a few help pages, you will have annoyed enough editors that this vaporware of the semantic web will be seen as contradictory to the simplicity that wikis were created for. I strongly urge Timeshifter to avoid making these types of remarks. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

[Update] I do feel like Timeshifter's behavior has improved in the recent RfC (see his link above) to reach a consensus with two other editors and myself, so thank you for that. Note, the RfC started about the same time as this notice. I can't speak for everyone else above. I'll also point out that he has and still does give praise for my efforts in fixing templates he's also involved in. Jroberson108 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My input, FWIW: I have indeed had difficulty in the past with Timeshifter as he has effectively taken ownership of a few pages in both Help: and article spaces. He has frequently and steadfastly insisted that because something works for him and is simpler to him, then it therefore "works fine" and must not be changed. He generally rejects a standardized format for examples (e.g. table coding) and does not care (or apparently know) what valid HTML is or why we might want to use it. TS habitually outdents his posts on Talk pages, even when replying to a level two post, although he's not demonstrating indentation examples or including tables in his response (which might justify such an outdent). He's overly fond of bold text in inappropriate situations and has often thrown in non-sequiturs and irrelevant arguments and unsupported claims of fact. He has repeatedly reverted me (one infuriating example) and others because "I edit this page a lot" (meaning him, TS), the implication being that nobody else is worthy of making changes.

Having said that, I have spent some time scanning through recent exchanges involving TS, including the ones linked by Jroberson108 and others, and I found TS's to be much improved over my earlier interactions with him. Further, I do not see that anything in the discussions I read through rises to the level of ANI-level action. I responded some time ago to TS's stubbornness by disengaging from the tables pages (and articles with "his" tables) in particular, and Wikipedia in general. His behavior was just so maddening to me I had to (try to) stop my involvement where our paths might cross.

So at this point, I think there's insufficient need for admin action at this time. A couple of years ago, maybe, but not from the current evidence I see. Sorry, Jroberson, but thanks for the ping. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yikes, again. Timeshifter literally just asked me Can you not read?. (For transparency, I am also the editor who the comment ... I will not change your strong tags back to regular bolding, now that this discussion has sadly resolved in the favor of your current point of view. If you want to waste your time on this useless activity, then knock yourself out. In fact, after you completely convert all bolding to strong tags on a few help pages, you will have annoyed enough editors that this vaporware of the semantic web will be seen as contradictory to the simplicity that wikis were created for. was directed at.) I would like the personal attacks to stop, but I also do not want to see Timeshifter blocked. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Ick. Stubbornly stubborn, is TS. That discussion shows the kind of tone-deafness and lack of respect that I have experienced with him before (although I happen to think his intentions in this case were correct). And the page itself is the kind of terrible that keeps me disengaged from TS's pages. (It drives me a bit [more] crazy when I see such poor implementation of tables from someone who has taken over writing HELP: pages for tables. Again, not sanctionable, just icky.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• I am getting a little frustrated. Timeshifter has once again re-added a link to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js at Help:Table, despite unanimous opposition to such a link at Help talk:Table § Linking to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js. I want Timeshifter to contribute positively, but flouting consensus is not okay. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeated reverts and refusal to discuss on Rio (franchise)

A number of similar IP addresses (most recently 2600:1008:B03C:414F:D5EF:3CC1:60BD:3B30) have made repeated edits to remove a single line. None of the edits have a summary, and when I attempted to discuss on the article talk page it was blanked with no summary. FEZfan (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• There is an edit war going on, but instead of using my admin hat, I offered a comment on the talk page using my editor hat, which is the same hat I'm wearing now. The IP's are correct that the sentence shouldn't be used in the article, per our policies on original research. You can't just draw conclusions based on what you believe is a lack of information (you can't prove a negative), although you CAN quote a reliable source saying that, if you can find one. Now, that is my well thought out opinion, based on my experience as an editor here, but you probably want to stop editing, and instead use the talk page to discuss that change instead of reverting back and forth. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Agri-tista5q

Please revoke TPA of that sock. Thanks Nobody (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @1AmNobody24, I should've just asked here first. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Literally nothing they've said on the talk page has been of value. Not a single proper unblock request. Purely disruptive. Philipnelson99 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong support for this. There has been a great deal of re-factoring of talk page comments (including mine) plus much nonsense. I put a request on the blocking admin's talk page but they may well be not awake in this time zone.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   05:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

^ this. Clearly just trying to be annoying. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Also deleted misleading user page. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

anonymous edit warring at Sharafutdinov

So, in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharafutdinov&action=history we see that there's an anonymous user who is hell-bent on re-formatting the list. They did it first under the edit summary "normalize", then I tried to meet them half way, but no, it was just not good enough, it was their way or the highway! Three times reverting afterwards. The kind of formatting with a template that they seem to be offended by was included after a discussion in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Sharafutdinov and isn't actually particularly controversial; I've also checked at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#on annotated biography links and two other people brought up some concerns, none of which seem to indicate an actual reason to wage this kind of a holy war over this. So we've gone through WP:BRD, they've engaged in some amount of discussion at the talk pages, but it was mostly wikilawyering, and as there's a fair bit of knowledge of the various intricate Wikipedia procedures, I suspect we're dealing with some form of a previously blocked editor who is using anonymity to continue pushing whatever weird agenda this is. Can another admin please warn this person that Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of behavior? --Joy (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't post ANI notices in anonymous talk pages as they already cycled through 3 different IPv6 addresses over the course of this little incident. Maybe a low level of protection is best. --Joy (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This is (a) a content dispute, (b) forum-shopping, and (c) edit-warring by both you and the IP (NB: I have no connection whatever to that IP, I just happened to be reading this page). 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9DF8:8FA0:FB91:68EF (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. both you and the IP (more you) need to start discussing more on the talk page and stop edit warring and making personal attacks on WT:D ("If you actually want to contribute something useful, this is a pretty bad start", "I guess I'm just going to have to ignore further trolling"). This isn't fit for ANI. Also, just a reminder that IP editors are still human, and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're block evading. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been observing this kind of behavior for decades, so it's hard to keep assuming good faith from people who want to fight over wiki formatting. I've dealt with probably thousands of anonymous editors over time, and indeed I have no idea who either of you are, but it's rare to find people who have such strong views over syntax. This is not normal, or at least it's not supposed to be normal. --Joy (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Outing attempts at Talk:Rent regulation

Rent regulation and Rent control in the United States sees a fair amount of editing and talk page posts by a IP-hopping user who generally geolocates to either Spain or Morocco. They edit, get reverted, and then make repetitive points on the talk page. Most people aren't much interested any more, so I'm one of the few that actually responds. Their frustration seems to be boiling over now, see Talk:Rent_regulation#Who_is_MrOllie, which is an attempt to out me. The stuff they're linking is laughably off base, so I don't think it needs revdel or oversight. They move around enough that blocking or rangeblocking probably won't help much, so I'm not asking for that either. But if an admin could have a word with them, that might go a long way towards in terms of deescalation. MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have rev-del'ed those as they're purely disruptive and IMO, not doing so encourages it to continue. Star Mississippi 23:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, but they're just going to keep reposting this stuff, as they have just done. MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Rent is too damn high. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Tmv

A long painstaking series of edits by myself to the Tamara Awerbuch-Friedlander were deleted by User:Tmv with absolutely no explanation or even a note on my talk page as to why (see [147]). WTH? Outrageous. Nirva20 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nirva20, you have not used the article's talk page or Tmv's talk page to attempt to discuss the revert. This board should be your last stop, not your first. Schazjmd (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Nirva20 Oh, that was not what I intended at all. And I was totally unaware of that mistake... I apologize. --Tmv (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Milkycat1

Milkycat1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor only makes non-constructive edits, ranging from adding peacock prose to outright promotionalism to various articles, many of which have such problems to begin with, but the edits from this user only make the problem worse. In addition, several of their edits removed references, at least one introduced completely incorrect style "fixes", and one changed the wording of a quote (which can happen when WP:LLMs are used, which might be the case, but it isn't especially important, and is not in itself the reason for this report). Yesterday, I reverted all of their edits, and posted on their talk page (special:permalink/1205543186), but there is no response. Instead, the editor continued doing non-constructive edits.

I will not post any diffs because any random selection of their edits should illustrate what's going on. —Alalch E. 21:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Zwitfire

• Zwitfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2800:200:F540:2636:5579:7D3D:86BE:181F (talk · contribs)

Repeated addition of unsourced material. Some diffs of my reverts: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, etc.

Warned three times: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3.

Repeated (latest) additions post-warnings (diffs of my reverts): diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, etc. --WikiLinuz (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Proposal: Indef ban as user tends to only edit in the drug topic area and we cannot have people adding random unsourced content in that area - if the editor edited other areas I would say TBAN but this looks like a SPA.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry by logged out IP editing:

• 2800:200:f540:2636:5579:7d3d:86be:181f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Similar edits:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

Not sure if I need to create a separate SPI case, or a checkuser here at ANI can just quickly look it up. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks open and shut--the IP range shares the same disruptive interest in gun law articles, as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked from the article namespace, as the pattern continued even after they were notified of this thread. I am going to leave the user a note on their talk page that they have to come here and discuss this if they want to resume editing in the article namespace. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm failing to assume good faith when they do edits like this: 1201756222^{08:53, 1 February 2024}. Mind you, the part about the death sentence and it being illegal was added by an ipv4 IP just 4 days before they edited, the long standing version since at least 2012 (diff) seems to have been that it is legal. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I found <this> interesting edit in September of 2023 which added an edit almost exactly the same as had been removed in the previous edit (diff), said previous addition (diff) was made by an IP in a similar range (first 16 characters are the same) and said IP's /64 range is currently blocked for 1 year for "Disruptive editing: Multiple additions of unsourced information about legal status of drugs with misleading edit summaries":

• 2800:200:F540:2655:950D:7DED:C1DC:AC5A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

– 143.208.236.146 (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The two IP addresses are in the same /48, yes. And looking at Special:Contributions/2800:200:F540:0:0:0:0:0/48 honestly looks like we've got very few people editing on that range. If we can confirm that the IP addresses are relatively stable, it might be worth a wide anon-only rangeblock, but we'd need a CU to make that determination. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as only the new /64 is active this doesn't matter much, but I went digging a bit more and found that this disruptive user (at least the IP one, unless they're both the same) was seemingly active at 179.6.34.0/23 from 2020 to 2023 (maybe that's the range, at the very least they used the fourth most recent IP with the DUCK summaries and 179.6.35.221 based on the talk page, which ties them to yet another /64 range in the /48).

• 179.6.34.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Basically I'm just noting it here for history purposes, it does not seem that they are using IPv4 ips in that range currently. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Red-tailed hawk, if you are only issuing anon-only blocks then you don't need a CU, your own judgment is sufficient. There is little for me to add as a CU. Even so I'd recommend lengthening your existing one-week /64 block of 2800:200:F540:2636::/64 to six months. This editor moves between /64 ranges but not that often, so I don't see the benefit of a /48 block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Pablo1949

@Pablo1949’s only 2 edits are vandalizing The Backyardigans See contributions Here. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be best reported to WP:AIV. Looks like they're already blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, i’ll remember that going forward! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The gist of it is, if you can describe the problem in one sentence that makes it obvious to anyone there's bad-faith disruption, it's AIV. If it has to be explained/debated/etc, it's ANI. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

List of maphrians

I request your attention to this article. There has been a duspute regarding the content and structure of this article, mainly regarding the pov of the article author, Mugsalot and its obvious discrepancy with the references. A discussion on the talk page over the issue resulted in a consensus based on majority opinion here. However the editor involved is still disregarding the consensus and continuing the removal of sourced content in an edit-war fashion [148]. I have repeatedly tried to engage the editor in the talk page but it seems useless. Additionally, the user has started assuming bad faith too. Therefore I seek an administrator intervention into this matter. Logosx127 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The above user is a confirmed sockpuppet who I have engaged with on the talk page repeatedly. The consensus he refers to only existed after his original account was blocked. One revert does not constitute an edit war. Mugsalot (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not single revert. The editor has reverted twice removing over 1000 bytes of sourced content and I am sure that it will continue if I restore it again. The discussion I have mentioned involved not just me but other editors also, I do not know why the editor keeps disregarding the consensus that involved not just me. Logosx127 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The user is continuing disruption elsewhere [149], [150]. Logosx127 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Pitsarotta

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

Personal attack, Nazi allegation, refusal to get the point: [151] --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The other user has made pretty convincing points and was relatively polite throughout the entire interaction, and why did you have that flag on your profile? I don't see anything relating to that user really justifying an ANI. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The user has committed WP:PERSONALATTACK (You espouse a murderous ideology and bring shame to the Ukrainian nation), violated WP:CIVILITY rule, made racist, xenophobic, Nazi and Fascist allegation (It's ironic that someone who worships fascist killers would dare accuse anyone else of racism. I hope you see some sense one day) and Ad hominem tu quoque argument, refused to get the point and assume good faith (I can no longer believe ANY of your contributions here (both the actual article and this talk page) were made in good faith and take back all I've just said). Their behavior is disruptive and offensively to me, harms to find a WP:CONSENSUS and build an encyclopedia and I ask their block as a deterrent to such unacceptable behavior.

I do not share the aggressive ethnic nationalist ideology of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and condemn every single one war crime and crime against humanity committed by the OUN and UPA, as well as any other crime ever committed in the world. This flag was used long before the creation of the UPA by the Ukrainian Cossacks, you can see these flags in the Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks painting. I've used this flag as a historical symbols of my country and never as a hate one, I've immediately expressed a will to remove it when realized that picture of this symbol can be offensive for certain groups of the users and removed it as as soon as I was unlocked.

UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Now you are claiming that Pitsarotta is what they claimed you were, which is odd. I don't see any instances of them worshipping "fascist killers". LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that. It was the quotes. Read what I wrote more closely, if you do not understand something because of my level of English, you can ask me about it. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh in English quotes tend to be denoted by "quotation marks" not (ellipses). Apologies for misunderstanding your comment and hope this helps. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I know. Now I realized that I should have use both ellipses and quotation marks. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Volodymyr, you know very well what that flag means today. Historically it was used by Ukrainian fascist groups who committed atrocious war crimes and ethnically cleansed their region of Poles, Jews, Czechs, and Russians. Today it is used by the Ukrainian far-right and neo-Nazi organisations in Ukraine that see those same butchers as personal heroes. It's a horrendous stain on otherwise quite friendly and warm relations between Ukraine and Poland in the present day. Why did it take a block and unblock for you to remove that hateful symbol from your profile, I wonder? --Pitsarotta (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've already said: I DON'T SHARE THIS IDEOLOGY and I've removed this flag when I've understood basically exactly what you just said. Doesn't matter which flag I've had in past on my profile page, that's not a Nazi flag or SS insignia, there's no any human rights group which recognize this flag as Nazi or/and hate symbol, nor ADL, nor Freedom House, Wikipedia is just not a place to call your opponent in discussion 'Banderite' and accuse them on supporting of massacres. Your words have grossly insulted me. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr

(edit conflict) It seems to me like the content addition you've made is heavy on soapboxing and low on quality secondary sourcing. It is almost as if your edits were nationalist POV-pushing. --JBL (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:BOOMERANG is in order. I suspect that @UA0Volodymyr is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that UA0Volodymyr seems to be skirting their topic ban with several edits recently. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban is on themes related to the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, Rosa Luxemburg was German and Polish, not Russian. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This comment says "the general classification of their words on Ukrainians (In the The Russian Revolution work, Rosa Luxemburg is convinced that Ukrainians have never been a nation, have not had their own government, and have no national culture". This seems like a violation of the Russia-Ukraine topic ban, no? Daniel (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Due to the topic ban being broadly construed I would say so. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand what do words of the born in Poland German writer of Jewish origin have to do with Russo-Ukrainian conflicts of my topic ban on this theme. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If Rosa was Russian maybe, but I thought she was German. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban: "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: ... weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;". Based on this, I believe you making comments and edits relating to Rosa's views on Ukraine in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict amount to a pretty clear breach of your topic ban. Daniel (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It isn't related to the context of the Russia-Ukraine, she didn't support any side of the conflict, but denied the existence of the Ukrainian nation and language as whole, not only in the conflict's context. That's not about Ukrainian revolution of 1917-1921 or something else, that's just a regular xenophobia of unrelated person. This has as much to do with the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as regular anti-Semitism has to do with World War II. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This kind of hairsplitting is against the letter and spirit of the "broadly construed" clause in the topic ban. I agree that the edits violate the topic ban for "Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed". Calling out Luxemburg's book about the Russian revolution as part of characterizing her views about Ukrainian nationhood makes the violation clear. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this is exactly what "broadly construed" means. Daniel (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

DISPUTES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES RUSSIA AND UKRAINE, not dispute between the existence of the Ukrainian nation and German communist. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

A dispute about Ukrainian nationalism during the Russian revolution by a German communist. You seem to misunderstand the tban and what 'broadly construed' would include. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The existence of the nation and denying of it has to do with neither nationalism or revolution. You ignore an obvious violation of CIVILITY by Mr. @Pitsarotta. That's unacceptable. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow you really need to read WP:BATTLEGROUND, as for you totally unfounded aspersions they are also not something acceptable here.

Anything discussing the dispute between Ukraine and Russia is covered by that topic ban, and what you added was about that dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Again: dispute between Ukraine and Russia, not dispute between the existence of the Ukrainian nation, culture and language and German communist. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I just can't understand how you see a distinction here, the content is without question covered by your topic ban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you've made it up. Rosa Luxemburg was not Russian and I've written her general opinion on the Ukrainian nation, culture and language, not her opinion on nationalism and revolution. That's a TBAN on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, not on the all themes related to Ukraine. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No I haven't made it up. Your topic ban is not in regard to "the Russo-Ukriane conflict" it's a topic ban from "disputes involving Russia and Ukraine broadly construed". That broadly construed covers a German communist talking about Russian claims to Ukraine during the Russian revolution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I was not written about the Russian revolution, I've written "In the The Russian Revolution work, Rosa Luxemburg is convinced that Ukrainians have never been a nation, have not had their own government, and have no national culture, except for the poetry of Taras Shevchenko. She compared them to Bavarians:" and after there is a quote proving it. The quote has mention of the "Ukrainian nationalism in Russia", but not the revolution and what I've written has mention of neither Russia, nationalism or revolution, except for the name of work and no more. You're trying to find a rule violation where there isn't and can't be one. That's an obvious violation of the WP:BURO and no more. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the fact you can't see the issue is worse than the infraction itself, this isn't BURO it's an inability to see something very obvious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I also just wanna add that Rosa Luxemburg technically was Russian, in that she was a subject of the Russian Empire like all Poles living in the Russian Partition were. Though yes, she was Polish Jewish by ethnicity, later becoming a naturalised German citizen through marriage to an old friend's son (the marriage was done only so that she could stay in Germany). Apparently Russian women who married foreign men automatically lost Russian subject status, but I don't know if this was still the case in 1897 when this marriage happened. And I'm not sure if Luxemburg continue to be considered a subject of the Russian Empire at that point anyway, given her opposition against the tsarist regime and the repressions she faced due to it. Regardless, as others have pointed out, all of this is clearly within the scope of your topic ban. --Pitsarotta (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr Being very serious, either show prove that You are putting pressure on me because of your political views is true or strike it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I've confused you with Mr. @LegalSmeagolian. Excuse me, I'm gonna strike it. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You still seem to have a very battlefield mentality, you might not have made that mistake otherwise. If other editors disagree with you that doesn't make them your enemies. As to LegalSmeagolian comment it should be struck, but if you had a swastika on your user page because you were a Buddhist you might be asked some probing questions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here as an enemies, I'v just tired of these senseless and bureaucratic accusations and because of this I've confused two users. I apologize again and emphasize that I have no bad faith regarding this encyclopedia, I just want to help to build it and build a consensus regarding disputed points and Mr. @Pitsarotta got in the way of that by deeply insulting me, accusation me on what I do not do, basically accused me in the support of the horrible Volyn massacres and pogroms and refused to get the point and now I ask for a precautionary measure for him. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What about this also? You literally link "Ukrainian War of Independence". Daniel (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting it, UA0Volodymyr.

UA0Volodymyr earlier changing that wiki link pipe to Ukrainian War of Independence was definitely a violation of the topic ban. That combined with edits pertaining to the Rosa Luxemburg topic make me worry UA0Volodymyr isn't willing to adhere to the terms of the topic ban (which includes the topic and ban being broadly construed). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I forgot about ban being broadly construed to all pages while adding this link, sorry. If you want me to not edit even on accusation of anti-Ukrainian sentiment people who have nothing to do with Russia and Ukraine you should have grant me a topic ban on all themes related to Ukraine, but now it's just a ban on Russo-Ukrainian conflict and not more. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what the words "broadly construed" cover. Just stay away from Russia/Russians and Ukraine/Ukrainians entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not. TBan is on Russo-Ukrainian conflicts, not on Ukraine in general. You are deliberately interpreting the rules to suit yourself and against me. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

We are a bunch of uninvolved editors who are trying to help - talking about historical perceptions of a the formation and existence Ukrainian state closely parallels some of the modern discourse and thus, when the ban is broadly construed, it applies here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

State has nothing to do with that, I've written about the obvious denying of the existence of the Ukrainian nation, culture and language, not a state. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This kind of hairsplitting is not helping you. If you aren't willing to abide the broadly construed ban, then what will you abide? Perhaps the community could propose a topic ban for you from Russia and Ukraine, but I have to wonder: will you hair-split that and write about Crimea and Kievan Rus'? I wonder if some other editing restriction will be more effective. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. I have in plan to complete an Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia article with translation from the Russian Wikipedia and complete some article about Ukrainian settlements, for example Milove.

Stop trying to expand a topic ban to areas unrelated to it. If you for some reason, which I do not understand, because I, unlike Mr. @Pitsarotta didn't violate any rule, was civil and I agree with the revert of my edits by Mr. @LegalSmeagolian, because I agree that the Zbruch newspaper is a weak source for the English Wikipedia, don't want me to edit any article related to Ukraine just give me a complete topic ban for this whole theme, don't game the system and evaluate my actions and Mr. @Pitsarotta's actions equally, otherwise I have a right to request arbitration, which will independently assess whether my actions are in line with the topic ban and Mr. @Pitsarotta's actions are with WP:CIVILITY.

Thank you.

UA0Volodymyr (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Just friendly advice: don't expand an article about a Ukrainian town under Russian occupation if you're topic-banned from the Russia-Ukraine conflict broadly construed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I can expand a sections of the article unrelated to the conflict(s). Topic ban is not for all Eastern Ukrainian towns, it is for the Russo-Ukrainian conflicts. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it's realistically possible. I strongly suspect if you try, you'll cross the line and rightfully end up blocked. If you no longer wish to end, the better solution is to voluntarily stop editing rather than force us to block you. Also even if it were possible for an editor with a decent understanding of their topic ban and who is very diligent in ensuring they stay away from it, it seems clear this isn't you. I see at least one acknowledged mistake editing in violation of your topic ban, requiring a revert here, as well as the Rosa Luxemburg which it sounds like you still don't see as a problem. And checking out your user page makes it seem you've violated your topic ban before too. Nil Einne (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) Yeah The Russian Revolution work is obviously within the bounds of the topic ban, thus a t-ban violation. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not even sure what is being discussed here. The user has been indef blocked. They were recently unblocked with the condition of a topic ban on everything related to RUSUKR broadly construed. Then they go and violate the topic ban. Logically, send them back to the indef block. If they can not understand the scope of their topic ban, they should not be editing Wikipedia. If they understand but are willingly walking at the edge, even worse.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I support the re-implementation of the indefinite block that was lifted last month. In the month since they've been unblocked, they have been re-blocked for a week for "CheckUser block per ticket:2024012610005944: abuse of email and violation of TBAN" by Maxim. This, combined with the failure to get the point above and the stated intention to continue to breach their topic ban as interpreted by everyone else uninvolved, means this editor should be re-blocked indefinitely. I would have done it myself but given I offered an opinion above about the topic-ban, someone could potentially argue that I am involved (although I don't believe I am) - but better to be safe than sorry. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I support a block as well. Ymblanter and Daniel have summed it up. UA0Volodymyr's explicitly stated intention to continue violating the topic ban and its broad construal, WP:IDHT behavior, and refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the community's interpretation of the topic ban all provide ample reason to reinstate the block. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, despite the below comment, I do not have good faith that they can edit outside this topic area. Reinstate the indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I emplore UA0Volodymyr to understand that the tban is "disputes between Russia and Ukraine" not "Russo-Ukrainian conflicts". Unless they can show they understand why their edits were in breach of the tban I don't see how they will not make the same mistake again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if my voice counts here at all as I was accused of a bunch of stuff by Volodymyr, so I understand I'm not a neutral party and that's also why I preferred to stay out of this mess until now. However, if I do get a say then I would also like to support a block. The user has clearly breached the topic ban, they also came up with a bunch of ridiculous accusations against me. I still see no problem with most of their earlier additions to the Rosa Luxemburg article and I assumed good faith throughout the entirety of the discussion that happened at Talk:Rosa Luxemburg, up until the moment I saw the hateful stuff on their profile. I was not even aware of a topic ban until I read this discussion. I also think the fact it took a block and unblock for the user to remove that hateful flag from their profile is telling.--Pitsarotta (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed this flag because I've understood that it actually can be offensive to the certain groups of the users, not because I was blocked, I wasn't blocked for completely different thing. And again, stop discussing personalities, Wikipedia is not the place for that. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the place for violating topic bans, but UA0Volodymyr has edited material pertaining to broadly construed disputes between Russia and Ukraine. On February 10, UA0Volodymyr added to the Quasi-state article a table entry and wikilink for West Ukrainian People's Republic, a quasi-state that broke from the Ukrainian People's Republic as part of a dispute over whether to form an alliance with Poland against Russia. Diffs: [152], [153], [154], [155] As the ban is broadly construed, this continued behavior of skirting the topic rather than keeping a wide berth seems concerning. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. I didn't know about this alliance, I thought that ZUNR was never in direct conflict with Russia, nor White or Red. Also ZUNR didn't break from UNR it broke from Austro-Hungary. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I admit that my actions may have constituted a violation of the topic ban and promise to not do such actions anymore, also I've also lost all interest to the Rosa Luxemburg article and Pitsarotta user and I don't want to participate in this discussion anymore. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked editor hopping IPs like a jack rabbit, vandalizing Karen Black's page as well as her family members'

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.

---

A recently blocked editor[156] is hopping IPs and repeating the same shenanigans.[157][158] Not only does Black's page need protection from the blocked editor, so do the pages of her family members. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2024 (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.

Possible UPE with Endaxas

User:Endaxas has created In Takt Records, which I've marked for CSD G11 (literally lists contact info and no sources at all). Also made Kimi (singer), which I marked for no sources, which Endaxas reverted. Other artists part of the record label made as promotion. User is now attacking my articles, such as El Caribe (Dominican Republic) and more. Global block requested. TLA (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done, blocked by Jimfbleak. TLA (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

COI editor

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 - please excuse me if I am not reporting this in the correct format. A recently registered editor, Deep_Purple_2013 is making a series of edits to the Karen Black article together with articles related to her: [159], [160], [161] and [162] Such an emphasis on one family to the exclusion of other subjects is sufficient enough, but the added content is of personal nature including family photographs. Advise regarding COI has been posted, but it has been ignored. Could someone investigate? 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B55E:EBB9:DBF7:EF2B (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to notify Deep Purple 2013 (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The editor has ignored your message and has continued with their COI edits, see [[163]]. Also they have removed templates from pages, gave no edit summaries and are nearing breaching the 3RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B8A2:D7CA:55DA:3AEE (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Deep Purple 2013 has indeed broken 3RR on a number of articles, though I suspect the IP has as well, as the IPv4 and IPv6 active on these articles appear to be the same person. I would normally protect here, but I have just declined Deep Purple 2013's request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, because I believe it to be gaming the system to gain an advantage. Blocks may also be required. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

And now I have declined a WP:AIV report by Deep Purple 2013 where they claim the 80.136.196.48 IP is blocked and therefore the IPv6 is socking, however their "evidence" that 80.136.196.48 is blocked was to their own AIV report about the IP, which was declined as a content dispute. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Deep Purple 2013 and 2003:D3:FF12:1D52::/64 for 72h for continued edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2024 (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.

223.136.110.159 making false accusations to cover up their vandalism

223.136.110.159 has done nothing but make false accusations of vandalism against me in my talk page over my edit to Herbert Wigwe which was properly reffed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Wigwe&diff=prev&oldid=1206139716

Their contributions also appear to be nothing but tampering information under false pretenses and harassing other users on false vandalism charges and erasing this report.Borgenland (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Evidently, their continuous blanking of this complaint is proof that user is WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

And further providing evidence by tampering with my addendum. Borgenland (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm no expert, but I'm not sure the editing circumstances warranted raising AN/I in the first place, but the subsequent behaviour is probably worth considering. However, I would like to understand why IP considers the edit to be vandalism. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They were also reported in AIV. Their edits also speak for themselves. Such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1206143376. Furthermore, if they had nothing to hide, why go the extra mile of erasing this complaint before it can be closed properly????? Borgenland (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, and I agreed that their behaviour since the AN/I was raised is definitely worthy of scrutiny. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to consider it as such. I expanded the details on Herbert Wigwe's death to include an WP:RS source about his death. Then out of the blue they come barging into my talk page accusing me of vandalism and falsely claiming that my edits have been reverted. It is frustrating though that they have to be given some benefit of the doubt. Borgenland (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I might have phrased the report differently, or just reported to AIV directly, but reverting the addition of a stub tag by the creator of the article itself (as the second edit of the article) and then warning the user for vandalism for it? (revert, warning). In my eyes that's just trolling. The type that we're better off not feeding more than what's necessary to have it stop, lest we give a troll too much joy at our expense. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I just hope some strong measure be taken. Preferably a long ban. Borgenland (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Vandal got blocked for 31 hours. Borgenland (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're wondering why it wasn't a long block, it's basically what is said at WP:IPBLENGTH. Those were clearly not the first edits of the user behind that IP (knowing warning templates, boards and all), but it was also their first time using that IP so who knows how long they will be using it.

But yeah, glad that's done. We can safely move on for now. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Due to WP:IDNHT unblock requests, I extended the block duration to 72 hours. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sock IP

Resolved

 – I had already blocked the /64 for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

2402:A00:401:7C3E:3034:268C:5649:DBAB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Block evasion [164][165]. This range is up again after being reported previously at this SPI. It's clearly a sock of this user. Here's further identical edits from just a few days ago [166] [167] (i.e that is readding the word "ancient Hindu" to this obscure barely edited article) and same "economic reforms" related edits to this page[168][169]. I had reported this yesterday at AIV but it didnt get a response as it was 3 days stale. This suspicious IP is also stalking and engaging in revenge editing against me after I reported them yesterday by adding questionable material I am opposed to a different article. [170][171] Codenamewolf (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Codenamewolf, if I were you I would clean up and improve this evidence and then file at SPI. I don't think the case is so obvious that it's immediately actionable. The range was reported at SPI previously, but the responding admins made no decision on if it's the sockmaster (AKG). The Taliban insurgency edits are over material contentious enough that many users would make that change. Your stalking diffs either make no sense or are under-explained. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

By revenge editing, I meant exactly one day after I reported them [172], this IP suddenly is copy pasting material I had reverted previously two week ago on a different article [173][174]

Regardless, this IP range is now blocked now for distrupion, but I had to unarchive this ANI report again because another registered user took to complaining against this to the blocking admin. Codenamewolf (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It is laughable (like your other claims) that you call it "revenge editing", despite this particular article was never edited by you until a few hours ago.[175] Ratnahastin (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've linked two diffs above. One was my revert to the page Partition of India (15 whole days ago), and the said content is now being pasted on this article by IP after my report against them. I made the "first" revert to that page after already having coming across this IP. Refer to both diffs. I'm not making any other "claims" either, just posted identical edits to a blocked user like you would to a regular AIV/SPI.

Anyways, regarding the snarky comments see WP:PERSONAL Codenamewolf (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Though this is closed, I do want to add further before this gets archived that this IP also removed sourced material in the first diff I've posted above, other than having an edit warring history. This is in addition to having identical edits to a blocked user which is sufficient grounds for IPs to get blocked at AIV. Commenting again, since this is still being dragged at the unblock request of this IP after apparently being resolved. Codenamewolf (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Anupam I had originally posted the first diff and reported this to AIV where I got the response "insufficient activity to warrant a block" [176] It is from there I linked to this thread where one more recent diff of identical edits to a blocked user had been linked plus this IP range already had an edit warring history. Ultimately, this IP did not get blocked for socking; it got temporary blocked for disruption because it HAS resumed being disruptive after being already blocked before. Hope this clears things. Codenamewolf (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Help with Nauman335

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.

---

M.Nauman123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is likely a sock of now blocked user:Nauman335 who has a history of UPE on film-related pages. Reported user at SPI on the 7th but there is a backlog. In the meantime, can an admin take a look and possibly WP:DUCK block? There are more accounts than M.Nauman123 which are also reported (some back on the 4th) but they do not seem to be editing currently unlike M. Nauman123. CNMall41 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by Izno as a sock. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:21, 13 February 2024 (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:Camden Willas

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 editor can't seem to agree with us on what information is supposed to be added onto a Wikipedia Article. Whenever somebody reverts the content he added, he reverts (re-adds) it again without a care. After somebody left him a message on his talk page, he said something like "I don't know who the hell you are; don't you ever correct me". He added a sentence calling the "Eldorado Park School" as "one of the best in the City of Johannesburg" without a citation & then I reverted it, only for him to force the sentence back into the article. Just the last 5 edits that user made, all on the Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital article, seem to have turned into an "edit war" with me & others & I've run out of ideas on how to make him understand what belongs on this website. I hope I'm not here too soon. GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

All of his edits (besides the one to his talk page) have been reverted. I smell NOTHERE which is surprising considering the state of my nose I like Astatine (Talk to me) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You are being a childish Gambino. Don't you ever correct me again. Bloody Idiot. That's a pretty clear violation of WP:PA, if you ask me. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:15, 13 February 2024 (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.

82.22.44.102

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

I've come across 82.22.44.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few times while patrolling on Huggle, they're making consistent MOS changes to train classes in articles. Now normally I would bring this up on a relevant WikiProject, but their talk page does seem to indicate that they are WP:NOTHERE so I'm thinking that this might be an WP:LTA. Does anyone know any more information? FozzieHey (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. FozzieHey (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Note their user talk page, shows some prior history by the person, if not from that IP. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

They're very clearly a sock of somebody, and are very clearly not interested in editing collaboratively so blocking is definitely the way to go. @HJ Mitchell and Redrose64: are you familiar with this editor? Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If most of this IP's edits are being reverted as unhelpful then a one-month block might be considered. The statement on their user talk might be viewed as a promise to evade any block that might be imposed: "PLEASE DON'T BOTHER BLOCKING ME, I KEEP GETTING A NEW USER TALK PAGE NUMBER EVERY YEAR. There is another IP at Special:Contributions/82.30.152.3 that shares their interest in British railways, also begins with "82." and generally has all their changes reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've often come across this guy, one of their "tells" is to replace the valid link Diesel multiple unit with the link DMU, which goes to a dab page. I don't think that I've seem them do anything useful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest a range block personally. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Whois reports that both IPs belong to Virgin Media, which is one of the largest IPs in the UK so any range block will have to be done carefully to avoid collateral damage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some form of soft block will at least pin them to an account? Geardona (talk to me?) 13:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked 82.22.44.102 (talk · contribs) for one month, due to the constant style changes with no willingness to discuss. Let me know if they return from another IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think a range block will cause more damage than it would solve. I'm not entirely sure if 82.30.152.3 is the same person, as that IP focuses more on blatant vandalism as opposed to styling changes. If it is though, the only range which covers both of those IPs is 82.0.0.0/11, which contains 2,097,152 IP addresses. I guess all we can do now is see how easy it is for them to change their IP. FozzieHey (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Stalking

User:SeriousHist was banned in an edit war with me in January. Since then they have been stalking me with proxies and several socks specifically just to revert my edits. Same fixation on my talk page, edit history, and urges admins to ban me.

• 185.243.209.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.76.176.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Taicompatriot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sword of china (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Truthtaw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Qiushufang (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked a few of the more obvious socks. There's an SPI open for the others, so I'll let the CUs sort those out. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive nationalistic editing by TheCreatorOne

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

There's a lot of different Wikipedia guidelines this editor is abusing that I could point out, from WP:NATIONALIST to WP:BATTLEGROUND to WP:COMPETENCY which is evidenced by their edits and summaries. They are spamming pages with WP:POINTY unproductive edits, in order to try to prove that x territory or village was inhabited purely by Albanians, or to point how an event was "propaganda". At the same time, they go on these long angry nationalistic rants in their edit summaries or on talk pages, that has nothing to do with the actual validity of the content people are objecting to (quality, undue/due, appropriateness, ect.) showing they're WP:NOTHERE. For example:

• "I have already said that the name of this page should be changed to the Albanian name and the picture should be changed , if the name is not changed within one day I am personally going to change the name... this is nothing but an insult, even more insulting is the Serbian names that are being used for some of the town. This is my last warning before I change the name personally."
• After an editor reverted them here explaining that listing every single village that had an Albanian majority along with the names of people was excessive and irrelevant, they went to the talk page and answered with: So what you are saying is that people with Albanians names are not Albanian ? but people with Slavic, Christian names are not Albanian either ? ... But it seems to me that people here want Kosove and Dardania to still be connected to Serbs despite Albanians are obviously connected to the territories history.. What's even more insulting is how they use the Serbian names despite these areas haven't had Serbs it seems for a long time.
• In an article about demographic history, they added a whole bunch of content that doesn't deal with the actual topic ([177] [178]) Not to mention creating a whole bunch of reference errors. They then proceeded to go on a rant on the talk page about "telling a false version of history" [179]
• You mean it deals with invented fairytales and propaganda ?
• When they were reverted in this article because the content they added already repeated the first sentence of the paragraph, they responded with 100% Albanian development, don't try to remove the truth with invented stuff..
• And more ranting in edit summaries: stop lying, stop telling a false version of history and stop manipulating the facts, stop taking different parts from different books in order to suit your agenda.. ..stop telling invented lies and fairytales.. I am just telling history based on the evidence while you are telling propaganda and lies there is no evidence for the things you people claim..

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --Griboski (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I just reverted several of his edits which were previously revertee by an admin. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple attempts have been made to encourage @TheCreatorOne to act in line with Wikipedia policy to no avail:

• 10:48 7 February 2024 - Message left on their talk page, raising awareness to their problematic editing. TheCreatorOne responded by venting their feelings in a long and protracted response that violates WP:TALKNO [180][181][182][183]
• 16:59 February 2024 - Responded to by an editor reminding them to abide by Wikipedia policy. This message was in response to TheCreatorOne asking them to add content in an unsolicited manner
• 23:35 9 February 2024 - Message response to TheCreatorOne, once again reminding them to abide by Wikipedia policy. The response came after TheCreatorOne made allegations that some content was a bunch of invented history to fit Serbian nationalistic
• 14:20 10 February 2024 Uw-disruptive2 warning left on TheCreatorOne's talk page.
• 15:35 10 February 2024 Contentious topics reminder left on TheCreatorOne's talk page.

Despite the multiple reminders and warning, it seems TheCreatorOne's behaviour has not changed and they clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

We must look at it from the beginning, for example in the most recent case: Kosovo. Why was he reverted? Because of "nationalist nonsense"? The user is quoting Noel Malcolm, one of the most experienced authors on the subject Kosovo. He is a reliable source and is used across many articles. This clearly rests on WP:IJDL. Everything that happened after that is not entirely his fault, but also yours, because you falsely accuse him of spreading nationalist nonsense and keep reverting him with false excuses. Everything that is not quoted with N. Malcolm should be brought to the talkpage and not be edit-warred. The user actually did open a discussion, but some users of this talk did not participate until now while reverting at the same time. I agree that the user should be warned concerning his word choice, but we should keep in mind who is responsible for that. He is being reverted by multiple users at the same time, sometimes with reasonings that constitute WP:PA. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: User is clearly WP:NOTHERE and has violated the 1RR restriction multiple times. Given their behavior so far, it is highly likely they will continue. This is a high-visibility page, admin action is urgently needed. AlexBachmann, your attempts to excuse this user's behavior are completely unhelpful and reflect very poorly on you. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. This also isn't a new user or someone unfamiliar to the Balkan topics area. ([184] [185]) --Griboski (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Same can be said for certain users that just kept WP:STONEWALLING and haven't participated in discussions yet.

Your attempts to excuse this user's behavior are completely unhelpful and reflect very poorly on you. In what way is that unhelpful? I cleared up confusion.

However, regarding Griboski's comment, I have to say that the users indeed share similarities. An admin will have to look at this. This, however, still does not justify the removal of perfectly sourced and reliable content. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Except it isn't. Can Malcolm be used as a source and compared and contrasted with others? Sure. Spamming the same contested 17KB walls of text across multiple pages? No.

When someone is engaging in tendentious editing, we shouldn't be forced to entertain their soapboxing. Since this thread was opened and they've been notified, they've reverted 3 more times in an article with 1RR. --Griboski (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann your response falls under WP:ASPERSIONS and isn't tolerated here. There is a difference between opening up a discussion and using the talk page as a forum to vent feelings without any desire to engage with editors with other viewpoints. ElderZamzam (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As per definition: „casting aspersions refers to a situation where an editor accuses another of misbehavior without evidence“. I do not see that here. I‘ve already explained that reliable sources were removed. Everyone has the right to be defended, especially when other users may also be in the wrong. Let’s wait for the admins decision. AlexBachmann (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Any chance you can look into this? --Griboski (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There may be logged-out editing, but not on a huge scale, and there's nothing more that I can see. This will have to be handled by other than technical means. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the potential socking but the behavioral evidence. At the very least, they have reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours on the Kosovo page which has a 1RR restriction. [186] [187] [188] [189] Griboski (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A further point to raise, TheCreatorOne has now begun to launch personal attacks, violating WP:PA. On my talk page, TheCreatorOne took the liberty to tell me how can I live with myself...you are pathetic...you should be banned from here you nut job...you low life pathetic losers ElderZamzam (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for 72h for personal attacks. That does not preclude stronger action by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Parqud making mass unexplained and/or disruptive edits at Islamic Golden Age

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

New editor making non-stop disruptive edits at Islamic Golden Age with zero communication or explanation, despite multiple reverts and warnings on their talk page. At worse, each round of edits has involved deleting mention of Persian or other non-Arab(ic) cultures. At best, they've been making unhelpful changes to spelling of Arabic names and terms, often away from established convention.

It started with these IP edits, which are almost certainly the same editor the day before. After those were reverted, the new Parqud account repeated the same edits here. After another revert, he repeated them again here (along with some spelling changes). By this point he had received two warnings on his talk page: [190], [191]. Since the last warning and revert, he hasn't repeated all of the same edits but has of course deleted mentions of Persia(n) again ([192], [193]) and continued other unhelpful spelling changes ([194], [195]). Zero explanation or communication throughout. R Prazeres (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. I have p-blocked the editor from editing the article directly. User talk:Parqud, you should read what it says on your talk page, and what R Prazeres wrote here: your unexplained and unclear edits are the reason you cannot edit the article directly--you can make the point, if there's a point to be made, on the article talk page. If this persists after the block runs out, other measures may have to be taken. This is a collaborative project: please collaborate, in the broad sense of the word. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Whitewashing at Isa Ali Pantami

Isa Ali Pantami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I stumbled upon this attempt to whitewash watching the edit filter log (which is how I get most of my edits nowadays). Such edits have been a thing since before my time, as the page history shows similar edits dating as far back as 2019 (which I cannot link due to a copyvio revdel). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I gave it a 1-year SEMI. Noting for the record one of the IPs making these edits has issued a direct legal threat [196]. DMacks (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:ElijahPepe continually makes persistent disruptive edits to New York Times against consensus

User:ElijahPepe has been continually making disruptive edits to New York Times against user consensus. This has taken the form of the following acts:

-Blanking massive parts of entire sections against talk consensus, based on events that he has personally "determined to be notable". When editors revert his changes, tell him to take it up with talk, explain that consensus is against his changes, or even leave warnings on his page, he often flat out refuses to engage and reasserts his mass deletions to the point of edit warring them. If he does engage, it'll simply be to say "I personally don't like that, I'm going to do this instead, no discussion to be had", often in the form of the edit summary message.

Examples can be found here: [197] talk, [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204] user page

-He will also mass delete necessary citations, on the grounds that the html code in which the citations are recorded does not fit his personal style (the style they're coded in is the standard <ref> style, whereas he deletes without replacement any citation that does not follow {name|year} footnote style). When people reinsert them because they're necessary, he likewise deletes them again, leading to paragraphs full of "Citation Needed" tags that have to be deleted until the citations are replaced as a result. Then, when the paragraphs are restored w/ citations according to talk page consensus, he simply wordlessly deletes them again, despite numerous attempts to ping and discuss with him on the talk page. Occasionally when he blanks citations, he'll (I should stress, only occasionally) replace them with footnote citations of his own sources which consensus agrees don't actually cover the required cited info, and yet despite being told this, he continually deletes them for being coded in an html format he personally doesn't like. Despite being pinged in talk on these issues to discuss, he instead wordlessly deletes once more, even when talk page consensus says otherwise.

EDIT: For clarity to any admin reading, the citation style used by Elijah was unilaterally implemented by him here in this 230,000 character change made without discussion. [205]

Examples: [206], [207], [208], [209], [210] talk, [211] talk.

Snokalok (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a rather extreme avenue to go through, and it appears as though you're taking it lightly. To clarify:

• Rewriting elements of a page is acceptable, as was done in the second link—based on Sideswipe's comments, the third link—which Soni thanked me for, the fourth link—which I believed was acceptable because I had seen sections with the Main template but no content before, the fifth and sixth links—which were reducing the content and removing banalities in coverage, and the seventh link—which I had asked Soni to discuss this in the talk page and I had expressed concerns over how the citations would display; several of the works cited interfered with how shortened footnotes were used.
• Going through a talk page to discuss what to include is acceptable, which is what I did in the first link.
• The citations that you added are not necessary and one is sufficient for the content in the page. The citations must follow shortened footnotes. Earnestly, it's not my personal style, but I chose to implement it for this article because of the division in references between The New York Times and other sources. There are no issues in what I left on that article in terms of the content-citation relationship. As far as I know, consensus has not agreed that the Klein source does not cover the content.

Your characterization of a citation style that "does not fit [my] personal style" is mischaracterization and suggests to me that you aren't making a genuine effort to resolve a dispute here. I'm not going to conceal that I'm not open to help, but I appreciate the copyediting that has occurred. Discussing content is clearly not working because most editors are not engaged in crucial areas of the talk page. In "Deciding the content within the history section", Sideswipe and I agreed that transcluding the ledes was a viable option. I'm not sure why this is still an issue or why this warrants ANI. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Please ping editors if you are going to discuss them @Sideswipe9th: Soni (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

- Rewriting elements of the page is acceptable, but if consensus is against those rewrites, or even just people want to discuss them first, it's not acceptable to just go ahead.

-Your discussion amounts to 'This is my article, get in line or get out of the way'. See the way you responded to me re-implementing citations, by saying "Shortened footnotes must be used. There's no way around this; if you're not willing to implement them, they will be removed."

-Consensus *has* agreed that Klein doesn't cover the necessary content, that's why there were 20 citation needed tags and the paragraph was removed pending need of citations.

-"Discussing content is clearly not working because most editors are not engaged in crucial areas of the talk page" Everyone has been speaking to you on the talk page, everyone has been pinging you on the talk page. You've just found their disagreements unsatisfactory and because it's clearly your article in your mind, you've decided to go ahead regardless.

-Notice how many other editors came here on their own to say "I was about to make an ANI post too, then I saw this one went up like a minute ago". No one pinged them or anything, they just came here, to make a post about your behavior, and then saw this one. Snokalok (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I will second this, as another editor who was minutes away from writing about Elijah at ANI. He has clear ownership issues and problems understanding how consensus works. To give a few clearer cut examples of these issues... here's a list (that may coincide with User:Snokalok's list)

• He added 250K bytes to a 200K byte article, basically doubling the size with just one edit. When the unannounced overhaul was discussed on talk, he was mostly not receptive. If you have an issue with content, WP:BEBOLD.
• He then engaged me in a revert war against consensus that eventually ended with the edit summary If this article is going to surpass 12,000 words with a history section, then it shouldn't have one and blanking of the entire section
• Other handy quotes from talk which concern OWNership - This is not how this should be done. The article is significantly worse and this is not what this article should look like. I now need to drop everything that I'm doing on this article to deal with this
• Also - This is exactly what I wanted to avoid. I'm going to ask editors hold off on editing this paragraph, because this has now been made the utmost priority for this article and I'll have to halt my work on finding references for the website section to deal with this.. He very clearly has a "Editors who are allowed to edit this article" in mind that excludes anyone who disagrees with him.
• Another concerning diff - Shortened footnotes must be used. There's no way around this; if you're not willing to implement them, they will be removed. Everything in this paragraph is in the Klein reference. Three references are way too much for what amounts to an oversized quote. (bolding mine). Note that there is an ongoing discussion about the reference style itself on talk, so consensus is still pending.
• Finally [editors have tried] to engage him in this very discussino, trying to make him understand Wikipedia policies and why he needs to follow consensus and/or engage with other editors. Instead, he's decided his preferred article split is the way to go - I certainly plan to expand the ledes and would really prefer to start working on the virtual reality section tomorrow. He was thrown a very clear bone and proceeded to edit war rather than discuss the changes with anyone else.

I don't know if his edits are "disruptive" but he obviously does not understand basic Wikipedia policies and refuses to learn. And it's a pattern enough that it can't be fixed by just talking to him.

Soni (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I referred to the edit as worse because it was inconsistent in what it chose to cover regarding the Times and it introduced {{Cite book}} templates that interfered with shortened footnotes. Retaining that content isn't an option because it isn't a complete summary of the history of the Times; a sentence about column width followed a sentence about additional lifestyle sections, which is certainly more significant. Altering the previous content would have served as a benefit to readers. I'm definitely not opposed to attempting to trim the history section down, but I also want to be careful about how it's done. Permanent content that does not adequately cover the topic will not suffice. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

To stay in the clear, I'll state that Sideswipe9th and myself have been discussing Elijah offwiki, mainly because how frustrating all of this has been. Our comments are independently made and any takes here are my own. Soni (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note, I was also about to draft a thread about this issue. The biggest issue from my perspective is that Elijah is not engaging on the talk page in a manner that is open to collaboration. When he does engage on the talk page, it has an air of finality to it, with statements like I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there[212], I am done trying to argue this.[213], I'm not looking for help at the moment.[214], and I have determined the following events to be notable to the Times[215].

Myself and other editors have repeatedly and extensively tried to get Elijah to collaborate. See 230,000+ char change, Deciding the content within the history section, and Getting the article to GA on the article talk page, and NY Times on Elijah's talk page. We have tried to impress upon him that collaboration is not only necessary for the FA process, but the standard procedure on enwiki.

Yesterday, I explicitly asked Elijah to [not] make any more edits to the article, or the sub-articles for the next couple of days so that we could plan out the content for the main NY Times article and its newly created sub-articles. We need this plan so that we don't wind up creating four History of articles (1, 2, 3, 4) when the scope of all of them are still in flux, and so that we can properly scope out the content for the potential Online platforms of The New York Times and Critical reception of The New York Times. That last article in particular, Critical reception, will need very careful planning so as to avoid neutrality issues. And then by having a plan in place, each of us who are ready and willing to help bring this article to GA and eventually FA status can then play to our relative strengths as editors.

I hate that this discussion at ANI is necessary. Elijah can write good albeit lengthy content, and I think his overall goal of getting the NY Times article to FA status is laudable. Despite everything, I still want to help with that, as I think there's scope to get multiple articles to GA/FA status. I think his input in this, his content creation skills, and his background knowledge of the sourcing will all be invaluable in this process. The problem is that he's utterly resistant to allowing anyone to help in achieving this goal. I don't know what is needed here to get Elijah to work with us, rather than against us. I really don't want to see him indeffed or long term blocked over this unless it's absolutely necessary. Maybe the seriousness of this thread alone will be enough, or maybe he needs a rolling article space PBLOCK from the NY Times, its associated articles and any other articles we need to create for summary style and page length reasons, or a narrowly construed article space TBAN from the NY Times and its associated articles. I just don't know, and I am sorry, really truly sorry that it has come to this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Utterly resistant" is erroneous. The copyediting and even alterations that I have read have been very beneficial for the article. The issue is when consistency is not observed. The route I'm taking now is to write content in a userspace draft so I can continue to work on sections that need to be expanded. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No Elijah. This is not a content dispute, this is a behavioural dispute. In the last twenty minutes you have added almost as much text to this discussion (3904 bytes) as you've added to Talk:The New York Times in the last four days (4406 bytes). When I've said you are utterly resistant to allowing others to help, it is because you have made statements like I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there[216] (emphasis mine) and I'm not looking for help at the moment.[217]. Statements like that close the door on anyone being able to help you achieve the goal of bringing the article to FA.

Even in this reply you have said The route I'm taking now is to write content in a userspace draft so I can continue to work on sections that need to be expanded. (emphasis mine). The route you are taking. So you can continue to work. How are we supposed to give feedback on this, give input on how sections or articles should be structured, even create substantive content ourselves, when you are setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is or is not acceptable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved comment) I read through Talk:The New York Times and ElijahPepe's ownership viewpoint is clear. I can sympathize with having a vision for how an article should be and wanting to get it done without interference, but that isn't how wikipedia works. (Citation style is a separate issue, and WP:CITEVAR supports not mixing styles.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

In this context I would like to state for the record that the article used <ref> style until Elijah made a 230,000 character change unilaterally which implemented his footnotes style, and then used that as justification for deleting all other citations because they went against the citation style he implemented without discussion. Snokalok (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, @Snokalok, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize the cite style had been changed by ElijahPepe just under a month ago. Schazjmd (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize that my behavior has frustrated other editors and I apologize that I have not been as forthcoming or responsive as I should have been. I will accept any consequences as a result of my actions. I also express that I have the same goals as the editors on the Times article and I have only been seeking the best possible outcome. My intentions were to move this new content, write any additional content, and submit it for good article. It is clear those intentions did not consider other editors. I will hold off on any edits to the mainspace article until size issues have been resolved. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is one editor trying to improve an article and get it in line with best practices, while several other editors are just saying no without providing any constructive input. Blocking well-sourced content seems like a much bigger ownership problem to me than adding it. Just split the article. Problem solved. This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see many editors trying to give constructive input on the talk page, which is where the discussion should be (not in edit summaries). Schazjmd (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Don't add content" is not constructive input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're reading my request that Elijah not edit the article or sub-articles for a few days in isolation from everything else, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. However in context that request was made to try and get Elijah to engage productively on the article talk page, so that we all could construct a plan for the scope and content of all of the articles, and help put that plan in motion.

At present, Elijah is displaying severe ownership issues over the content, by unilaterally making decisions and dictating content without respecting any of the feedback expressed on the article talk page. Yes be bold is a guideline, but ownership is a policy and it covers this exact circumstance. There are editors on that talk page who want to help bring this article to GA and FA status, but we cannot do so right now because of the ownership issues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I saw this a few days ago and was thinking the same thing--ownership. User:Schazjmd, thank you for your helpful comments here. I don't know if we're at the intervention stage yet. The easiest solution is to just block the editor from editing the article but I think that's too drastic. I do think that, if we don't see significant talk page discussion and a collaborative spirit, such a block is going to come. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think ElijahPepe's apology above is a good start, provided it's followed up with a change in his approach in the talk page discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good start. But what I'd really want to see is Elijah actually engaging with the talk page discussions in an open and constructive manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I started looking into the NYT article a week ago because I have it watchlisted and I saw a contentious discussion about transgenderism on the article's talkpage. I cleaned up the errors in that section of the article, and was wholesale reverted by ElijahPepe without edit summary explanation or talkpage discussion. When I explained on the talkpage that there were numerous uncited and incorrectly cited claims in the paragraph, I was shocked at ElijahPepe's immature and uncooperative behavior. As of 8 hours ago he is still edit-warring on the article without consensus, and putting non-confirming opinion pieces as citations in the article while removing confirming reliable citations. Pinging Drmies -- perhaps it is time for that PBlock. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Stopping short of a block, which I don't think would be unwarranted here, I'd say just, rollback the entire article to before his 230k character edit and make him start again. If he wants to change things this time, he has to get consensus, not just unilaterally go in and remake things so unrecognizably that no one can revert or edit anything he does Snokalok (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If someone deletes 230k characters of content solely because the editor didn't ask permission to edit the page, that would be tantamount to vandalism, and I would support a block against any editor who mass deleted otherwise perfectly good content on these grounds. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a very large edit, made without consensus, that has been flagged as possibly problematic by other editors. It probably needs to be rolled back. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Thebiguglyalien, I don't know why you are trying to defend those edits, and I note that you have stayed clear of commenting on the behavior. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't touched on the actual content of the edits here beyond saying that they have sources, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My concern is that the editors could have just opened a split proposal or something similar to organize the content, and that would be that. But instead they escalated this by taking an "ask permission before editing" approach and then came straight to ANI when that didn't work. Based on my reading of the talk page discussion, Epicgenius and SnowFire were ready to actually improve the article instead of obstructing changes, but they (wisely?) moved away from the discussion as it became needlessly heated. I don't endorse how ElijahPepe has approached this, but to this point he's the only one who's actually improved the article since this started. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that the editors could have just opened a split proposal or something similar to organize the content, and that would be that. But instead they escalated this by taking an "ask permission before editing" approach and then came straight to ANI when that didn't work. So that's not quite what happened. And in fact, we have tried to start a discussion to properly and collaboratively work on a plan for this set of articles. But let me give you an illustrative timeline of part of the problem here.

At 17:36 UTC, 10 February I made a suggestion that we should look into creating a dedicated Critical reception of The New York Times article. Two hours later, without any discussion for or against the proposal from any other editor, Elijah created the Critical reception of article as a redirect pointing to the renamed criticism section. Now that specific article is going to need careful attention and a great deal of discussion, because its scope includes both positive and negative reception, and balancing that in a NPOV way will be tricky. But so far, Elijah hasn't so much as said "I think this is a good idea, lets do it." In fact, he's said nothing about it, other than he intends to do it. There is no opportunity for collaboration here, and no planning beyond whatever Elijah has determined and isn't telling us.

but to this point he's the only one who's actually improved the article since this started There are multiple editors on that talk page who want to help and who are trying to help. Elijah won't let us. He has outright told us that he doesn't need help and he isn't looking for help, despite stating how he's had "to drop everything that I'm doing" in order to respond to issues he's created. That is a textbook ownership problem. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I recommend reading the discussion before you comment with suggestions. The content in question is already duplicated-split across two other mainspace articles, something I noted in my first Talk comment after the reverts. The question just ended up being "Should the long content be on NYT's main page while said split happens" and Elijah disagreed and reverted everyone else on that.

And it's not that the reverts were done just for "ask permissions" sake. Also in that exact thread, we also explained why it was technically impossible for some editors to physically edit the page from the longer form.

As far as the rest of it is concerned, ANI editors who care about the article specifics are welcome to discuss the content in the Talk page. As far as I was concerned, the ANI post was to check if Elijah's behaviour was proper/what can make things more collaborative. Content diktat from here will be fairly unfruitful. Soni (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We could certainly do that, however we're currently discussing (or trying to) the plans to get this article to GA and eventually FA status. Part of those plans involves figuring out what the scope of the various History of The New York Times sub-articles should be. Once we have a consensus on that, work would focus initially on getting those articles into an acceptable state, and then transcluding their leads and other relevant pieces of content to completely replace the current History section of the main article per summary style. Any reversion of the article to the revision prior to Elijah's edits would hopefully be replaced anyway in the near future with the finalised content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I think most likely the majority of the changes he made will sail through consensus and be implemented again in short order. But he should have to get consensus nonetheless. Snokalok (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was skeptical, so I checked out Special:Diff/1203600291 in detail. Contrary to Snokalok's description of it above, in that edit no citations were deleted at all. The existing <ref> citations were duplicates, one of which was a bare URL, the other of which lacked both dateline and byline, and both the {{sfn}}s pointed to the things that they duplicated, already cited properly with actual authors, datelines, bylines, and titles in another citation. I suspect from this sample that other editing is being mischaracterized too, and that is driving this discussion with people just taking it for granted that the supplied description of the editing is correct. Uncle G (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Addendum: I just checked Special:Diff/1205867200, another of Snokalok's examples, and that's actually the very same superfluous duplicate citations (ironically now right next to each other in the wikitext — one would think that that would be noticed) being reduced to just one citation of the Vanity Fair piece by Klein. In the imediately preceding version of the article, Special:Permalink/1205718614 by Snokalok, the Vanity Fair headline can be found in three citations, two of which are of poor quality. The {{Sfn|Klein|2023a}} substituted points to the third one.

  If talk page consensus really is concluding that this elimination of poor quality bare URL and missing-information duplicates is "deleting citations with nothing to replace them" then said talk page consensus is false and being formed by editors who should perhaps take a refresher course in reading project:Bare URLs and the documentation for {{cite news}} as well as glasses to help with counting the number of times that their revisions of an article say the same Vanity Fair headline.

  Then there's the false sourcing. In Snokalok's version of the article "almost 1,000" is sourced to the Vanity Fair piece that only says "nearly 200" and "more than 170 past and present New York Times contributors", whereas in ElijahPepe's reversion "over 1000" is sourced to the MSNBC piece that says "from more than 1,000 Times contributors". I encourage noticeboard participants to take the characterization of what's going on here being given to us with a great degree of skepticism, as spot checks of the diffs supplied tell a very different story.

  Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Glasfaser Wien, inadequate sourcing, failure to engage with warnings constructively

Glasfaser Wien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Glasfaser Wien's edits on English Wikipedia thus far have largely comprised the addition of information without adequate sources to back it up, for which they have been warned on numerous occasions. Thus far, their only engagement with these warnings has been belligerent edit summaries and blanking.

Examples diffs. This list is not exhaustive, but does comprise nearly all of their edits since late last September:

• See the edit range 28 September through 30 September, which began with an edit war at Apollo 12 (talk page warning diff), continued with fait accompli-style mass changes across multiple articles, and ended with WP:POINT-y changes (example diff)
• October 2023 edit war at Psyche (spacecraft) to insert novel claims without providing a source.
• Recreating an article about V-4 (rocket launch) using a single source that does not appear to make mention of any of the information in the article (Special:Diff/1206265877). This is despite a prior warning raising the issue with this article on their talk page.

Absent an explanation, the V-4 article with a single, irrelevant source crosses into CIR/NOTHERE territory, whereas the earlier edits demonstrate lesser manifestations of the same lack of compliance with WP:V and less-than-civil engagement with other editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm interested in hearing if someone indeed thinks that the V-4 edits are just a kind of falsification. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the source. I could not see how it verifies anything in the article. —Alalch E. 00:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    • It provides verification for exactly one factoid in the article text, the first of the Kármán altitude range numbers, all of the way down on page 114 of the source. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone make this edit?

When I was editing the draft, I changed some external links in references after the filter stopped me, but then it stopped me again. I am sure that the edit follows the policies, and I don't know how to change those external links so that the filter doesn't block me. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This external link should work instead, it's a direct link instead of that proxy thing you had. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Long-term subtly disruptive editing

• The One I Left (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've communicated my concerns about The One I Left's behavior directly to them several times over the years.[218] Unfortunately, their edits have continued to involve policy violations,[219] misleading summaries,[220] and questionable lead section changes.[221] The reason I believe this has largely gone unnoticed is that their edits usually involve large chunks of text, requiring a closer inspection. On top of that, they mostly write "added (sourced) content" as summaries. A click on a random recent edit with this summary showed an unsourced claim being added (i.e., the actor's "mixed reviews").[222] Here,[223] they even removed content. During July–August 2023, I found a series of blanket reverts by multiple users that I believe accurately represents the same issues that persist today.[224][225][226][227][228][229][230] KyleJoan^talk 04:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:KyleJoan and I have always had interesting conversations, but my edits have always been in good faith. I think it is not uncommon for people to have disagreements with other people's edits. I have never added anything that is purposely misleading, or false. When i edit I try to add context and sources. You can disagree with me on specific edits and thats fine. I'm sure I could go through other people's pages and disagree with their edits and find some fault with them but I'm not a disruptive editor. I add quality to articles, I don't tare them down Over the years editors have complimented my on the quality of which I add to articles. In 2021 I received a Precious Prize number 2549 for my contributions from User:Gerda Arendt. Again I love discussing specific edits, or changes. I'm not editing to be disruptive but to add quality and I'm open to any and all debate.The One I Left (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You first received a notice about adding unsourced material in March 2019. Almost five years later, you wrote that a BLP subject's film "received mixed reviews but was a commercial success" without sourcing. Do you believe that your good intentions exempt you from the requirement that users adhere to policies and suggestion that we write accurate edit summaries? KyleJoan^talk 14:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Which film are you referring to? Again, I'm open to conversations and debate. But I wouldn't describe my edits as being disruptive or vandalism. I received a Barnstar last year from an editor, I create quality articles, and add sources, and prop up empty articles. I could criticize you when you removed sourced content relating to the entire family history from the Finding Your Roots segment on Sunny Hostin's page.[231]. On one of your edit summaries wrote, "Whaaaat?"[232]. But I don't wanna criticize you or anyone. I feel like this feels like a personal attack when we could have discussions about it. Again I'm always available to speak out or admit a mistake or typo. Just reach out and I will fix it or admit I made a mistake. We are all human. The intention and acts are never disruptive and always in good faith to create a better article.The One I Left (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of this user's edits seem constructive - I understand your frustration for their misleading edit summaries but it seems like a very small percentage of their edits meet this criteria and even then I don't see how they are made in bad faith, as often it looks like some material is sourced and some is not. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I recognize The One I Left does a lot of good work. What's frustrating is encountering the same issues year after year, especially after various notices urging them to exercise more care. If I were to point out every error, I'd write on their talk page almost weekly. They haven't even fixed the errors mentioned here, instead opting to interpret policy issues as "disagreements" and evidence of failures to cite sources as "a personal attack". How is it appropriate after 14,000 edits to add unsourced material sometimes (even under the umbrella of good faith)? KyleJoan^talk 02:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your problems with my editing tend to veer towards personal disagreements and phrasing issues more than policy issues. Like I also said I could nitpick and point out every error you make and every edit summary you've made but I think that's unfair and wouldn't put you through that. Again, I would not describe my edits as disruptive. I have never added anything that would be considered false and I've never vandalized. I understand the feedback that I need to be more descriptive in my edit summaries but again I'm not a disruptive editor, I do good work, and I act in good faith.The One I Left (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Since this report, The One I Left has made at least one edit containing unsourced claims (i.e., "received negatively", "received mixed reviews").[233] Is unsourced, not "considered false" material acceptable–in a BLP, no less? Is it others' responsibility to monitor and clean up after an experienced user who should know better? KyleJoan^talk 01:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you even reading my edits or just making assumptions? I literally sourced and had direct quotes.

• • "received negatively" - "which was received negatively with Frank Rich of The New York Times writing it, "isn't a play - it's a temper tantrum in two acts... One of the more shocking lapses of Mr. Albee's writing is that he makes almost no attempt even to pretend that Himself is anything other than a maudlin stand-in for himself, with the disappearing arm representing an atrophied talent.""
  • "received mixed reviews" - "Albee's plays during the 1980s received mixed reviews with Michael Billington of The Guardian writing, "American dramatists invariably end up as victims of their own myth: in a success-crazed culture they are never forgiven for failing to live up to their own early masterpieces. But if Edward Albee has suffered the same cruel fate as Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams, he has kept on trucking" The One I Left (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

    This user's confidence in citing one review to support a claim about mixed reviews shows they either refuse to adhere to policies or they do not understand NPOV, V, and OR. KyleJoan^talk 05:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I can remove it if you really want, but I'm just adding one critics opinion which was mixed for his later work. Again this is not disruptive work but I'm open to debate as to wording, phrasing etc. However you initial claim that I had no sourcing is false. The One I Left (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that the mere presence of a ref next to a claim constitutes appropriate and sufficient sourcing whether that ref verifies that claim or not? KyleJoan^talk 07:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply sourcing a quote lol You seem to be making inaccurate allegations against me saying I didn't source any content when I have specified quotes and sources. Again, if you want to debate the phrasing that's fine and I'm open to it but it's not disruptive.The One I Left (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to ping these users and ask them to clarify that your edits were not in fact unsourced, poorly sourced, or plain incompatible with the sources cited?[234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243] KyleJoan^talk 15:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are totally misrepresenting a lot of these edits. I don't think you're arguing in good faith at all unlike my edits. Most of edits are minor phrasing disputes over whether to add certain awards or credits in lead or not. Which is fine and totally up for debate! One of them even described my edits as being in good faith. The MJ the Musical reverts were around one particular user wanting to sanitize that article from any negative reviews! So they were in fact disrupting the page not me. They didn't want any negative reviews in the article and in the end a consensus was made to include the reviews.The One I Left (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's impossible to misrepresent reverts that blatantly say "unsourced", "inaccurate", and "WP:PROVEIT". That said, I'll refrain from commenting further if no other user believes this is actionable. KyleJoan^talk 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I will admit to accidentally misapplying a nomination towards Paul Dano for a role. We all make mistakes and it was quickly reverted. For that I sincerely apologize and was embarrassed when the mistake was made. But a lot of the examples you name are out of context. The "unsourced" allegation you reference here, [244] refers to when I added a comedian who was already listed as being an influence in the sourced article! So despite not understanding the reversion, I just added multiple sources on top of that other article to back my claim[245]. Regardless I'll stop commenting too. Clearly we have differences of opinions, but I think debate, conversation etc should be allowed and encouraged as well as the ability to recognize one acting in good faith. Not every editor is going to agree on which titles, accolades get listed in the lead or phrasing etc. But I'm not a disruptive editor.The One I Left (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

FI.214 disruptive page moves

FI.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's talk page has numerous warnings going back to last year, many regarding undiscussed controversial page moves. They were also blocked for this by Favonian in December and have been warned again since then. However, they are still continuing with this, including numerous controversial moves of Indian topics today - [246]. It seems this editor is not getting the message about this disruption. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That's quite enough of that. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)