Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156

user:stop the occupation of karelia and user:MiteriPanfilov unusual edits

I have noticed that user:stop the occupation of karelia and user:MiteriPanfilov have both been making a large number of edits to pages related to the Karelian National Movement. More specifically, they both seem to be trying to make the claim that one "Dmitry Kuznetsov" is the leader of the movement with user:Stop the Occupation of Karelia even claiming to be "Dmitry Kuznetsov" on their user talk page. also there is an obvious conflict of interest with user:stop the occupation of karelia if his claim of being Dmitry Kuznetsov is accurate. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I've also noticed that on the Karlian national movement page it states "Dmitry Kuznetsov, who also goes by the name Miteri Panfilov" so user:miteripanfilov appears to also be claiming to be Dmitry Kuznetsov due to their username. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

alright i reported user:stop the occupation of karelia to wp:uaa Gaismagorm (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:NOTHERE to me. Reverted the edits, which appear to be somewhat related to the internal bish-bosh inside the organisation. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, thats the TL DR, the telegram channel of Dmitry Kuznetsov, aka Miteri, aka Stop the Occupation of Karelia recently made a post about how people try to fake Vadim Shtepa's (his former rival) influence on Karelia and Russian separatism research, he also left comments on the talk page of the article about Shtepa being a nobody and sending "documents and links" in order to "make the pages contain the truth". I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a telegram post or something about wikipedia being pro-russian 'cause of this. Dictatorialkarelian (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh actually, he did make a statement already, here are some quotes:

"“Karelian national movement” in Russian Wikipedia.This is just a joke, yesterday I tried to edit and they banned me. Everyone knows that Russian Wikipedia is controlled by the Russian FSB."

"Then look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelian_National_Movement This is half true, but it looks like it can be corrected.I will work on this, it’s time to restore the truth!"

"As long as these Russian assholes: Oreshnikov, Oleynik, Safronov, Ivanov, Kruglov represent our peoples, there will be no point.As long as the SBU is financing them, I think it makes no sense for us Karelians to make any attempts to help Ukraine." Dictatorialkarelian (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

this is quickly becoming the strangest situation on wikipedia i've found myself in. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

that guy is a bit of a nutjob, so it's normal Dictatorialkarelian (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

So now this ban's being used for propaganda? Great...

Anyways, the page should probably be monitored for a little while just in case this user's version of "restoring the truth" on the page is to sockpuppet and add the same material back. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 18:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That 1st one is clearly a username violation, you could try WP:UAA for that. 2600:1011:B1C8:B754:5DE3:EFE1:E9FC:4172 (talk) 14

29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the first user's name definitely seems like it's supporting a movement. To me, it seems like these accounts are mainly trying to add informational content about the Karelian Naional Movement; however, if they're claiming to be the leader of this organization, that's a clear conflict of interest; I'll add a note about it on their Talk pages. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 15:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. To me it feels like the main intention here is WP:RGW around divisions within the organisation, as well as poking at people the editor seems to dislike (for example, adding a unsourced addition about the founder being an 'ethnic Russian Neo Nazi'. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

another thing im worried about is the fact that both of the accounts are seemingly claiming to be the same person as explained above, Gaismagorm (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem like there could be some WP:RGW going on, but they're claiming that their edits are due to misinformation. However, claiming that political rivals are "Neo-Nazis" still isn't appropriate; I'll talk to them about that. I'll also contact them about the other account, since if they're the same person (which is pretty likely), they'll need to disclose that and understand when having an alt is appropriate. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I have soft blocked User: Stop the occupation of Karelia. Usernames that reference "highly contentious events or controversies" are not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

MiteriPanfilov is still editing the article, rather than discussing on the talk page as requested. He has just accused an named individual of criminality in an edit summary. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. I can't be bothered constantly reverting a user who is WP:NOTHERE whilst on a wikibreak, I trust an admin to sort this. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

thats fair, hopefully it gets resolved soon. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted some of their edits, but one of them seemed genuine, if anyone thinks otherwise feel free to revert that one as well Gaismagorm (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

alright both users are now blocked, so situation (hopefully) over! Gaismagorm (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked both accounts that I believe were under control of the same person with a glaring Conflict of interest. If anyone thinks my assessment is wrong. please reach out to me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite block or topic ban for User:MidAtlanticBaby

I've been noticing that MidAtlanticBaby has been making some edits that many users have considered to be disruptive. Today, when I was browsing around Wikipedia, I noticed their talk page, and saw that they were engaged in a discussion with Magnolia677. Magnolia had been warning them about not making an edit about "West Central Florida" (This is the discussion). After Magnolia had told them that they made 760 edits and had their talk page littered with warnings, this user responded rudely by telling her to watch their fucking tone and who the fuck are they talking to. I scrolled through their talk page and noticed that they indeed did have a lot of warnings on the page. In fact, on April 20, Drmies had given them a 31 hour block for edit warring, which I assume they had also been doing. With that, I propose that either an indefinite block or topic ban (which should also be indefinite) be given on this user. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinite block as proposer. This user seems to not respond politely to constructive criticism and I feel like they aren't learning from their mistakes. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

MidAtlanticBay has blanked their page and "retired". They have made 78 edits in the last 24 hours, many of them unnecessary and/or disruptive. I think most, if not all, of those edits should be reverted, although I will look at each one before I do so. In the meantime, I have blocked them for 24 hours for disruption. Donald Albury 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. That's perfectly fine. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If this editor returns with any similar profane insulting diatribes, the next block will be dramatically longer than 24 hours, if I have anything to say about it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I considered an indef as NOTHERE, but, while some of their earlier edits were problematic, their behavior had not risen to a blockable level until yesterday. Maybe they can return and contribute constructively, but the rope will be short. Donald Albury 12:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ekdalian

hello. This @Ekdalian user is removing reliable sources content from the Yaduvanshi Aheer article and vandalizing in the article. Please check the article and improve it as per the sources. And please take action against @Ekdalian who are suppressing new Wikipedia users. Hcsrctu (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be glad if someone reviews my edits. I have been fighting against caste promotion and POV pushing by SPAs and caste warriors for more than 10 years here. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If information has been added as per reliable sources, so what is the reason for removing it? Hcsrctu (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hcsrctu you should be very careful about accusing someone of vandalism - that can be interpreted as a personal attack, which is not permitted and your account may end up being blocked it it's repeated. That said, calling someone a cast warrior without presenting evidence to that effect is not exactly civil either. The article's talk page is at Talk:Yaduvanshi Aheer: that is the place to discuss content and sourcing. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: this user @Ekdalian Belongs to Kayastha caste and he only promotes his own caste and hates other Indian castes especially the backward castes. Please check the article Yaduvanshi Aheer. he removed reliable/sources information. Hcsrctu (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You are on thin ice here. Please explain what evidence you have to support the notion that Ekdalian hates other Indian castes. All I see is someone removing content that they do not think belongs in the article. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Assumption of my caste and another personal attack may result in block! Anyone can check my edits and the article talk page comments! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, if it isn't clear enough on the top of the page, When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The user has edited the article talk page, but couldn't respond here; accusing me without any evidence and personal attacks are not acceptable at all! I would like to request Girth Summit / other admins active here to take appropriate action (could be a warning as well) against this user. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang topic ban proposal for User:Hcsrctu

My first interaction with @Hcsrctu: was at Kalachuri Era(redirect) which they redirected to Abhira Era without consensus.[2] ,my second encounter with them was at Graharipu , where they engaged in an edit war with 3 different editors(incl. an admin) to restore their preferred version[3] then proceeding to report me to an admin @Bishonen: [4] without discussing on the talkpage first. From this thread , it seems their behavioural pattern of engaging in disruption and then trying to file frivolous reports against editors hasn't stopped yet despite me warning them to be more cautious on how they conduct themselves in this topic area[5]. I believe a topic ban from caste related topics is due at this point to minimise the disruption. Therefore I'm making this formal topic ban proposal. Pinging the subject of this thread @Ekdalian:.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Perhaps you do not know that Abhira era and Kalachuri era are the same. Later Abhira era was called Kalachuri era. And the user whose edit you reverted has been already blocked. And I reverted the edit to the Graharipu article because its sources support it. And I debated with @Ekdalian on some issue, that issue has been resolved, still I apologize to @Ekdalian and I will not make such mistakes in future. Hcsrctu (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

They're back,this time adding POV caste promotional content using archaic sources here.Ratnahastin (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already expressed my opinion in the above section, 'Ekdalian'! Personal attacks are not acceptable, especially such serious allegations. Would request the admins to take appropriate call regarding the user. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey Ratnahastin, the user Hcsrctu has been engaged in tendentious editing so far, and I sincerely believe that appropriate action should be taken against this user as per WP:GSCASTE! Moreover personal attacks against a fellow editor in the above section 'Ekdalian' are not acceptable at all, where the user is accusing me that I am "vandalizing" the article on Yaduvanshi Aheer (all experienced editors have supported me on the article talk page & the article has been reverted to the last version by Sitush); even the user Hcsrctu assumed my caste (considering my contributions) and mentioned above that "he only promotes his own caste and hates other Indian castes especially the backward castes", which is a serious offence to say the least. Ratnahastin, you may report this at WP:AE, and I shall support you, though I would like to get this resolved here itself! Pinging admins.. @Bishonen, Newslinger, Doug Weller, RegentsPark, and Bbb23: please have a look at their talk page warnings along with edit warring tendencies, and note that almost all their caste related edits have been reverted by some experienced editor or the other; would request you to take necessary action! Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support This seems like pretty cut and dry disruptive behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump Conduct

Hello, I was trying to help find sources for an article about Herschel Weingrod, and was asking the community for help to find sources. I asked somebody if they believed some sources were okay, and he replied "Garbage. There is absolutely no way we are going to include such content," and left an edit history note of "If you persist in citing such junk, I shall report you, asking for a block." While I admit the sources were not great, I was unsure if they were still good enough to be included, that is why I asked. But those 2 things that he said to me are not the main issue.

On his Wikipedia userpage, he writes "Taking a break. Possibly permanently. Wikipedia is institutionally incapable of self-reflection and incapable of recognising its many inherent flaws, and of recognising when it is being abused by those well-versed in its ways. I've known that for a very long time. Not sure why I started editing again. Well-informed criticism from outside is probably more effective anyway. To add to the above, I am getting the distinct impression that this place is becoming even more overrun with idiots than ever. As to whether this is due to idiots being attracted to the place, or to the place making idiots out of otherwise sane people, I'm unsure. Either way, I'm clearly an idiot myself for believing I could do anything to reduce the idiocy. Time to get back outside the tent, and resume pissing in, methinks..."

I find this highly disrespectful and not fit for a Wikipedia userpage. He also stated this "As for Wankel-nuts, trying to argue with a cult is pointless" about a person trying to make edits on the article Rotary engine. He then says "And while you are at it, read the f**ing (I censored that) article. It explains what a rotary engine is. It explains the difference between a rotary and a radial. It isn't that difficult to understand, if you actually take the time to learn something new."

He seems to not be doing anything constructive on Wikipedia, rather being extremely hateful to others.

Not to mention his long block log, most being for Personal attacks/Harassment (although they were from several years ago [6]) Antny08 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I consider my efforts to prevent people turning Wikipedia into a sub-tabloid gossip rag to be both constructive, and in accord with Wikipedia policy. And given the comments at the WP:BLPN discussion which Antny08 has conveniently omitted, [7] it seems I am not alone in that opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is not whether you are right or wrong about the sources (you are right), the discussion is about how you discuss with people, or your lack thereof. You seem to use your time on Wikipedia to hate on others and revert other peoples' edits, rather than actually helping the editors and encouraging them to learn. Antny08 (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So, Antny08, you had a disagreement with AndyTheGrump and then went looking for reasons to bring him here to ANI? Do I have that about right? Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

No, he suggested to come onto here. I told him I did not want to argue, and he said we can bring it to here, so I did. I looked at his userpage before I replied to him. Antny08 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am no admin, and others may well see it differently, but the fact that none of the conduct of which you complain was actually directed at you makes me look at this filing with a jaundiced eye, so to speak. Dumuzid (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, but I don't just care about myself. He should not be allowed to say rude things like that and get away with it. He should not act like that at all, whether it is to me or somebody else. Antny08 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A question for the uninvolved: do they, like me, find Antny08's repeated (poorly sourced) efforts to add Weingrod's ethnicity to the article [8][9] to be of questionable taste? Why the urgency? Why that? Why now? Why, if biographical content is needed, not look for better sources, and more detail, and do the job properly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It was in WP:GOODFAITH. I have realized my mistakes and I do apologize for that. I did not realize that the sources were not good enough to be included. Speaking of which, in WP:GOODFAITH, it says not to attack editors who are just trying to help, which I was just trying to do. Antny08 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, no, there was no ill-intentions with adding his ethnicity. I was attempting to revert changes previously made from the article, when somebody removed that fact. If you saw my other edits, (which I will admit you cannot see because the history was removed), I added that to include in an early life section, I added much more to the article than just that. I am a proud American, and I do not support hatred against Jewish people. To accuse me of wanting to include his ethnicity for questionable reasons is an attack on me, which is the reason I am reporting you, so it was not a good choice for you to say that here. I believe Wikipedia should be an unbiased place, and information should not be censored. Antny08 (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I very much doubt whether either your nationality or the fact that you are proud of it will be considered relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to your question. USA and Israel have historically had good ties, therefore I mentioned it Antny08 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Herschel Weingrod is not an Israeli, as far as I can determine. The NYT says he was born in Milwaukee. [10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct, but Israel is a Jewish state, and he is Jewish. Anyway, this is getting off-topic. If you have anything else to say, please make sure it is referring to the discussion. Antny08 (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It was certainly off-topic before you said so. For my part, inferring that being a Jew is synonymous with the Israeli state is as nonsensical as suggesting that because I'm Irish, my interests march hand in hand with those of the Republic of Ireland. Ravenswing 00:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying a Jew is synonymous with Israel. I am saying I have a good opinion of the Jewish state of Israel. Antny08 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"If you have anything else to say, please make sure it is referring to the discussion." Do as I say, not as I do? Ravenswing 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Antny08: your edits to Herschel Weingrod were blatant WP:BLP violations and Andy was right for calling them out. Your edit here added a source which is a copy of an old version of the article. The contents of Andy's user page, or blocks they received over a decade ago, are irrelevant. Please drop this, and then read through WP:BLP and WP:RS to ensure you do not violate these policies in the future. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I will not be dropping this. This report is not about him removing my edits, it is about his conduct on Wikipedia. he was right to remove my edits, but he has been extremely rude. In this case, his userpage is relevant, because he is using his page to harass Wikipedia and its editors. Antny08 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

How is his userpage harassing anyone? That makes no sense. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I did identify one specific Wikipedia contributor as an 'idiot': myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Harassing was the wrong word, but just read it. "To add to the above, I am getting the distinct impression that this place is becoming even more overrun with idiots than ever. As to whether this is due to idiots being attracted to the place, or to the place making idiots out of otherwise sane people, I'm unsure. Either way, I'm clearly an idiot myself for believing I could do anything to reduce the idiocy" This is not how the userpage is supposed to be used. Antny08 (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Antny08: I'll make myself more clear - drop this now, or you will likely be blocked. Your BLP violations are substantially worse than anything Andy has done. At this point, you are being disruptive and wasting people's time. Review WP:BOOMERANG before making any further comments. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

My edits were in good faith. I already read WP:BOOMERANG before I opened this report and fully acknowledged everything it said. You are helping nobody here. My "substantially worse BLP violations" are no where near as bad as what he is doing. I made one mistake, I don't see the issue. Antny08 (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is a WP:CIR situation: Antny08 lacks competence in the BLP area and in the area of identifying reliable WP:NEWSORG sources as he lacks sufficient media literacy. If Antny08 does not commit to start listening and learning immediately, he should probably be banned from those areas probably for a definite, but not a short period, during which time his grasp of these things can be expected to ... mature.—Alalch E. 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Once again, this is NOT about the edits I made. I made a mistake, I will admit that. This is about HIS CONDUCT. Antny08 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Welcome to ANI. You don't get to dictate the scope of a conversation here. But let's talk about the conduct you have brought up:

  • Andy was rude to you in an edit sumarry: ok, that's arguable. I wouldn't say it rises to the level of needing admin action on its own though.
  • You don't like the content of his userpage: that seems like a you problem. It doesn't attack anyone specific and criticism of the site should be welcome, from within and without.
  • You don't like a comment he made in a conversation with another user, referring to a group of people who have disrupted content here as "nuts" and a "cult".

  I'm not seeing any cause to take any admin action relative to Andy in this situation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  "And while you are at it, read the f**ing (I censored that) article. It explains what a rotary engine is. It explains the difference between a rotary and a radial. It isn't that difficult to understand, if you actually take the time to learn something new."

  This comment was the biggest issue. Antny08 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  "F*** this, the whole place is overrun with idiots - including me apparently, for participating in this charade..."

  This edit summary also raises a flag for me... (I censored the curse) Antny08 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  "on second thoughts, I'll leave this for others to deal with"

  "Under no circumstances do we cite Reddit for anything, and we aren't interested in your personal opinions about 'reverse fears', whatever that is supposed to mean"

  "This is utterly absurd. If it isn't wilful misinterpretation, it is cluelessness almost beyond comprehension. Block per WP:CIR and be done with it"

  "collapse, as the waste of time it clearly is,"

  These too, not appropriate for edit summaries, very rude. Antny08 (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• So, having edited a BLP with edit summaries that had to be revdel'd, following it up with Jew-tagging, you want to complain about someone who confronted you about that? Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Jew-tagging, excuse me? Please read my other messages before you say terrible things like that. Antny08 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I looked at your recent editing history. If you come to ANI, do so with clean hands. Your conduct is much more concerning than Andy's. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please explain what is wrong with my conduct? thanks Antny08 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Given Antny08's absurd and grossly inappropriate comment above [11] I am formally calling for Antny08 to be topic banned from all articles relating to Israel and/or Jews, and from all biographies of living persons. Arbitrarily conflating Jewishness with support for the state of Israel is always questionable, and doing so while discussing a sensitive topic doubly so. Antny08 has not presented the slightest bit of evidence that Israel has any relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Or even Weingrod's Jewish ethnicity for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

How is it "absurd and grossly inappropriate"? I was stating a fact. Your statement makes absolutely zero sense. Also, in the same message I said that we were going off-topic and should get back on topic. Antny08 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jesus, all I did was step away for a bit to mow the lawn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

How is it "absurd and grossly inappropriate"? I was stating a fact. Your statement makes absolutely zero sense. Also, in the same message I said that we were going off-topic and should get back on topic. Antny08 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I replied to the wrong comment @ScottishFinnishRadish Antny08 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Antny08: Multiple editors have suggested that you drop this. It's good advice. Perhaps you should read WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• The edits were so bad, that not only were they Revert/Deleted, they were Suppressed, so I can't even view them as I'm not an Oversighter. Andy can be a bit too blunt sometimes, but given the fact that this had to be Suppressed, my best guess is that he was right on the money. Also noting that an admin had to advertise for more editors to review the article at BLPN. So, Antny08, to address your claim that "This report is not about him removing my edits, it is about his conduct on Wikipedia.", please note that when you come to ANI, the conduct of all parties will be examined, and it seems that his response to your edits was proportional to the damage done by those edits, so it's a push. The only question remaining is what to do about your behavior. Looking at this discussion, I'm forced to agree with Alalch E. that WP:CIR may be a factor here, as you can't seem to understand that your behavior makes Andy's (less than optimal behavior) pale in comparison. Given the breadth of your problematic edits, from [12] to the Suppressed edits, to your behavior here, I'm not convinced you are capable of participating in any collaborative efforts here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The edits were not bad, they were removed because the sources weren't good. I already discussed with the person who suppressed them and they unsuppressed some of them. The only reason they were removed was because of the sources, not anything else. Antny08 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  When it comes to BLP bad sources make bad edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  When it comes to BLP bad sources make bad edits. – That ought to be in quote box on a guideline or policy page somewhere. EEng 03:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  But the text itself wasn't bad, just the sources. Antny08 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The text was so bad I deleted the revisions and then it was suppressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Explain to me how please. Antny08 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  You made absolutely life destroying accusations against a living person without any sourcing sufficient to back it up, making the website which will almost certainly be in the top three results on any search engine repeat the accusations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I understand, but many websites are already reporting it. It obviously happened, as the video that started this all is on YouTube. Antny08 (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The above post provides clear and unequivocal evidence as to why Antny08 needs to be topic banned from biographical material on living persons immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  See, here's at least one thing you aren't getting: making edits that need to be supressed is a big deal. Even administrators can no longer see those edits, so other than SFR who did the original deletion, we don't know what you did, we just know it was bad enough that it needed to be completely removed. If you want further explanation, you'll need to contact the oversight team. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe you're just not getting this, Antny08, no matter how many editors and admins tell you otherwise, and I'm beginning to agree with AndyTheGrump that your extreme tunnel vision ("What about HIM? What about HIM?") is a competency issue. But let me try to phrase this in simple, direct terms: going beyond revdel to suppression of text is HUGE. This is not merely that the text was bad; it's that it had to be stunningly vile to have someone think that admins shouldn't even be allowed to see it any more. THAT is a fact on the ground, and if you are unwilling to accept that fact because you're focused on seeing AndyTheGrump spanked nothing else matters to you, then yeah: you might not be a good fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing 00:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  And just because you say my conduct wasn't perfect, it was in good faith, and it doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished for his conduct, which had no good faith, since it is just flat out rude. Antny08 (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  We don't do "punishment" here. Sanctions/blocks/etc are to prevent disruption of the project and degradation of the content. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that you've demonstrably done more of both than Andy has in this instance, you might want to consider that and stop digging this hole. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Andy has repeatedly shown that he disrespects other Wikipedia members and violates Wikipedia's policies. You can say all you want but he is in the wrong here not me. Antny08 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The way you are acting right now, in this thread, makes it far more likely that a sanction is going to land on you as opposed to Andy. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The unanimous sentiment of nine uninvolved editors running against you would put paid to that. At this point, I support a topic ban against you, as AndyTheGrump outlined it. Ravenswing 00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  The BLPN thread linked above makes it clear what the accuaations were, I watched the footage and it reminds me of a Project Veritas style set up. In other words, garbage, as Andy said. I'm not arguing that Andy couldn't tone it down a little sometimes, but he's one of those editors who has this annoying habit of being the most rude when he is absolutely on the right side editorially and the other person is acting the fool, which is what we have here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• In reviewing Antny08's editing history, I see a number of things that indicate some maturity issues, like what appeared to be suppression of too much personal information from their userpage, a patently obnoxious edit to Bearcat's userpage [13], their misplaced interest in becoming an administrator, and their reactions to criticisms here. They've made good,or at least unobjectionable contributions in areas concerning military conflicts, so I think a BLP topic ban might be a good idea, since they don't seem to be gaining a clue that their edits to the BLP were egregiously bad, and think that deflection is a good defense. However, if I see one more attempt at deflection, I am going to make a short block to stop that,at least. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This all illustrates nicely that AndyTheGrump is particularly valuable to Wikipedia (and I speak as someone that's been grumped at). NebY (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

topic ban proposal for User:Antny08

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.

---

Now that I have a clearer picture of what went on here, both the ineptitude of the initial supressed edits and the seeming urgency of trying to tag the subject as Jewish for reasons I don't like to contemplate, I don't think this is someone who should be editing BLPs at all, ever. I therefore propose an indefinite total topic ban on editing any content in any article that regards a living person, appealable in six months and once every six months thereafter. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the above discussion. Probably covers what needs to be covered.—Alalch E. 01:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Antny08's most recent edit makes it clear that, even after all everyone's said to them, they still don't get that adding content that needed to be suppressed for BLP reasons is a big deal. Since they're now arguing that the thing obviously happened because a Youtube video says so, I also support the idea of a topic ban. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Whatever I'm quitting this site anyway. I had fun on here but I am tired of dealing with constant arguments. I have only tried to do good for this site and have never intended harm. I am going to miss this site but this is the end for me on here Antny08 (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely: I don't see why we would want to have patience with editors who are interested in adding serious XXXXXXXX allegations and Jewish ancestry, real or not. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't really disagree, but I'd like to keep this proposal around in the case of a succesful block appeal. It absolutely should be a condion in the event anyone considers unblocking. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like this would have turned out differently if I didn't have to mow my lawn, and instead spent a bit more time instead of dropping at BLPN. :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  On the other hand, does the community really need to waste more effort on this? This whole thread did not need to be this long. – 2804:F1...09:2AE4 (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's possible this is over as they have stated on their talk page that they do not wish to continue editing, but we've heard that one before. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I meant more in that it takes more community effort to enforce or review an appeal for a ban than for a block. I'm not against it, just saying. – 2804:F1...09:2AE4 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. although Drmies has indef blocked for WP:nothere, I think this needs to be in place if they ever have a successful unblock. They do not need to be editing BLP articles, not just for the one bad edit, but because of the lack of competence that is required to edit articles about actual living persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  This conversation illustrates the principle that repeating an unpersuasive argument over and over and over again does not make it any more persuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support: per my comments above. (And yeah, as Just Step Sideways says, how many times have we heard that one before? Considering that the time stamp on the appeal of their block is fifteen minutes AFTER the ragequit above?) Ravenswing 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support, though it needs to be made absolutely clear that WP:BLP policy applies anywhere on Wikipedia, and that further non-article-space comments like this [15] will lead to an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support just to make things official. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin) I just caught up on some BLPN reading and found this rabbit hole. Holy shit. Thanks, User:Drmies. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, question indefinite block I'm not going to speak in support of this editor but just sharing my misgivings about this discussion thread. Clearly the Antny08 made some terrible edit choices, one of the biggest of which was refusing to drop the stick. But this discussion also reminds me of the "old days" on ANI, say 8 or 10 years ago, when an editor would start a thread and boom! 2 or 3 hours later it would snowball into an indefinite block for the OP. I agree that CIR became an issue here with the suppressed content but I'd prefer to see outcomes like this evolve over 24 hours or longer so an editor has the opportunity to consider the criticism offered about their contributions and walk back from the edge of the cliff. It's just the rush to judgment and the lack of a problematic edit history that has left me with some questions about this result. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  If the editor wants to come back, the editor can request unblock. I noticed a few of Antny08's creations and assessments. They should weigh heavily in favor of reprieve as long as BLPs stay off limits. There seems to be a differential here re CIR when it comes to stuff vs. living people. But that was a very capable editor refusing to listen in a fundamental WP:CONSENSUS way. Slower WP:BOOMERANG is possible when the obstinance itself goes slower. JFHJr (㊟) 04:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, strongly oppose indefinite block - this user obviously has serious competency issues, but it is extremely unlikely that this person is not here to build an an encyclopedia. I think it's much, much more likely that they saw news about a person, and thought it was of encyclopedic value. And they're right. With sufficient sourcing, this "vile, life-ruining" accusation is of extremely high encyclopedic value. And it's also extremely accessible from a simple google search. This user appears to be have been indefinitely banned on the basis of a lack of understanding of proper sourcing. This is an extreme-overreaction and a huge assumption of bad faith. That being said, a topic ban from BLP is obviously needed. Cjhard (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Seriously, the guy has 2000 edits, 981 of which are on mainspace. This is his first block. I'm getting increasingly concerned about NOTHERE being used as an indefinite ban gun for any problematic user, regardless of whether they're actually here to build an encylopedia. Cjhard (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  He was given ample opportunity to acknowledge the problems with his edits, which, as I and others have pointed out, were not confined to egregious BLP problems. As I noted in my denial of his unblock request, he talked himself into this after we proposed less drastic solutions, and the door remains open for self reflection. I see profound maturity issues which can be cured with time. BLP policy allows little or no leeway for defamation emanating from anything but gold-standard sourcing. Frankly, if revdel and suppression are required, so is a block of some significant extent, even without the obstinate refusal to acknowledge any error. Acroterion (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I understand all of that. None of it speaks to "not being here to build an encyclopaedia" which was the primary reason for the indefinite ban and is just blatantly false. Cjhard (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Personally,I would have used a wordy block summary like "maturity/competence issues, severe misunderstanding of BLP requirements and ethnicity policies, battlegound conduct," which arguably looks worse in the block log. Blocked is blocked, the templated rationales don't always match up,and anyone who looks at an unblock request will look at actual events rather than relying on a block summary. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. I don't know about an indef, but it already feels like we're wasting our time here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I mean this [16] was their last comment on ANI that addressed other editors concerns over their understanding of BLP. Demonstrating that even after multiple editors has tried to explain it to them they still didn't get it. As for the indef, I agree the reasoning is questionable. However I do think a competence one is justified since their fundamental inability to understand the problems with their edits would seem to affect their editing elsewhere too. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I should clarify I'm not that fussed about a reblock myself, although if they are unblocked in the future it might be helpful to clarify when unblocking so people quickly glancing at the block log only are less confused Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Some have expressed concern over the type of indef block (WP:NOTHERE) vs. WP:BLP/WP:DE (WP:IDHT, etc), which can be rectified if Drmies wants to reblock under a different criteria. I'm not as concerned with the nomenclature myself, but I would say that an indef (not necessarily permanent) block was justified, and I think a consensus here agrees, even if they would have used a different rationale. In fact, an indef block is the only option and the user still doesn't have a grasp of why they were blocked, which brings up WP:CIR/WP:DE concerns. I think a time limited block would not be useful because there is a high likelihood the behavior would be repeated soon after expiration if the blocked editor is oblivious to the reasoning. I had considered reblocking myself and "adopting" the block, but I'm due for a wikibreak, and don't want to leave it hanging. IMHO, I think we really can leave it as is, understanding that the community supports the block, but under a different rationale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Uninvolved editor, TBAN seems warranted; indef is definitely going too far. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support tban; "Israel is a Jewish state, and he is Jewish" and "many websites are already reporting it. It obviously happened, as the video that started this all is on YouTube" are merely the most blatant bits of the long demonstration above of an inability to accept, let alone see the propriety of and need for, WP:BLP and other policies. Endorse indef block as preventative; indefinite is not infinite, but to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again, Antny08 needs to make a convincing unblock request that shows they understand and will work within Wikipedia's policies as well as any personal tban. NebY (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban suggest both for BLP and the IP contentious area. For the rest there's WP:ROPE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• IMO, NOTHERE applies if an editor shows no respect whatsoever for the BLP, which is an essential element of us building an encyclopedia--yes, Cjhard. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 11 May 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.

 Comment: The wording of this topic ban at this page and the WP:EDR entry is ambiguous due to a misplaced modifier; should the log entry be changed to: "[...] topic ban on editing any article content that regards a living person"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Steffanhalvorsenekholt

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

WP:UPE. User has been warned multiple times on talk page, WP:TH, and WP:AFCHD to disclose their paid relationship to Draft:Vue Play. Instead of adding the {{paid}} template, user blanked the aforementioned pages. ([17][18][19][20]) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please just remove my account completely and rename my account name, I do not want my real name to be visible on wikipedia, I have not fully understand how WikiPedia works, but now I understand more and it is scary that I can not delete my account. Please just delete my account and everything I have posted. Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi ... Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Steffanhalvorsenekholt: I've deleted the draft per WP:G7. Accounts cannot be deleted. I don't think your sins are so bad so that you are not entitled to WP:VANISH, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Should it be "sin"? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If that is your real name, it's not bad anyways but you still can request changing your username. You don't have to leave. Also, Wikipedia is not scary, you rather make it scary when you want to. Many editors are here enjoying their editing privileges which all of us have volunteered for. It's just all about volunteering. Why not do minimal clean up or editing before rushing into content creation. Why am I here talking about this, let me try the talk page. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There are people who use their real name without issue, but there are good reasons people fear doing so; they don't want to be publicly associated with a particular topic, they don't want friends/family/colleagues to know what they are editing about; they may fear government surveillance, etc. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Encylo-P-D

Disturbing edits reverted by many users. Starting edit war with me, Merangs, FeldmarschallGneisenau, Øksfjord, ... Dasomm (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Please provide actual diffs of "disturbing edits" and "edit warring".Nigel Ish (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Only during last hour: Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia Dasomm (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Also altered Austria and placed it into Western Europe and the Czech Republic into Central and Eastern Europe. Øksfjord (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Anything new on the matter? The user in question now accuses me of using sever IPs to revert his changes on the Slovenia page (both anons seem to come from Ljubljana as far as I could make out), which is false (I only edit under my own name). Additionally, he has been prompted multiple times by several users to take the situation to the talk page to resolve it as the change of geographical location is highly contentious, but he obstinately continues to refuse to do so, instead merely claiming to have added "accurate information". As the page about Slovenia is unprotected (as opposed to Slovakia), he is effectively able to do anything he pleases and continue edit warring without consequences. Øksfjord (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not start an edit war, however, you have broken the 3-revert-rule when you used this IP address (84.255.219.234) and you said "I reactivated this account after a while as I did not want to engage in the matter on an anonymous basis". This reads to me as a case of sock puppetry to create an illusion of support as well as to avoid WP:Scrutiny and to WP:LOUTSOCK

Diffs here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenia&diff=prev&oldid=1223081562

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenia&diff=prev&oldid=1223083542

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenia&diff=prev&oldid=1223160174

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenia&diff=prev&oldid=1223118781 Encylo-P-D (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have time to follow up properly but if I did, I would be blocking Encylo-P-D a week or more for distuptive editing, including edit warring. I didn't count the hours on Slovenia but I'm not slavish to 4 reverts to block someone who is obviously warring and causing problems across a few different articles. WP:3RR doesn't mean you get to edit war as long as you only revert 3 times, btw. Not even close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Again causing problems across a few different articles. again again... and again... Dasomm (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor dropping in here, it's clear User:Encylo-P-D is, at best, warring against a general consensus. I would strongly advise the user in question to post his issue to the talk page, and maybe open up an RfC on the issue. Else, a short ban from the pages of Countries in Europe, is a good way of preventing future edit warring. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for disruptive editing, edit warring, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This is yet another time I see a new user edit-warring in articles about European countries over whether a country is considered "Central Europe" or not. Please take a look at this sockpuppet investigation I started a few weeks ago: [21]. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Encylo-P-D has been blocked indefinitely as a sock account of HJ72JH. NebY (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but this still may be relevant to the other investigation. It's also interesting that User:HJ72JH has been editing a very different set of articles than User:Encylo-P-D. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User: Øksfjord

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.

---

Personal attack WP:NOPA

“someone else who finds them exasperating.” As well as collusion to harass https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dasomm

Encylo-P-D (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Strangely, User:Øksfjord's return to editing today after four years has included reverting[22] Talk:Slovenia to its 20 October 2020 state, which broke various things and left red-links, then adding "I am adding this text as a wake-me-up call." I'll repair that. NebY (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I sincerely apologise for that, it turned way worse than I imagined it would. I only intended to bring that discussion to Encyclo-P-D's attention, but instead managed to mess up the entire layout. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. And yeah, I reactivated this account after a while as I did not want to engage in the matter on an anonymous basis. Øksfjord (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, there has been a complaint lodged about Encyclo-P-D and his edits by user Dasomm directly above - refer to the situation described there. Øksfjord (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You didn't notify Øksfjord about this discussion, as required. I've done that. NebY (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Encylo-P-D (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• If you are looking for sanctions for them saying “someone else who finds them exasperating.”, you are going to be disappointed. That isn't a personal attack. Also note, you do need to notify and provide better links in the event you come back again to an admin board. We can't be expected to do the homework for you. So if you have some better diffs, please link them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've turned this into a sub-section of the report made by Øksfjord, as this appears to be retaliatory for that report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:30, 10 May 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.

Many articles created, and i have concerns regarding quality and the lack of reliable sources because most of articles are BLP!

I was wondering, while checking this https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Saqib

(He was given Autopatrolled rights by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BU_Rob13 ) Just came to this user saqib created 200+ articles with Autopatrolled rights only with two lines (alosmost all articles) and most of them are not properly cited. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and hundred more.

Is it okay to manufacture short articles with Autopatrolled rights? Because as per guidelines creating "clean" "elaborate", well cited articles is mandatory!.

The user started defending with assumptions when I informed the administrator here.

Is it okay for a user to manufacture hundreds of articles with just two lines ? Lkomdis (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Saqib. This looks very much like Saqib is being targeted. I clicked on 1,2, 9 and 10. They are all well-made stubs on clear WP:NPOL passes. I saw Saqib taken to WP:XRV yesterday. And now I see OP has been shopping around for admins to do their bidding. This is definitely not a user with 103 edits as it would appear. This is a sleeper for a farm, presumably one Saqib might have foiled with their AFC or NPP work. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, definitely not a good-faith editor. They were provided sufficient explanation at the teahouse here yesterday. Yet here they are raising the same issues as though that had not happened at all, having in between gone to Bbb23 and then WP:COIN. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe this is the third report of Saqib here of elsewhere I've seen in the last few weeks - virtually all have the same linguistic structure/grammar, and virtually all are bad-faith complaints/content disputes. It's hard not to think this is a campaign of harassment by a sockmaster. The Kip 17:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

These creations appear to be rapidly created and near-identical - in other words, without consensus they are WP:MASSCREATE violations.

There may also be an issue with Lkomdis, but Saqib needs to hold off on these creations until they get consensus for them. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I clicked a dozen or so and they are all on legislators. As long as the sources verify that they were elected to parliament/s, I have no concerns. Legislators are exempt from GNG requirement. If there are articles on topics that require SIGCOV that were rapidly mass-created without citing them, that would be a different matter. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

However, they’re not exempt from our rules on WP:MASSCREATION and WP:FAIT; indeed, the biggest issues we have had with mass creation - the ones that have consumed the most editor time and caused the most drama - have been on topics where notability is presumed. BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see why those PAGs exist and I can think of areas where they would do good, even in article creation; I just don't see how they could be applied to legislator bios to benefit. NPOL was well-established well before I joined, and in all my time, I have never got an impression other than that we want to create standalone articles on every single one of the legislators because we believe that's essential information for encyclopedias to have and we believe all legislators are sure to have more coverage in reliable sources than our pretty lax inclusion criteria. I would need to see that the stubs have other problems than that they were quickly created en masse. I recognise your position. And I have seen you, along with others, convince the community of it, in other areas of the project, sports notably, but you have not done so for NPOL. I don't think the current community position foresees any problem with legislator stubs that you may do. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The PAG might apply to the bios which simply repeat information already on List of members of the 16th Provincial Assembly of Sindh and List of members of the 16th National Assembly of Pakistan, but one of the examples above, Syed Adil Askari, shows how they could be expanded further. Odd that that ended up in the list. CMD (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm NOT buying this complaint against me. The OP also accused me of COI and UPE which I've clarified here. For the clarity, I've created over whopping 2,000+ BLPs on Pakistani MPs, not just 200 as the OP wrote above. And if anyone's wondering why I made those stubs, it's simple. They all meet WP:POLITICIAN, they're well-referenced and I haven't inserted any PROMO or even WP:OR. I challenge if any one can find any such, please provide the diffs here. Honestly, I'm surprised nobody has linked to the BLPs I created that later became quite detailed bios like (Aseefa Bhutto Zardari, Ali Wazir, Fawad Chaudhry, Usman Buzdar, Anwaar ul Haq Kakar, Muhammad Aurangzeb, Liaquat Ali Chattha, Mohsin Dawar, Nausheen Hamid, Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan, Hammad Azhar, Fayyaz ul Hassan Chohan, Sardar Nasrullah Khan Dreshak, Musadik Malik, Ismail Rahoo, Sibtain Khan,Faisal Vawda, Zartaj Gul, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Murtaza Wahab, Sadiq Sanjrani, Usman Dar and the list goes on...). --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  created over whopping 2,000+ BLPs on Pakistani MPs Please read WP:MASSCREATE, and please stop engaging in the mass-creation of these stubs until you get consensus that such mass creation is appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  For sure, if it's a policy and applies to WP:NPOL, I'll steer clear of that in the future. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's a policy, and it applies to all content pages - both those covered by WP:NPOL and those not covered by it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  If that's the case, then fair enough. I wasn't aware of this, if you take my word for it. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's an obscure policy; it's understandable to be unaware of it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  The policy applies to "large-scale" creation; also "Alternatives [...] include creating the pages in small batches"; the articles were created in batches of around 20. The policy does not mention a recommended amount of time between batches. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Saqib goes back to 2014 and only lists 1,899 pages (of which 240 were created in 2024). Creation in small batches can be disruptive if the reliability of the sources is unclear, but approval is not required. Peter James (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I want to make it clear that I'm not citing non-RS, as you can verify by randomly checking any BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  From June 2020 to February 2024, Saqib only created one article which was in 2021. In 2024, there were 3 days they went over 24: March 24 created 73, March 26 created 107 and March 29 created 32 so a little over 200 over the period of 5 days which did violate Masscreate. Before that they created a total of 18 articles and since March 29 they have created 9 articles so this is not something they are doing continuously. From what I can tell, these appear to be the result of a recent election. Is that correct, @Saqib: and are you done or are there more? S0091 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, that's right I created BLPs for newly elected MPs right after the 2024 Pakistani general election. This is my area of expertise and interest. Not only did I create BLPs, but I also contributed extensively to election page. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. Next time, get approval beforehand even if you do not know exactly how many. I am not sure how much lead time you need so I suggest asking at WT:BRFA. They may also be able to point you to previous approval requests for examples. S0091 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't foresee the necessity to create a large number of BLPs until the 2029 elections, barring any disruptions to the assemblies. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  But wait, I didn't use any tools so why would I need to ask at a bot forum? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @S0091 and BilledMammal: WP:MASSCREATE states that bot approval is required when it is large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation. Unless I'm missing something, these completely manual creations by Saqib are fine, since no tools were used? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding is the method does not matter. If edits/page creations are done in a bot-like/automated fashion, it's covered by the policy. See WP:MEATBOT. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @S0091: There it says that it can be disruptive, but only if there are issues with the content being produced: However, merely editing quickly ... is not by itself disruptive. Are there any issues with these articles besides them being short? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  I reiterate that no tools, scripts, or automation were utilized. Everything was done manually , and I ensured that no mistakes were made.And if anyone finds a mistake, please feel free to provide the diffs. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Lkomdis I think is the only editor who has raised an issue with the content, then BM about Masscreate. Meatbot also states If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. In such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary so I think this fits the bill to at least ask at WT:BRFA. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @S0091: IMO, there is no point in making a BRFA request; there's no one who thinks that a bot should be doing these activities (there's likely only going to be a few confused "why are you requesting manual creation be given bot approval?" comments if taken there) and I seriously question the motive behind Lkomdis pointing out these "issues" (see my below comment) – Saqib has used no tools (i.e. completely in-line with MASSCREATE) and as far as I'm aware there's no issues with the content itself – I see nothing that needs to be done here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't think there anything to be done at this time either regarding Saqib and share you concerns about the OP. This is all in hindsight. The articles have already been created, Saqib legitimately did not know about Masscreate, it is not something they are doing continuously and no one has brought up any specific issues about the articles. So the question is do these articles meet the Masscreate criteria thus in the future require approval? I lean on the 'best to be safe' side but either way I don't think this discussion belongs at ANI but at BRFA (or someplace else?). S0091 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:MASSCREATE does list that as an alternative, but it also makes it clear that approval is still required - the only difference is that it suggests approval may be more likely when the proposal is for small batches rather than for large ones. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, I didn't use any tools. I created all the pages manually and it was quite a hectic task. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  It says it's an alternative but then says it is not an alternative but is just a way that is more likely to gain approval, so the editors who created that policy made it contradict itself. Of course if split into separate tasks (instead of one task whether in one batch or several) no approval is required. Peter James (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Looking through the last few pages of Saqib's contributions, I am not seeing a MASSCREATE issue. Creating a lot of similar articles about clearly notable topics is not inherently a MASSCREATE violation. Rlendog (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal Your reply is appreciated and I agree with you. Lkomdis (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Even if you were not aware about WP:MASSCREATE, but you kept manufacturing same two articles silently since 2016!, with the use of Autopatrolled Right, if you are not aware about policy guidelines please don't miss use any privilege right.

  @Rosguill This user right was supposed be for prolific creators of clean articles in order to reduce the work load of New Page Patrollers but see what is happening here! Lkomdis (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Lkomdis, what is your problem?? You return from a four-year absence and one of the first things you do is report this editor to the Teahouse, then after being told its fine report them to Oshwah, then to Bbb23, then to the COI noticeboard, and then bring them to ANI, and it seems you've done almost nothing else? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11 If someone returns from four years break doesn't justify that I should not report such incident, as I was not aware about reporting proces of such incident i went to Teahouse first, then Oshwah to here,

  While checking his edits, i found group of paid editors were mantaing or defending Waqar Zaka, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, so reported to Bbb23, but he looks to me doesn't care much about it, and replied.

  "Enough years to know that I have no interest in these issues. I suppose you could take it to WP:COIN"

  For me Saqib looks potential candidate of COI, check by yourself about his defense style here then here, his recent edits on cryptocurrency enthusias article smells like he may be involved in this to make an image of Waqar zaka either in favor or against the person. and that's the case of investigation. Lkomdis (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  First you accused me of being a UPE adding PROMO stuff to Waqar's BLP, now you're saying I'm against him. Can you make up your mind first about whether I'm editing for him or against him? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Saqib Playing victim card will not lead the discussion anywhere, just let the community review the case, and being too defensive about the article of cryptocurrency enthusias Waqar Zaka, will not save it, and doesn't prove anything!. Lkomdis (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Lkomdis, I don't really have a strong opinion about the Waqar Zaka BLP, unlike some UPEs who are really attached to their creations. You know why? Because I don't have any clients to answer to, so even if this BLP gets deleted, I'm not bothered. I've made my point that it shouldn't be deleted, but if the community decides otherwise, it's no big deal to me. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Saqib That's why this case was reported to WP:COI , and I will suggest please don't conclude everything on your assupusons, there are other editors too, leave some room for them to see what is going underneath with Waqar Zaka article. Lkomdis (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Masscreate exists for a reason, it's not just to stop policy or guideline-violating articles. Autopatrol should not exist. It doesn't help NPP (in the big picture it probably makes their job larger by creating walled gardens) and everybody needs a second set of eyes. Taking away autopatrol is not a big deal, it's just normalcy. Which is what should happen here. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Autopatrol should not exist. – Strong disagree. There are clearly some people who do not need their work checked by members of NPP, and that's okay. It doesn't help NPP – Tell that to the massive backlog we have and the lack of volunteers we have to help deal with it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm an active NPP'er ad do worry about the backlog and disagree. But I only made the general statement here supporting my stance and that it would be no biggee to remove autopatrol. But my bad for not making that clearer or not wording it differently.North8000 (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• @North8000 Regarding  this case, I am of the same mind. However, if Autopatrolled is not available, it will cause NPP overload. "everybody needs a second set of eyes", that's the truth, to avoid this kind of incidents again in future. Lkomdis (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed with Lkomdis here, Saqib has created multiple BLP's like Syed Adil Askari, Waqar Zaka with WP:Non-RS yet still he is nominating articles, the similar BLP's for WP:AfD.
  • Unsigned, from an IP who seems to dislike one of Saqib's AFDS. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why the OP hasn't been indeffed yet? They obviously didn't just materialize in good faith after four years and immediately stumble into Saqib out of sheer coincidence. This is a targeted hit job and should not be tolerated. If there are issues with Saqib's edits, they should be sorted out, but it is unconscionable to leave the OP unblocked. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• I do not see anything in this section which requires administrative intervention (in fact, any intertvention). I suggest that someone closes this section. On the other hand, an indef proposal for OP which is below seems legit and should run its course.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Boomerang Indef for Lkomdis

Uninvolved editor here (I say this a lot now), seems like Lkomdis is going after the user involved here (WP:FORUMSHOP) and is clearly WP:ABF. In addition, I would suggest taking a look at related editor Aanuarif (this suggests a big sockfarm here) who might related here. This doesn't mean Saqib is completely exonerated but this is a pretty unambiguous action we can and should take. I suspect that one of the reasons that Saqib is being targeted here is that his mass stubs may be eroding the business of the farm in question (you can't pay for a Wikipedia article that already exists), or it could just be socks boomeranging. Edit: In addition, this behavior seems to have started after Saqib started an SPI and started NPP. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not about their concern regarding my stubs on Pakistani lawmakers. It all started with this SPI and particularly involving this IP. The attacks intensified after I started NPP just a few days ago. I nominated some of their articles including BLPs for deletion (all related to Pakistani actors and TV shows) and some AfCs (again all related to Pakistani actors and TV shows) were also rejected by me, after which I began receiving attacks both on-wiki and off-wiki. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not related to any kind of WP:Sockfarm, I initiated some new articles (Draft:Hook (2022 TV series), Draft: Wonderland (Pakistani TV series) and Draft:Gumn) out of my interest which were all declined eventually so I was seeking reasons as to why cause creating articles manually and inserting around 25-30 sources (I had no awareness about WP:RS) is a hectic thing. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that! (I knew I'd seen your name around somewhere). Add that too to the rationale. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Support indef. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous from the beginning @Saqib in hurry to conclude the result of incident by his assumptions based narrative, but later he agreed that he was not aware about WP:MASSCREATE, and was manufacturing BLP articles silently with the help of Autopatrolled Right, he was given Autopatrolled rights by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BU_Rob13 . I don't think this should be encourage and I agree to user:North8000 comment "everybody needs a second set of eyes". Thank you for your reply Lkomdis (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you're attacking Saqib in a section about your conduct or why you're not responding to the allegations here. Heck, this almost suicidal pursuit of the user in question kind of makes my point for me. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous it's not about Saqib, but the way he was using Autopatrolled for WP:MASSCREATE silently from years, that was my concern, he admitted that he was not aware about it, that make sense to me. And I think no buddy should be beyond the guidelines to take advantage of loophole. Now i don't have any issues about this incident with Saqib after this discussion. I wanted to bring the incident to attention to prevent similar incidents in the future. I appreciate your reply. Lkomdis (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you were concerned about a possible WP:MASSCREATE violation (which frankly seems to have been minor, if it even was one), at the very least post in the user's talk page letting them know before doing anything else. Going WP:FORUMSHOPPING is very much not the way to go, but then again, you don't seem to care about this account, do you. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Support indef As @Lepricavark: states, the OP has not edited here since 2020 and within minutes after returning they make a complaint about Saqib at the Teahouse, then to Oshwah and then onto Bbb23. The response at the Teahouse was there was no issue, @Oshwah: told them to file a complaint here while @Bbb23: told them COIN so they filed both which is the problem with WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Nothing they have presented here supports any BLP violations, that the articles fail WP:NPOL or any other abuse of autopatrol and so far the COIN complaint, which included other editors, is going nowhere. At most there might be a WP:MASSCREATE violation but even that is debatable per the discussion above. They have wasted enough of community's time lodging baseless complaints complaints against Saqib and are WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. S0091 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Aye yai yai... That sucks to hear; I apologize if my response caused any inconvenience to the community. My response to the user on my user talk page meant to say, in a nutshell, "If you have concerns about something this large (200+ articles) by a user, then ANI is where I'd likely go. You need more eyes on this, and a community review is the right action to take." It wasn't intended to be made with any implication that I agreed with what they were reporting. Saqib (correctly) pointed out that this user's huge gap in editing, and the fact that they returned from about a four-year break from editing Wikipedia at all, was concerning. I did agree with Saqib's observations and response. I'm going to err on the side of extreme caution and recuse from adding my recommendation here. While I doubt adding my recommendation here would be argued to be crossing the line into "WP:INVOLVED territory" by others, it's better to be safe than to put myself into a position where my ability to exhibit proper judgment is questioned. I think I've done enough already... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oshwah you did not do anything wrong and it was not my intent to suggest you did so no need to apologize; same for Bbb23 or those who responded at the Teahouse. None of you were the 'cause' for multiple complaints multiple places but the inevitable symptom of forum shopping. S0091 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oshwah Don't feel regret about it and your response didn't cause any inconvenience, even the Saqib was not aware about WP:MASSCREATE violation but as it is debatable, this discussion will help to improve policy, and thank you for your suggestion to report it here. I appreciate your reply. Lkomdis (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support block (indef or short term) per above. Clearly this was an unnecessary report throughout multiple talk pages and noticeboards of Wikipedia. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support a temp block, neutral on indef Tolerating weaponization of Wiki systems is probably Wikipedia's worst mistake that contributes to it being such a nasty place. And this looks like that. I'm not sure of that enough to support an indef. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef per my first two comments which have totally held up. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• I have INDEFFed in my capacity as an individual admin and per emerging consensus here. Discussion can continue about Saqib's creations without the participation of an account who clearly is Not Here for anything but stirring up drama and is likely evading a block. If consensus finds reason to unblock, feel free to do so. Star Mississippi 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

ChristieBot unable to edit Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)

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'm not sure if this is an ANI or a VPT issue, but thought I'd start here as it does seem to be permissions-related. ChristieBot, which manages GA nominations, has been crashing when trying to transclude the GA review to Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present). The error is "Page en:Special:Log is not supported due to namespace restriction". The page is extended-confirmed protected. The bot does have extended-confirmed rights as part of the bot group rights, but presumably is missing some other related permission. I can change the code to not crash and simply log the error, but I'm about to go to work and don't want to mess with it at a time when I won't be able to fix problems for a while. If anyone can tell me what the problem is I would appreciate it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably a VPT issue, as you appear to be asking for technical expertise and not urgent admin action. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:8D:575C:A7E4:7574 (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Have now queried at VPT. I was thinking it might be an issue for an admin as it might just be a permission that could be quickly granted, but as it doesn't appear to be obvious I've posted to VPT. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 16 May 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:Lkomdis

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, User:Lkomdis keeps making disruptive comments on their talk page, making unblock requests that ping an unnecessary amount of admins, including Jimbo Wales himself. Note that they were blocked for NOTHERE (technically NPA violations towards Saqib) via a mostly false ANI thread they started, which still hasn't been archived. They allege me, an experienced editor, of having a COI with an article I have never edited, using Jimbo as the founder as an excuse to shut me up, indirectly allege me of canvassing, and snarkily telling me to "Assume good faith" even though I am trying to get them to stop. All of this can be viewed at their talk page, linked above. I am also fairly certain that they are a sock because harassing Saqib after they came back from a wikibreak (which makes me think they are a sleeper that has woken up). At minimum, I would like their TPA to be removed. Thanks, thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @TheTechie. For those following along at home, User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Thanks_for_your_thanks and related to my block of Lkomdis. I am about to log off for the evening and consider myself Involved so wasn't going to yank TPA in the event an uninvolved admin thought there was merit to the unblock. There's probably also paperwork but I remain on and offline and haven't had time to sort the master to file it. Star Mississippi 03:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Anytime! I just wanted to get this nonsense done with. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly this report and your activities on that user's talk page are a bit weird. Could you not just stop badgering the blocked user? BoldGnome (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked. I don't see anything wrong with what TheTechie did here, it was Lkomdis who made things weird. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:56, 15 May 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.

Rahulnagra123

Rahulnagra123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another caste warrior. Creation of multiple unsourced pages (Draft:Nagyal, Nagyal (twice), Nagyal : Jatt, Wikipedia:Nagyal), and disruptive editing at WP:AFC/C and WP:CATEGORY. User has been warned multiple times on talk page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

103.47.232.0/21

• 103.47.232.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Nothing but external link spam from this range since May 2023. Pahunkat (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:DonnaPrintss

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.

---

Weird anti-semitic edits, like moving a page to draftspace with the summary "Jewish nonsence", saying stuff like "Jewish are not welcomed here." and "Delete yourself from here and go away", and nominating/!voting for deletion Jewish-related articles (here, here and here, for example) for no real reason. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. – Hilst [talk] 14:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

They appear to already be blocked. And appropriately. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Only for 48 hours. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's say Convert to Indefinite per WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, how? That should've been an indef as WP:NOTHERE. Hate is not welcome on this project. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, should edits such as Special:Diff/1223806716 be revdel? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say yes. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed and I think everything is cleaned up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 14 May 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.

Does an admin want to revert the page move back to main space or are we not bothering bc said user moved it out of draftspace in the first place.Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

BLP issues with Andrew Tate DYK hook

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.

---

Original section title was "Are the idiots who run DYK under the mistaken impression that WP:BLP doesn't apply there?" jp×g🗯️ 20:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Se the section on Andrew Tate. Regardless of what we think of him, the quote seems to have been taken out of context, and regardless of whether it was or it wasn't, the from page of Wikipedia in no place for such loaded cherry-picking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, no? GiantSnowman 18:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) #User:AndyTheGrump Conduct is still live. Do you need to be reminded about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Or do you just need to be blocked? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

He said it and never denied saying it -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy, you lost me on this one, there's sourcing for the quote looks pretty solid. The full quote is "You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f— you money and you can’t take that away.” so I'm having trouble aseeing how using just part of it makes him look worse than using the whole thing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This from a reputable British newspaper quotes Tate, saying "You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away", which is the source used for this DYK. So it looks absolutely valid. GiantSnowman 18:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The same newspaper does state In a video shared to his new website on Wednesday (23 August), Tate claimed that many of the criticisms levied at him are based on clips that have been “taken out of context”. The author clearly didn't see the irony in quoting one sentence of his. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure how that quote can be taken out of context, he's pretty clear... GiantSnowman 18:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

And it is from the day before the article was published -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I may actually have been the editor who suggested this particular hook -- too lazy to go check -- and I kind of feel like calling me an idiot is a bit of a personal attack. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It's 100% a personal attack and should be retracted with an apology. GiantSnowman 18:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. There were an infinite number of ways to raise this issue without calling people "idiots." Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you think this thread will solve? Sincerely, Dilettante 18:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever to be 'civil' about a gross regard for core Wikipedia policy. Tate, for those who may not be aware, is currently facing charges in multiple countries over concerning alleged rape, human trafficking and organised crime. Regardless of what Tate did or didn't say, we should not be trivialising such matters, out of respect for any victims, if nobody else. Or is rape now amongst those 'quirky' subjects that DYK considers legitimate clickbait-fodder?

AS for what this thread can solve, given past history, very little in the long term I suspect. Not until either the community shuts DYK down as the liability it clearly is, or the WMF decides to step in. Meanwhile though, can someone at least remove this particular abuse of the main page from sight. It is utterly irresponsible, and puts Wikipedia in a particularly poor light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

CIVIL is a "core Wikipedia policy" that you don't seem to care about disregarding. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I take it that you consider rape allegations not involving Wikipedia contributors to be of less importance than breaches of WP:CIVIL amongst ourselves? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an absolutely insane fucking reach. wound theology◈ 01:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Girl. I also think the hook is inappropriate and reflects badly on WP, but what is this lol Zanahary (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, respectfully, you're making no sense. There is no trivialisation here. GiantSnowman 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect potential rape victims might have a different opinion on that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Civility is one of the WP:5P. To me, the disregard shown to it here and on your user page overshadows BLP concerns that level-headed editors can discuss. You should be nowhere near any contentious topics. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, you will need to explain to us how quoting Tate describing himself in what is a negative manner to most people is trivialisation of rape victims. GiantSnowman 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Right we had a long debate at DYK and I opposed suggested BLP violation hooks. Regarding the PA above I suggest a sanction for the OP here. ATG cannot slander Valerie (wrote the hook) and everyone else in DYK that operated in good faith just because they are a seasoned editor. We should not accept this kind of incivility from anyone. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Something weird happened here – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was thinking of doing it myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Muboshgu, you mistakenly replied to an incorrectly-copy-pasted series of messages, which have now been removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) I dont know what to do with this. I was replying to a comment by JPxG about a potential indef block. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) You posted in the wrong thread. You want #Cheetomalik4. GiantSnowman 19:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that Andy take some time to:

• 1) clearly explain how a self-summary by the man himself (which accurately encapsulates the opinion of high-quality RS) can be defined as "loaded cherry-picking" which violates WP:BLP
• 2) clearly explain how the hook currently on the Main Page "trivialises the alleged victims of Tate's activities"
• 3) clearly explain how his posts so far on this page are acceptable violations of WP:CIVIL and not examples of tendentious WP:RGW.

I emphasise "clearly explain" thrice because clear explanation has not been a hallmark of ATG's posts so far. Hopefully that changes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(1) Selecting a single phrase, with no further clarification of context, for the purposes of a DYK hook is very much cherry-picking. Indeed, that's how the clickbait-farm works. They've been doing it for years, with blatant disregard for basic human dignity and common sense, never mind Wikipedia policy. Do I have to link the time they stated as fact improperly-sourced claims that a Singaporean who disappeared in unexplained circumstances had been cooked in a curry? (2) I was referring to the trivialisation of crime, not of victims. And I doubt such victims would appreciate their attacker being given a platform to dismiss events as 'misogeny'. Not that Tate was, clearly (he remains unconvicted, and denies all the allegations). Given the complete lack of context though, one might very well assume that this was what was being referred to. (3) I was under the impression that complaining about things done in violation of Wikipedia policy was considered a legitimate use of this noticeboard. If it isn't, perhaps people should be advised of the fact in the notice at the top of the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(1) So this is a disagreement with the existence of DYK, rather than this particular hook? I would suggest that ANI is not the place to deprecate the process (and, incidentally, as I am an active participant, please feel free to use "you" instead of "they" with your customary insults). (2) is somewhat incoherent, but seems to be worried about assumptions and connections that I can only describe as far-fetched. (3), meanwhile—well, I am unable to see how an explanation of ANI's purpose is at all relevant to whether your comments met the standards of WP:CIVIL or WP:RGW. Please try again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You completely dodged question 3 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the Socratic intent involved in how you've structured these inquiries, but I don't think it's particularly helpful to suggest to Andy at this moment in time that there might be a variety of "acceptable violation of WP:CIV", because he's clearly going to take that implication and run with it. I have to join with the consensus here so far: Andy has engaged in an unambigous and unabashed use of a PA above and rather than acknowledge it and pull pack, is embracing pure IDHT, and courting an almost certain BOOMERANG if he continues.

This is kind of gobsmackingly ironic (and oblivious), because it's almost beat by beat what happened to another editor further up on this page who recently reported Andy for similar language a couple of days ago--in that case, in a pair of WP:POLEMIC-adjacent postings on Andy's user page which also make use of his apparently favourite word for his fellow editors at this moment in time: 'idiot'. Everyone here at ANI, myself included, just brushed past that issue, either by not addressing it at all or by focusing on the uniform opinion that the behvaviour of the OP was of more concern. There was also apparent agreement that, insofar as the comments don't address particular editors or groups of editors, those comments don't really, strictly speaking, constitute a PA--an assessment with which I basically agree.

That said, what those posts do accurately constitute are clear indicators about the thinking of an editor who, per this discussion, is heaving extreme difficulty comporting with WP:AGF and WP:CIV at this moment in time. Andy, as was noted a few times in the previous thread, your discussion style has always had a bit of a "crusty" aspect to it. I think it has generally been well tolerated in part because your very username puts people on notice to the fact that it may be coming and we all just laugh it off a bit as on-brand for you. But at this juncture, you have tipped completely over into WP:Disruptive territory, and you need to pause and re-assess your mode of interaction here before the community takes action. It is never ok to refer to a fellow editor (or clearly identifiable cohort of editors, even) as an idiot/idiots.

Indeed, it was already a worrying sign when you were utilizing such language to vaguely opine about the community in general. But making such observations about particular editors is a brightline violation of PA, and you very certainly know that. Just as you know that you don't get an exemption from following the same basic behavioural rules we are all bound to here just because you are fighting the good fight in the project's interests, as you see it.

The afore-mentioned posts on your user page seem to indicate that you have been contemplating stepping back from the project because of your current frustrations with the community's priorities. This discussion suggests to me that you may want to consider this the ideal time to put that plan into action, because if this is the extent of the self-restraint you can show when it comes to lambasting your rhetorical opposition with commentary about your perception of their level of intelligence (and then refusing to hear the concerns of the community about same), you're probably going to soon talk yourself into blocks or editing restrictions.

If the lesson you took away from Antny08's thread above was that the community was going to continue to support an acerbic, insulting tone from you so long as you were enough in the right on the content issue, that was an error. The lesson you should be taking is about a well-intentioned editor with blinders on to their own issues, and the limits of the community's patience with a refusal to drop the stick. Your love-affair with calling other editors on this project "idiots" has to come to an end. Completely. Immediately. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu Apologies I think I erred when I edit conflicted. But yes, I support sanctions for the OP- does someone have a proposal? We would not give any other editor time to reconsider their attack. And ATG obviously flamed out and then said they were taking a break. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll explain my opinion on 1. WP:DYKBLP is quite clear not to blurb anything negative. I'd wager most of us would say someone being a misogynist, self-professed or otherwise, is negative. The guideline does not read Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons which the person would consider negative should be avoided. Though I agree on some points with them, I do think I'd support a short civility block for ATG. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with this - your interpretation means we could not have things like 'John Smith was a Nazi' etc., even if 100% accurate and properly sourced. GiantSnowman 19:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

How many BLPs do we have on Nazis? Sincerely, Dilettante 19:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We have 173 BLPs on convicted war criminals, for example Radovan Karadžić. —Kusma (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKBLP ≠ WP:BLP – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The first line of WP:BLP is Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. If you're violating a reasonable guideline, you're ipso facto not taking particular care. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If Tate refers to himself as a misogynist, how does it violate BLP to say that he refers to himself as a misogynist? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have retracted my request to pull/change the DYK (see the bottom comment on ERRORS). However, I'll present my argument one last time:

1. One type of (relatively minor) BLP violation is not taking particular care when writing about a BLP.
2. Violating DYKBLP could be reasonably construed as not taking particular care.
3. Calling someone a misogynist, even if they'd agree, is focusing on a negative aspect.
4. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs.
5. Therefore, we should fix the DYKBLP (and thus BLP) violation by changing the hook.
6. Even if it's only an extremely dubious violation, we should still try to avoid that in case Tate's lawyers want to come calling.

Which step is wrong? This isn't meant to be aggressive; I'd genuinely appreciate being corrected if I'm wrong somewhere. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I would pinpoint the error to be between steps two and three. DYKBLP does not prohibit all negative hooks; if it did, we would never be able to run a hook on, say, Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations. It prohibits unduly negative hooks; but if the RS coverage of a person is so negative that they merit an entire split article for something negative they're a part of, it has to be the case that DYKBLP is satisfied. Now, this is Tate's overarching biography and not a split article, but the same principle applies. The RS coverage of Tate is so squarely negative that I can't possibly think of a reason that this hook is unduly negative compared to RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think we should never run a hook on the Cuomo allegations or Andrew Tate or any of a million other topics (although I have no doubt I'm in the minority on that). However, you're right about the undue part—I realize why the hook does not violate policy/guidelines. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump, I really wish that you would retract the insults and apologise for them - they're a distraction from the real issue. FWIW, I agree that putting that page on the main page was a really poor editorial decision. Wikipedia isn't censored, but we still have editorial judgment, and the discretion to choose whether or not to do something. DYK hooks are inherently trivialising. I like them, I write them whenever I can when I publish a new article - they're fun. This subject isn't fun, or funny, and while I don't condone the insults and have a high regard for some of the people they were directed against, I can see why he's angry about the decision to put this on the main page. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am of the honest opinion that the DYK was not only contrary to policy, but that the decision to run it was idiotic. If it makes people happy though, I'll accept that it was contrary to WP:CIVIL to refer to the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, in the manner I did. All of us are capable of doing idiotic things, myself included. The distinction between part-time idiots and full-time ones mostly comes down to ones' willingness to recognise ones' failings, and learn from them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is bait.

@Andythegrump: We can read the username, we get that you're a grump, you don't have to remind us by calling everybody at DYK an idiot in the thread title, for Christ's sake. What's the matter with you??

On the issue of the actual damn thing he is talking about, for reference, the DYK hook on the Main Page right now says this:

... that social media influencer Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"?

To be fair... this does kind of sound like bait. So is this stupid thread title, for the record. But I don't know if this DYK hook is really so bad. The guy did say, a bunch of times, that he was a misogynist. The quote this is taken from is: "You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away." Now, on one hand, maybe it's a little silly for us to be making a DYK hook out of an excerpt from an article, which is itself an excerpt from an Independent article, which itself is an excerpt from a longer interview... but he really did say that. It seems pretty reasonable to summarize this as him "describing himself as a misogynist". Like, if he had said "Oh yeah, well by your standards I'm a misogynist" it would have been different. But he didn't! Like, it's true that DYK plays a little fast and loose with BLP stuff sometimes, but this case seems pretty obvious and straightforward. In general, yes, DYK hooks should probably try to be less baity, but I mean, the whole point is to get people interested enough to click on them, so I think they are entitled to at least a little bit of "peepee poopoo Joseph Stalin ate my balls" immaturity. jp×g🗯️ 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think, I'm not sure about this because there is too much heat and not enough light in the original post, but I think that ATG thinks that this article is just not suitable for the click-baity trivial nature of the DYK process, and I'm inclined to agree with him. I'm sure it's not the first time it's happened, and I know that this project isn't censored, but 'not censored' is not synonymous with 'tasteless free-for-all'. DYK hooks are meant to be interesting, fun, surprising, funny even - but ultimately, trivial. This particular subject is dark, and serious, and I think a better editorial decision would have been to use our discretion and not put this article through this process. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally find the fact that Tait directly admits to being sexist to be interesting and worth pointing out -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, really? Of course he admits it, it garners more publicity, it's part of his schtick. Say something shocking, get headlines - and apparently DYK hooks on Wikipedia now. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also apply WP:DENY to attention seekers off-wiki. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to retire DYK, from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 Though any RfC would doubtless be SNOW closed against retiring. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You're all extremely, unfashionably late to the party. This particular DYK hook was extensively vetted and discussed for many weeks and every conceivable BLP angle was investigated. It turns out that the hook is well supported, cited, neutral, and BLP-compliant. I think it's time to close this discussion, which appears to be based on emotional rhetoric and rooted in editorial misunderstanding. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed for many weeks? By whom? Where? Didn't the fact that it took 'many weeks' to resolve perhaps suggest that another subject for a hook might be more appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

See here. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So no, the specific DYK actually posted on the main page wasn't actually 'discussed for many weeks'then, was it? Instead, you link an ongoing discussion, where serious concerns about having a Tate DYK at all were raised, concluded by a couple of posts on a new proposal that got no significant discussion at all. Prime evidence for just how broken DYK is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Tate was nominated on March 10. Discussion ensued on the nom page until it was promoted on May 1. At the same time, a second discussion took place for a week in April on the main DYK talk page. That's more discussion and attention than any other nomination usually receives and every aspect was considered. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

And you've only mentioned things that have already been mentioned in this discussion or at ERRORS. If we're unfashionably late and you repeat what we say, what does that make you? Punctual and extremely, extremely late? Sincerely, Dilettante 20:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_198#Andrew_Tate_nomination, formerly at WT:DYK, between 11 and 18 April (so not "for many weeks"). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Many weeks, including the discussion at the DYK nom itself, in addition to the DYK talk page. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If there have been 'many weeks' of discussion over the specific DYK hook concerned, they appear not to have been linked here. Instead, we have seen rambling and inconclusive threads, with the 'misogyny' quote hardly discussed at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The onus is not on other editors to link those threads here. You raised the issue here without adequately researching those threads beforehand. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is entriely possible, however, to have a broad-ranging RFC aimed at reforming DYK practices. It's a good thing for us to to review how we do things once ina while, and I do think there are some serious concerns with the day-to-day operations of DYK that could be addressed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think this should be closed without sanctions against the OP. I am rather disgusted that the editor is free to insult editors and post diatribes both here, and on their user page. There is mo way that I would be allowed to do the same. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal Andy the Grump 24 hour block for violating our no WP:PA policy

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.

---

• Support as proposer. No place on a collaborative project for name calling and flaming. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose pouring more fuel on a dying fire is an unwise move. Andy has already acknowledged his CIVIL violation, and this entire thread has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. I tried closing it a short while ago, but decided to back off after edit conflicting with an admin. Hopefully someone else will come along soon and send us all back to article space. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Where is Andy's acknowledgment of the breach? GiantSnowman 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, just seen it above - the fact that Andy acknowledges but does not apologise makes it worse. GiantSnowman 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  So we should block him 24 hours for a breach he has already admitted because he neglected to say he's sorry? That sounds punitive to me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, I'd like to note that I was subjected to an uncivil remark a few months back by one of the admins who has criticized Andy in this thread. Nobody even considered blocking that admin, and I never saw an apology. I won't name names because that would only fan unproductive flames, but once again I am reminded of the double standards in civility enforcement. If Andy's comments had been made by an admin, I have no doubt that some other admin would have seen fit to close this thread before sanctions could be discussed. I believe that a 24-hour block would accomplish nothing except to provoke Andy and to allow those supporting the block to feel as though they've done something. If you all really feel that a block is necessary, you should be discussing something longer because you all know that a short block is pointless. But you don't want to lose a productive editor, so you're pretending like a half-measure will somehow be effective. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support - he has repeatedly refused to retract or apologise for calling people "idiots", and his responses here have been combative. GiantSnowman 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Andy has presumably read the comments here. What's the point of adding a 24-hour block to them? We're not supposed to do punitive blocks, and what would such a block be if not punitive? Bishonen | tålk 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC).

This seems like a fully-general argument against anybody ever being given a 24-hour block for incivility. Blocks are a consequence of actions taken by editors, so of course they're always going to be "punitive" in some sense. jp×g🗯️ 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- if he's not even going to bother to remove the insult, or apologize for it... I mean, what is the point of having a civility policy at all, if no action can ever be taken against somebody who breaks it because "it would be punitive"? This seems like a pretty obvious, central example of what it is intended to prevent. jp×g🗯️ 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support I am someone who does not enjoy being called an idiot and I think Andy can benefit from a break. This is not a punitive block because there is a pattern of incivility and an extensive blocklog. Someone cannot be allowed to disrupt over and over just because they are sometimes civil or they retract hateful language when asked. You cannot unring a bell, I heard it loud and clear.
  I spent a lot of time arguing against hooks about Tate that referred to small dick energy and alleged crimes etc. I finally relented on the hook, because how can I argue against a label the LP gives himself? Bruxton (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. ATG has already gone some way to rolling back his position above. He's heading in the right direction already, the only thing a 24-hour block would achieve would be to fan the flames. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can you tell me with a straight face that you would be making an argument against sanctions on some two-month noob with a thousand edits on the basis that, while they hadn't stopped violating the policy, and they hadn't even said they would stop violating it in the future, they had "already gone some way to" considering thinking about contemplating not violating it? jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually yes, I think I probably can say that with a straight face. Further up this page, there is a section called Ekdalian. A three-month noob with 70 edits was throwing around some personal attacks up there - they concerned malicious intent rather than idiocy, but they were still personal attacks. I told them that there comments weren't appropriate (as I have done with ATG), and I waited to see whether they stopped. A couple of days later, when the dust had settled and the heat had died down a bit, they apologised. I don't know whether they'll turn into a productive member of the community or not, but we live in hope. Sometimes blocking someone who is angry and doesn't want to back down is necessary, but sometimes it's just fanning the flames.

  Now, since I've answered your question, will you answer me this: what will a 24-hour block achieve here? ATG is not on some personal attack spree where we need to intervene urgently but temporarily. He is not unfamiliar with our policies regarding civility. His block log is so long that it doesn't fit in the little pop-up window one of those clever scripts gives me - I actually have to scroll down to find his first block - so he is not unaware that blocks are a thing (although to his credit, none of them are within the last decade). So what actual purpose is served by imposing a 24-hour block? Surely it's an indef until he convinces us he won't do it again, or (and this is the option I prefer) it's talking, and working through disagreements, and trying to talk a valued contibutor down from a position they took when they were angry about something? Girth Summit _(blether) 22:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  For starters, at the next AN/I thread nobody would be able to say "to his credit none of them are within the last decade". jp×g🗯️ 22:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I can't argue with that if you genuinely think it's going to benefit the project. If that's the only benefit you see, would it help if I promised not to bring it up again? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  ATG is not on some personal attack spree ... I beg to differ, unfortunately. Off the top of my head: April 26 This is what is known as editorial judgement. Some of us clearly have it, and understand its purpose, even if you don't...; May 6: And while you are at it, read the fucking article [...] It isn't that difficult to understand, if you actually take the time to learn something new.; May 9: As for Wankel-nuts, trying to argue with a cult is pointless...; May 12: Are the idiots who run DYK under the mistaken impression that [[WP{BLP]] doesn't apply there? This is too much. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  A long time ago Levivich, I remember you telling me that you thought opprobrium was more useful than blocks. That vibed with me, and it's what I've been trying to apply here. I was not aware of all of the diffs you've posted above, so forgive me if I've been speaking about a specific instance when there is more to the story. But it brings me back to the question I asked jpxg: what purpose would a 24-hour block serve here, when the diffs you present go back to April? If this is habitual, surely an indef is needed until such time as an undertaking to knock it off is given? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: I still believe that, and I'd support a warning proposal or just some "not cool" feedback in this instance. I'm not sure if other editors would agree though, there is a case to be made that we've already tried the opprobrium and it hasn't worked. Right now the options are 24hr block or civility restriction, and given the choice I think the former is better. What I oppose is doing nothing, which would be excusing it. An indef seems harsh but frankly I'd support that over excusing it. Note of the four examples from the last 3 weeks, two are understandable and directed at obvious bad faith editing, the other two are directed at good faith editors and totally unjustified. He can't just keep going on being rude to everyone indiscriminately. The first was ignored, the two in the middle (from the thread above) were excused, but this time we should draw a line. I'd support anything that would get Andy to rein it in and hold his fire, and clean up his messes when he misfires (as he has done here). If all of us saying "not cool" does it, then great. But if that doesn't work, maybe a short block would, which would be better than an indef (well save time by not having to process an unblock request). Really, whatever works. Levivich (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  AndyTheGrump - please read the above. I appreciate your contributions. But really, the attitude you project sometimes isn't OK. This thread is almost entirely about you rather than the issue you raised because of the way you presented it. You'd probably get more positive outcomes, and create a lot less needless and unconstructive drama, if you would just cut the pointless hostility and insulting language out of our posts. By all means type them out if you want - I know I do that sometimes - but then I have a cup of tea, calm myself, and delete all the stuff that I know perfectly well is not permissible. It would probably also help if you were willing to say something along the lines that you will knock this kind of thing off in future. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Excellent advice, Girth Summit. I often do this too. We are all human and we let our emotions out sometimes. It is quite healthy to do so but is not appropriate at all venues, especially a place that requires civil collaboration to function effectively. In this case, both sides can be right while simultaneously being wrong. The one difference is the civility aspect and it really is shameful that Andy has now garnered more attention than the appropriateness of the DYK hook. --ARoseWolf 11:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. It's not like this is the first time with Andy. Here's the same pattern two years ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#User:AndyTheGrump. He was "warned" then, and he didn't take it to heart. Here's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#User:AndyTheGrump from later in 2022. I don't think finding others would be difficult. It's not punitive to block someone for a pattern of incivility where they've been warned and haven't changed course. Mackensen (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose would do nothing—Andy doesn't care, and he'd be back at it in two days. Something WP:PREVENTative seems much preferable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, I wish I had this kind of WP street cred. A while ago I was threatened with a block if I did not immediately strike a PA, the gist of which was me saying that Levivich was ax grinding. It was either Girth Summit or Evergreen Fir, I can't remember which admin now. So I edit in a different Wikipedia where I have to follow policies or I get blocked. Imagine if I started a thread calling editors idiots? Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It is an interesting thought experiment—if I described probably a couple of dozen editors as a clickbait farm full of idiots with blatant disregard for basic human dignity and common sense, what would be proposed? I've rewritten a fair few articles, so maybe I'd get the "net positive" designation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Holy crap Lightburst, are we really going to do this? Do you want to dig out the diffs of that 'threat', and have us all scouring around our contributions history from years ago to work out the context under which you were told that, and then compare it against this current situation? I do not want you to be blocked - I didn't then, and I don't now. I do not want AndyTheGrump to be blocked. You are both productive, hard-working contributors. I want all of us to do our best get along without (a) insulting each other, or (b) the moment we see someone else do something stupid because they're angry, calling for them to be blocked. You and I have shared enough talk-page time and emails for me to have thought that you wouldn't cast something out like this willynilly, with the obvious insinuation that I'm being biased, but maybe I was wrong about that. What the hell, take a free shot now: call me an asshole, an idiot, whatever, I won't call for you to be blocked, and I'll unblock you if anyone else does it. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry GS. Was not about you so much as the double standard that JPxG mentioned above. Thanks for noticing my contributions and have great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries - I was probably being a bit touchy. The offer stands though. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral – but I do look forward to seeing everyone making the "he's learned his lesson!" argument back here next time :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support, and yeah, a 24hr block might not prevent anything, so I'd support an indef until Andy says he won't do it again. Of course if that's seen as too harsh, then fine, 24hr. Mostly, though, not cool, Andy. Valereee shouldn't have to put up with being called an idiot because you don't like a DYK hook. Name calling is immature behavior; no editor should have to put up with being called names because another editor is upset about a DYK hook. I'm tired of "the Grump" schtick. A DYK hook being a BLP vio does not justify calling people idiots. It's not righteous outrage, it's a tantrum. Interact like a reasonably polite adult or get off the website. You lose your cool? Apologize, or strike, or get off the website. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't tell editors to "get off the website". Thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why not? If somebody can't participate here without calling people they disagree with names, habitually, and refusing to do anything meaningful to retract it (because we all lose our cool sometimes), why can't I express that I think they should not be allowed to participate here? Because I don't want to share this website with people who are habitually very rude, and I don't think I should have to tolerate it, nor should anyone else. Levivich (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Because he can (of course that doesn't mean you can't, was just my request, continue doing as you see fit). Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know he can, which is why I'm saying either do, or go. Levivich (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support It's not just this incident. Has anyone else here read User:AndyTheGrump lately? More calling Wikipedians "idiots". If ATG doesn't strike that voluntarily, I don't see any backtracking. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• a 24 hour block is too short to matter one way or another, it’s just stupid.Jacona (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose if this is an habitual offense then a 24 hour block won't suddenly charge their view and threads like this will just pop up in the future. I suggest indef block instead. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support. I was leaning towards opposing here, on pragmatic grounds already raised by Girth Summit and others above--particularly with regard to the question of what a 24 hour block is likely to accomplish that previous blocks have not. Well, there is one thing that I can think of: a block going into Andy's log would actually have a pretty significant pragmatic effect, especially as the notation would be likely to include a link to this discussion. This would flag for the next group of editors forced to grapple with this behaviour (and unfortunately, as things stand now with Andy's responses here so far, I am inclined to expect there is likely to be a next occasion), that there was behaviour felt worthy of a sanction as recent as now and that Andy received unambiguous feedback from the community that this behaviour needs to change, or that a longer term block would be warranted. Looking just at comments and discussions raised by others in this tread alone, it's pretty clear that there has been a non-trivial amount of such warnings from the community already in recent years. At some point, the kid gloves have got to come off here.
  As such, I'd say this is the minimal amount of formal community action necessary to try to drive the point to Andy or, if it should prove insufficient to accomplish said warning, at least memorialize the fact that the community has made clear the baseline level of respect for CIV that it expects from him. In truth, I'd say something between the proposed sanction and an indef (say a couple of weeks off) would have been more pragmatic, but I'd agree that the most important thing is that there is some sort of concrete community response. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - if an editor has a history of violating a core policy and other measures have not stopped them from doing so, then they should be blocked. If there is agreement that the proposed length is not enough to prevent them from violating the policy in the future, the block should be lengthened to a period that has a reasonable chance of deterring future violations. Hatman31 (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Andy can learn. After he came here for calling people retards[[23]], he has stopped doing that. I'm sure this will be a similar learning experience. Cigarettes are Safe (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Cigarettes are Safe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Two-day-old account with twelve edits who clearly remembers user talk page drama from 2022. Many such cases - SAD! jp×g🗯️ 04:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Confirmed sock. Striking. –dlthewave ☎ 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked as suspected sock, not confirmed, and the supposed original (who got 1 week block) never commented here. Not that people were putting much stock on this vote anyways.

  – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:29D0:A5B4:8E85:AAD8 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Girth Summit - can we just let this die now that the hook has rotated off the Main Page rather than escalating it further please?. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support as a regular at BLP/N and a self-described BLP hawk I share Andy's concerns about editor's frequent disregard for BLP. However I also find their approach often does more harm than good. I'm not saying I'm better but this anyone is free to propose a sanction on me if they feel it's justified; and there are regulars at BLPN who I feel have a far better and more productive approach to BLP issues. All this is to say that I think Andy needs to change how their approach things no matter if they may often be right about BLP issues. And having seen their pattern for a long time, I'm unconvinced that this ANI is by itself enough to achieve that whatever Andy has said above. I'm not convinced a 1 day block will do that much, but at the very least as with all blocks where we have good reason like we have here, to think the editor's behaviour may reoccur at any time, it will protect wikipedia for 1 day. And given that there are often genuine BLP issues behind Andy's concerns, it's fairly unlikely we'll get consensus for anything more in the short term. So I don't see any harm in starting small in a typical escalating blocks fashion, hoping the editor changes before we end up needing to protect Wikipedia the other way. Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Since my comment was already long I didn't add this but in light of some other comments I think it's important to add. I have no comment if there was a BLP issue here. It's unclear enough that we need more community discussion. But given the current trajectory of everything, I'm somewhat doubt that that community discussion is likely to happen. As I said, I'm a BLP hawk but I have zero desire to discuss this in part because to my mind, Andy has destroyed the hope for fruitful discussion and frankly I probably couldn't be fair in such a discussion since I fear any feeling I have over what's right here might be overwhelmed by two combined emotions. One is my dislike for the subject, which I can often put aside by itself. But two is that my gut reaction to want to oppose it given the ridiculous way Andy approached this. And this sort of highly counterproductive approach is hardly unusual either. In fact over a month ago there was Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses. I commented very early at BLPN on the issue. By the time I saw it again a few days later, it had blown up completely in an extremely nasty way. I watched it from afar and saw the WT:BLP thread but intentionally stayed away because the actions of people both on wiki and off wiki meant I didn't want to touch it with a ten foot barge pole. Andy was one of those on wiki, not the only one but definitely one of them. I wasn't surprised to that discussion died without any real result given all that happened, I was actually expecting it given how pearshaped it had all gone from very early on. I'm fairly sure there are other times I've seen where what a discussion has IMO been significantly harmed by Andy's participation even when Andy might have been at least partly right IMO. Civility is important not just because it's policy but because when editors behave atrociously as Andy often does, they can significantly harm any chances of fruitful discussion and achieving the outcome that Andy desires which often may be better for Wikipedia. You cannot blame others for behaving like many humans do and being turned off by what Andy says, even those like me who might often agree with their general point. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support – making your grumpiness a textual part of your personality doesn't give you carte blanche to irritate others with it. With the possibility of hyperbole admitted, we simply do not need AndyTheGrump as much as he's stated we do if he's to be this grumpy. (I stated this before, then self-RVed, and I'm putting it back, full disclosure.) Remsense诉 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (Originally posted misplaced) DYK remains a walled garden. The question here is literally whether civility trumps our biography policy. The answer of course is... it doesn't. BLP isn't just a convenient method of maintaining another of our pillars—neutrality—it's the fecking thing that keeps us out of court. That's literally why we have it. Whether there's actually a BLP violation is, perhaps, a matter of debate; but whether it trumps CIV... is not. ——Serial Number 54129 10:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Serial you seem to be rewriting history. You favored a very negative hook, and agreed with Theleekycauldron who is in that thread saying it would be undue to have a neutral hook. You even had an edit summary saying F Tate. The record here is pretty clear and now you are critical? Leeky was very clear on the fact that they wanted a anti-Tate hook. Honestly there is a whole list of editors and admins who called for negative hooks, but they are not rewriting history here so I am not calling them out. Leeky is the resident DYK expert so there is that... But let's not forget that you wanted to trash the guy. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"The question here is literally whether civility trumps our biography policy."

I'm sorry Serial, but no, the question being presented here is not that, or anything remotely like it. The notion that we have to choose between applying WP:BLP (or any other content policy) on the one hand, and restraining Andy (or any other community member behaving uncivilly in a given instance), on the other, is (forgive my bluntness) very obviously the most ridiculous and grandiose of false choices. Andy is hardly the only voice arguing for a strict application of BLP, nor anywhere near its ideal advocate. For that matter, he's not the only editor who felt as he did about the specific issue here (I'd guess that there are a significant number of us here who do).

But Andy's approach to handling these situations is not just suboptimal: it's counter-conducive and disruptive. Calling people idiots (besides being an unambiguous breach of policy) at best causes a distraction away from movement on the important content issue, and, worse, typically will only entrench positions and lower the effectiveness of the arguments for the position one is arguing for. In short, when Andy behaves like this, he becomes a liability for the very approach he supports. So even when he has the right end of the stick, policy-wise, he's still generating heat, not light, when he lobs these PAs. Levivich quite hit the nail on the head when they said that the behavior being discussed here does not constitute "righteous outrage, but rather tantrums", and tantrums do not win community discussions. At least, typically and ideally they don't.

Also, I think it's beside the point, per the false choice identified above, but even if we did accept the nonsensical argument that WP:CIV and WP:BLP are at least partly mutually exclusive, your argument would still fail to pass muster under community consensus: WP:CIV is a WP:5P and WP:BLP is not. BLP is a critically important set of principles for constraining our content, but the most well-considered content policies in the world are useless to us if we can't maintain an atmosphere in which they can be reliably applied without the most onerous of behaviors and instincts derailingthe process of consensus. And that's the function that WP:CIV, arguably above all other behavioural policies, comes to serve. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There are none so blind as those that will not see. Your argument is purely ideological, wordy, but empty with it. (See how civil that was?) Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, my concerns are foregrounded in the actual pragmatics of why this community proscribes the behaviours in question. I'd argue that the position that one should be permitted to lash out in anger, just so long as they believe they are fighting the good fight and are on the right side of a given content issue, as you see it, is far more "ideological" in nature than someone pointing out that this kind of behaviour is actually a pretty abysmal method of convincing the community of anything, and actually almost always self-defeating. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It saddens me a bit that we sometimes get to a point where we feel these two concepts are mutually exclusive. That's not a dig, I genuinely do wish some things were working a little better for everyone. Remsense诉 12:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Serial, I'm very confused what you're saying here. Are you saying if someone comes to ANI and says "fucking grooming paedos, have turned the J. K. Rowling article into a string of insane libel, accusing her of transphobia and other stuff that is highly inaccurate and offensive" this is completely fine if the editor genuine believes this and is concerned about BLP? Because this could easily happen, it doesn't take much experience to know plenty of people genuinely believe that. But you and I know this is likely to result in a quick block and I suspect you'd agree with that block. So you seem to agree being genuinely concerned about BLP does not mean you're allowed any and all uncivil language. So why do you suggest a block for civility violations means civility trumps BLP when you agree it's not even clear that there was a BLP violation, and I'm assuming you also agree it was totally unnecessary for Andy to say what they said even if there was one. Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's much argument that JKR's social media is indeed a continuous stream of transphobia these days, the only issue would be finding a reliable source that actually backed that up ... and given how litigious and wealthy she is ... Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose as unlikely to fix anything, although the oppose would be much stronger if ATG would simply have said something like, "You're right, I shouldn't have called people idiots, apologies, I'll strike that, but can we talk about the issue?" For the record, from a personal standpoint in general I find it pretty funny when someone can't actually come up with an argument and has to resort to insulting me instead. from this day forth, I'll use you for my mirth, yea, for my laughter, When you are waspish. :D

AndyTheGrump, I get it. You think DYK should just go away, and you certainly aren't alone in that. But when you come into a noticeboard with a personal attack in the actual section head and then keep using that same language over and over, of course you're going to end up with people focussing on your behavior instead of your point. That's one of the reasons we try to get people to avoid making personal attacks: they're completely counterproductive. Which is exactly what happened here. If what you really want is to fix DYK, this was a counterproductive way to get that started. I think what you actually wanted here, and still seem to want, is just to vent your spleen. FTR, I would actually have no problem with getting all BLPs -- along with all currently available commercial products -- off of DYK. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support longer block - Having been on the receiving end of Andy's grumpiness in the past, I am surprised that this hasn't happened sooner. My last ANI discussion about Andy's incivility almost boomeranged back at me, which seems to be a common outcome that I would not mind if anything had been done about his incivility anyway. I don't hold grudges, and Andy has proven to be a highly respectable contributor to WP:WikiProject Aviation. However, incivility and personal attacks targeted at problematic editors are still a violation of policy, and Andy has shown no improvement in his behavior since my last interaction with him. I would be happy to work with Andy if he does agree to act with civility, but I unfortunately have little hope that he will improve even after a 24 hour block. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The link is broken, the discussion was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Personal_attacks_Uncivil_behavior_from_AndyTheGrump. You were the one at fault in that altercation. You were presenting fringe aviation history claims as fact, as well as being uncivil yourself. This is just sad axe grinding by someone with a grudge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Which is ironic given that they claim not to hold grudges. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia I don’t appreciate your assumption of bad faith, and I feel the need to point out that I in no way endorse any fringe claims that I had defended before I knew the whole story (I’m not proud of it, it’s practically treason for a native North Carolinian to claim that anyone but the Wright Brothers were the first to fly). As I stated in my argument, Andy is a respectable editor who happens to have an issue with incivility. I do not hold grudges with any editor, but I do recognize when they have behavior problems that persist for many years without any sign of improvement. I will politely ask that you retract your accusation that I am acting on some sort of grudge. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Andy is a great contributor who does great work at enforcing BLP policy. Even though I don't necessarily agree with Andy's take here, BLP should apply equally to everyone, even people who are widely despised, and people shouldn't be penalised for going into bat for terrible people purely on principle. I don't think the remarks in the discussion warrant a block, given that he has walked them back. DYK often does not properly factcheck the DYK hooks or sensitive to BLP concerns, and this is a genuine problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: he has walked them back what are you referring to? Levivich (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  That would be If it makes people happy though, I'll accept that it was contrary to WP:CIVIL to refer to the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, in the manner I did., it's maybe a halfway walking back, but its its still some contrition. I don't really want to get into a back and forth about whether this comment was contrite enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's the absolute bare minimum, but also simply not good enough. "If it gets you off my back I'll acknowledge a breach. But I won't retract it, say sorry, or promise not to do it again!" GiantSnowman 20:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemi: I suppose it's not putting words in your mouth to say that the comment was contrite enough for you to oppose this proposal. Personally, I would not use the words "contrition" or "walking back" to describe that comment -- walking back, to me, would be saying "those people are not idiots," and contrition would be "I'm sorry for saying that." But I appreciate you pointing me to the specific comment; I am also not interested in arguing the point, just in making sure I didn't miss anything that I might feel was "walking back." (I'm not looking for contrition at all, FTR.) Levivich (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. Though being right isn't enough, any such block at this point would be purely punitive. It's off the main page; we can drop the stick and move on. His apology left something to be desired which is why this oppose has a qualifier. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm curious what the distribution of (bytes of text)/(length of potential block) ratios are at AN/ANI. I feel like it might be an inverse relationship, though that might be a recency bias. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia doesn't have a place for this but it should. Which is a finding and advice. The finding is that Andy, you are being too grumpy and uncivil too often (including this time). You should change that. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think a block at this point will be useful, but hope that ATG takes away from this that shooting from the hip at ANI by attacking an entire group of editors, without researching to see that the nomination had been extensively discussed by those editors beforehand [24] is unlikely to be productive. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose because at this point we're in "though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now" territory. But we're going to be back here soon if something doesn't change. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'm unconvinced that a block now would be anything other than punitive but it would not have been at the time. Even though WP:BLP is our most important policy, it does not extend to never showing a living person in a negative light, especially if the vast majority of reliable sources about them do the same. Indeed, under such circumstances it would be bizarre if we bent over backwards to find a hook that wasn't in some way negative, and therefore not represent the actual article fairly. Yes, probably the best thing would have been not to run a hook about Tate at all, but if we did so I don't think that spotlighting something that came out of the subject's mouth - and they were quite happy to own - is particularly objectionable. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A later quote from Tate, commenting on his earlier “absolutely a misogynist”: “It is very unfortunate that old videos of me, where I was playing a comedic character, have been taken out of context and amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives about me...". [25] Now, we are under absolutely no obligation to take this at face value. It is however in my opinion improper, and a violation of WP:BLP policy, to knowingly present a quotation that has later been retracted as representing the true opinions of an individual. This isn't just 'objectionable', it is dishonest. It remains so regardless of whether we think the first statement or the later retraction more accurately represents reality. This is by far the only issue with the way the Tate DYK came about (see here for what looks like an honest attempt to consider where things may have gone wrong [26]), but it is, in my opinion, deeply problematic, and indicative of what the underlying issue was: the perception by some that DYK is an appropriate medium to express our dislike for Tate. Having failed to come up with any agreement over other alternatives that satisfied this questionable objective, the decision was taken - by just a few of the participants of the long-running debate - to go with a quote they must have known had been retracted.

I am firmly of the opinion that any DYK that quotes a living individual on matters closely related to serious criminal charges (in this example alleged rape, human trafficking and organised crime) the individual is currently facing is improper. Regardless of whether it presents said individual in a positive or a negative light, it of necessity decontextualises, and almost inevitably trivialises, events that need, out of respect for all involved, to be handled by Wikipedia with care, and in a dispassionate manner. That simply isn't possible in DYK-format single-sentence clickbait. That is the stuff of tabloid journalism. We don't need to go there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a few errors in your assessment. Firstly, nothing has been "retracted" as you say. You link to a August 2022 Telegraph article about Tate's social media ban. There's no retraction anywhere. Later in the article, Tate defends his opinion by saying "It is very unfortunate that old videos of me, where I was playing a comedic character, have been taken out of context and amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives about me." If one looks into the full statement and the media coverage from that time, there is no "retraction" of any kind nor apology nor backpedaling. Just the statement that he was playing a comedic character, which is supposed to be a kind of free speech defense, not a retraction of the content. I think this is a very important distinction; a retraction and a free speech defense are not the same thing. In fact, this free speech defense is the opposite of a retraction, as Tate is explicitly defending his right to say misogynistic things as either himself or as his "character" (to date, there is no evidence of any kind of character other than this single press release to oppose his social media ban). Secondly, in case that's not enough evidence that no retraction was ever issued, in 2023, BBC News interviewed Tate, and continues to cast doubt on his "comedian defense", noting Tate's "description does not match the tone in an online video seen by the BBC". Tate also denied several stories that the BBC was easily able to verify and confirm, contrary to Tate's allegations. For the record, in 2024, two years after the Telegraph piece reporting on Tate's press release defense, BBC News continues to report the same story, noting Tate is a "self-proclaimed 'misogynist'".[27] One would think that if any of this had been retracted or was in error, BBC News would not continue to report it. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph reports what Tate said in regard to the YouTuber video where the "absolutely a misogynist" comment came from. He responded to the Telegraph's questions by stating "It is very unfortunate that old videos of me, where I was playing a comedic character, have been taken out of context and amplified to the point where people believe absolutely false narratives about me". That is clear and unambiguous. We don't demand that people use the exact word 'retraction' when they state that an earlier comment was role-playing, and taken out of context. Continuing to use the quote in such circumstances is entirely contrary to core Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter in the slightest what sort of 'defence' we think it is supposed to be. It doesn't matter whether the BBC , or anyone else, think his defence is valid. It is untenable to knowingly use a quote in such circumstances, regardless of what we think of the later statement's validity. And frankly, I'm somewhat dumbfounded that anyone with your experience at Wikipedia could think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We have completely different takes on this subject. To reiterate, the Telegraph is reporting on Tate's free speech defense which he sent out as a press release in response to his social media ban, reframing his comments as that of a "comedic character", "out of context", and amounting to a "false narrative". Nowhere in this press release nor anywhere else in the last several years for that matter, has Tate retracted a single word of anything he has ever said, nor has he backpedaled on anything that he has been accused of in regards to his alleged misogynist claims. The BBC News and other mainstream sources who have repeatedly interviewed Tate and investigated this story since 2022 have consistently upheld the position that Tate continues to be, in their words a "self-proclaimed 'misogynist'" based on his original comments and videos, and nobody has yet been convinced by Tate's claim that he was playing a "comedic character" of any kind, a claim that is usually made in the context of the American legal system as part of a free speech defense, not as a retraction. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So Tate issued a WP:MANDY non-denial denial? Fascinating, and I guess it makes the inclusion arguable. But in the current context, I would say only an idiot would take that at face value. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose On the grounds that this would be clearly punitive, and thus yield very little to the project. I think a more structural solution may be in order here, which is not something the current discussion is very conductive to. That said, I'm very much in favour of a formal warning. I very much expect this incident to come up the next time a WP:CIVIL violation comes up and I suspect the community will be much less lenient in extending more WP:ROPE then. This should also not be understood to be an oppose to a block in general, I would be more likely to support a longer block in this specific instance --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support while remaining supportive of further sanctions. Ideally, a 24 hour break would provide AndyTheGrump with an opportunity to reconsider this long-term pattern of uncivil behavior and resolve to follow Wikipedia policies going forward. That is what would make such a block preventative. I am, however, very mindful of—and I'll admit persuaded by—comments that suspect AndyTheGrump will decline the preventative character of such a block and continue violating Wikipedia policies after such a block. Because of that, I think that AirshipJungleman299's withdrawal of the civility restriction proposal was premature, as I would have also supported that; such restrictions provide parameters for 'another chance' and also provide context for administrators, the community, or ArbCom to more quickly escalate to a stronger sanction. In the (likely) event AndyTheGrump's uncivil behavior continues, I support a longer term block, including an indefinite block.
  By way of comment, I notice that some of the comments seem concerned about the possibility that blocking AndyTheGrump means 'losing a productive editor'. I see it the opposite way. Removing an uncivil editor from Wikipedia is a net gain for the project. We gain a more civil editing environment; we gain the productive editors that the uncivil editor's incivility would drive away from the project; we gain the mental health and happiness that the incivility robbed of editors who fell victim. Civility is not some nice extra we try to add to the project 'when we can'; it is one of the five pillars, and all five are important. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  As pointed out by multiple folks in the section below, civility restrictions are almost useless. We could consider a t-ban from DYK, maybe. I don't know. ATG's complaint has prompted a discussion of the issue at DYK, which I think is valuable. But honestly, the combination of clearly hating the very idea of DYK and inability to remain civil w/re DYK...maybe that really is what's needed? Valereee (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as a 24h block 2 days after the fact is now in punitive territory. Either propose something with some teeth if you feel seriously about PAs, or issue these sort of shorties right at or near the moment to prevent further abuse. Zaathras (talk) 21:34, 14 May 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.

Alternative proposal: place AndyTheGrump under a civility restriction

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.

---

• Support as proposer. When they don't contain insults, Andy's contributions are helpful. When they do, which is rather often, we get a brouhaha like this. A solution that retains the helpful contributions without the constantly-repeating furore is, to my mind, ideal. Seriously, it feels like this happens every month.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose we got a brouhaha here because nobody has yet bothered to close a pointless thread. Civility restrictions are pointless; either block him or let's all find something better to do. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here I would like to represent the institutional memory as regards civility restrictions. They have never been a good idea, both because people's cultural notions of what is civil and what is not vary so wildly, and because they paint a target on the back of the subject of the restriction, and baiting them into incivility tends to become a sport. Historical examples, which will mean something to some oldtimers, are Giano and Malleus Fatuorum. This comic by User:Geogre refers to Giano. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC).
• Oppose. Old-timer checking in here, and Bishonen's right. Civility restrictions are a nice idea in theory and too subjective in practice. Impossible to enforce, and they don't accomplish the actual goal, which is separating out the productive content editor from the person who tests boundaries. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen and Mackensen: did you ever find something that accomplished that goal? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

    Well, you have four possible outcomes: (1) the editor in question takes on board the feedback from the community and changes their behavior, (2) the editor is eventually banned, (3) the editor leaves of their own volition, (4) the editor's level of rudeness continues to be tolerated by the community. The outcomes depend on lot on the individual personalities involved, and the position taken by the community. There's a school of thought that says warnings are either meaningless (because they aren't blocks) or harmful (because they're humiliating). I tend to think warnings are helpful because they make the community's attitude clear before we get to the point where blocks are the only option. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

    So would you warn ATG in this case, Mackensen? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

    I'm in favor of a block, in view of past warnings that went unheeded. I would also support a warning as a lesser measure. It's an opportunity to for people to go on record and say they disagree with someone's behavior. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Civility restrictions never work - what will happen if this is imposed is what always happens - the editor in question gets baited until they react and then gets punished. If you want to ban ATG, at least be honest about it.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose DYK remains a walled garden. The question here is literally whether civility trumps our biography policy. The answer of course is... it doesn't. BLP isn't just a convenient method of maintaining another of our pillars—neutrality—its the fecking thing that keeps us out of court. That's literally why we have it. Whether there's actually a BLP violation is, perhaps, a matter of debate; but whether it trumps CIV... is not. ——Serial Number 54129 22:24, 12 May 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.

Amicus curiae

• I am not very active on DYK, but I wanted to counter Andy’s assertion by making my own observation about the people active on that part of the project. They are, in my opinion, as far from "idiots" as possible. They are some of the best people Wikipedia has to offer, and while we might not all agree at times, as we all come from different backgrounds and experiences, I think they are an incredible group of people who deserve some recognition and respect for the difficult work that they do and the positive things they achieve. Andy, I think your negativity is far, far worse than your incivility. It is said that we only remember the bad things, while the good things people do go unremarked and invisible to others. I hope this section can help change this perspective. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hear hear! GiantSnowman 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well said, @Viriditas. BorgQueen (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. There are a lot of selfless volunteers at DYK who are trying their best. If people think DYK is not doing a sufficiently good job, they can head to Template:Did you know/Queue and check the upcoming DYK hooks for issues (reports of such issues are welcome at WT:DYK). Public incivility at ANI is far less helpful. —Kusma (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  +1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:16, 14 May 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.

Andy being trolled

• Eric the Angry Communicator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See 5 contribs; somebody please mop this up, thank you. Levivich (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Was that targeted at me specifically? I'd be flattered if I gave a (rude word I'd best keep to myself), but honestly I doubt that - just run of the mill stuff, aimed at wherever said troll thought might be effective. Which it clearly wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done All mopped up. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement about blocking of 2601:646:201:57F0::/64

This highly prolific editor has a ... rather unusual editing pattern of refbombing articles and talk pages with tangentially related references and quite often adding messages to talk pages just containing bare links. Both characteristics are demonstrated by the talk page contributions of this IP of theirs and this over-referencing edit to Ivory (soap). After I noticed an edit of theirs on my watchlist, I mass-reverted their edits and discovered this message on their talk page, which I felt indicated a severe attitude problem, so I blocked them for a year. They submitted an unblock request at User talk:2601:646:201:57F0:246:89EB:87C0:F4D4, which Yamla declined and bradv queried (and then reversed the block ... see my response there). If I re-block at this point, this would clearly be wheel-warring, but as I said at the discussion there I honestly don't believe we're dealing with a newbie here and allowing this person to edit would achieve little besides wasting the community's time with edits that are tedious to patrol and check and require much cleanup; for example, in response to this series of edits, I wrote that "I just checked the New York Times source (cited several times); it does not agree with any of the text it was put beside (or when it does, it does so in such a tenuous way as to be useless". Any other opinions on this situation would be appreciated. Also, I'll be in the air for a long time tomorrow so I probably won't be able to respond much between 14:00 (UTC) today and at least 18:00 (UTC) tomorrow. I'll notify all the involved editors (as much as I can for a /64) in due course. Graham87 (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Make that 12:30 (UTC) ... I have an early flight tomorrow. Graham87 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore there's this edit, which shows far-above-average knowledge of Wikipedia for a newbie. Graham87 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would they even be a newbie? Sorry if i missed them saying so somewhere. But how on earth is being able to use square brackets to creat a link any sort of advanced knowldge. There are countless examples of that on every page, signature etc. Just replicate, preview it and... Come on, its square brackets. There is nothing special about being able to do that. 85.16.37.129 (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops, just got this. It's their knowledge of (a) what a redirect is and (b) that they can't create one because they've chosen not to have an account. bradv assumed they were a newcomer, hence the unblock. Graham87 (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok cheers. Isn't that something that is practically the first thing you pick up when editing? In the end it just is so obvious how it works. When i started editing over 10 years ago now, which i overall rarely do i have to say, i always looked for examples of what i wanted to do and simply replicated it. The square brackets are very noticable around everything when in the edit interface. So you fiddle around with it for a minute, when the preview looks fine you will just know how to do it. Not like it is complicated.

I don't even feel like i want to defend the other editor overall. But knowing what redirects are, linking things etc are so simple that they surely should not be used as indicators of advanced skills. At least in my rather worthless opinion. 85.16.37.129 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

They likely tried to make a redirect and got an error message. Wikipedia isn't as complex as what most editors do for their day jobs. The simple markdown used here is also used on lots of websites and platforms. It seems like bad faith to assume anyone who knows about redirects but doesn't have an account is suspicious. Joey Dickinson the Game of Thrones Ultrafan (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A year-long block seems quite excessive for eccentricity and a "bad attitude" (of which I've seen much worse from much more experienced users, and I'm sure I've had worse myself.) I will say however that it's unlikely they will improve based on the edits they've made so far. wound theology◈ 11:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

ref: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/11/movies/robert-altman-sells-studio-for-2.3-million.html

always for altman's studio

https://www.thewrap.com/obit-laugh-ins-henry-gibson-dies-73-7251/

never mentions altman's malibu home 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"redirect" shows up in page displays and search results 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

multiple refs after a person's name (who has no article) specifies who they are: "Lane Sarasohn" The Groove Tube 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

wound Theology: Explain:

• eccentricity
• "bad attitude"

2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of the above. Is this coherent to anyone else? --Yamla (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(this is just what I understood they said, not comments)

I think the first one is responding to the "I just checked the New York Times source [..]" diff, saying that the ref was for the studio and that the other source, which they hid with an HTML comment and Graham reverted in that diff, did not support the Malibu home.

The second one is explaining their intention in asking for a redirect, Graham uses that request to say the IP has "[..]far-above-average knowledge of Wikipedia for a newbie"?

The third one I'm not sure what they are responding to as they have not edited The Groove Tube.

And the fourth one they are asking @Wound theology what they meant with eccentricity and "bad attitude".

--- now for comments:

It is unreasonably challenging to understand what the reported range is saying, I'm not saying they need to be blocked just for that, but they need to improve. It will be impossible to work with them if they don't, because while it's good that they are here discussing instead of continuing, even that is not going to work if we can't understand what they are saying. – 2804:F14:80B2:ED01:4435:1C06:57EF:81CA (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You know, maybe a year-long block isn't as excessive as I thought it was... wound theology◈ 06:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

refers to Robert Altman and The Wilton North Report 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

it seems Graham87 deleted everything I did, even on talk pages. what is that about? I cannot do more than raw urls. nevertheless they are well sourced. 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

statements in initial post are misleading exaggerations with anger at being reverted 2601:646:201:57F0:E42C:A128:7D6:6F73 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to discusss this here. Your opinion about your own edits is irrelevant. The fact that you can't do anything but raw URLS and your communication issues demonstrate a competence problem. I reverted many of your edits because they were problematic; a references section is not a place to dump random tangentially related refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham87 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

I'm concerned that Graham87 doesn't understand the problem with heavy-handed blocks like this, and the damage this sort of admin work does to Wikipedia. After looking at this case I took a quick look at some other recent blocks, and there are some other reasons to be concerned:

• Special:Contribs/2400:ADC5:1A9:7500:0:0:0:0/64 — blocked for 6 months with no warning, no explanation, no block notice, and no advice on how to appeal.
• Special:Contribs/Orbitm8693 — blocked without explanation, with no talk page or email access. The reason given is "block evasion", but no indication of what block they are suspected of evading, nor any way for them to appeal.
• Special:Contribs/Randompandaeatcake — same as above, "block evasion" without explanation nor any means of appealing.
• Special:Contribs/Wondabyne — again, no explanation, no means of appealing as both email and talk page access were revoked. Graham87 initially reported them as a sock of RichardHornsby but the evidence didn't hold up. Yet they remain blocked with no way of appealing that decision.

I haven't had time to dig any deeper yet, but this may require a broader investigation. – bradv 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• It's fairly common to not specify the master of a block evader to deny recognition. It's also very difficult to communicate with a /64 user and editors focused on adding unreferenced content about one particular country are ... not what we want here. I don't believe users who waste the time of other editors should edit here. Re the sock block, I did indeed get the sock wrong on my first go but it was corrected. Graham87 (talk) 18:13/19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's usually done for long-term abuse cases, or in the words of the essay you quoted, "true vandals and trolls". Which LTAs are these? You haven't even specified which blocks they are evading. – bradv 02:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is there not any way for us to note, say, in a revdelled edit which master a sock goes to? This seems like it would be more useful than a total blank. jp×g🗯️ 02:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah it would. I've added links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RichardHornsby in all those cases. Honestly normally I would add such links but for that particular case (both the person I thought it was originally and the actual sockmaster), I didn't think there'd be any point; those who know could use the search feature to find it. Graham87 (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  So you're saying that you blocked Orbitm8693 as a sock of RichardHornsby, but that SPI says the accounts are unrelated. And they have no way of appealing as you revoked email and talk page access, despite any evidence of abuse. Do you see the problem? – bradv 19:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Re Orbitm8693, SPI said there were no technical similarities but obvious behavioral similarities and, per the blocking policy, ""New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked editor in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating". Graham87 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not what happened though. Orbitm8693's edits to 1960 United States presidential election were all about adding Byrd to the infobox, as discussed here (in which multiple people participated). And Orbitm8693's sole other edit was to add a birthdate to Melina Abdullah, which was reverted by you without explanation (a quick Google search shows it's most likely correct, by the way). So I'll ask again, where is the evidence of sockpuppetry? And why do you think it is okay to block them based on this so-called evidence, without any recourse for them to appeal? You've quoted from the blocking policy – have you read the rest of that page? – bradv 19:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at their contribution history, most of their edits consisted of undoing revisions without explanation or discussion (thank you for providing such an explanation). This is not at all normal for a new account and strongly fails the duck test. They seem to have been on the same side as Randompandaeatcake and may well be a meatpuppet of that user, as discussed at the sockpuppet investigations page. I need to be out of here soon and I've only had the chance to skim-read the rest of the blocking policy so far. Graham87 (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Came on this discussion due to a bot report at AIV. Gotta say, I think a long removal is due here. See e.g. the filter hits from May 13 (today). None of these are appropriate per WP:BLP if no other reason. Special:Contributions/2601:646:201:57f0::/64 is in general worth blocking for disruption and/or WP:CIR and the only reason I haven't issued one is because this section exists. Izno (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the IP editor's competence issues, Graham87's understanding of policy - especially his comments about sockpuppetry in this thread - is very concerning. At the very least he needs to stop DUCK blocking suspected sockpuppets and start reporting them to SPI. BoldGnome (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the IP's recent edits too and they're ... interesting, but I thought it'd be better for other people to observe them and act as they see fit. Re sockpuppetry: I'll take the above message on-board; I don't often encounter situations quite like this. Graham87 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is normal and routine for admins to block potential socks based on reports at AIV and places elsewhere than SPI. See also the length of the SPI queue (which is not helped by adding obvious socks) and/or User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive. (I make this comment in the general sense, you may have been trying to be specific about whether Graham should be issuing such blocks.) Izno (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I was being specific about whether Graham should be issuing such blocks. BoldGnome (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User runs citation bot and deletes data

User User:Ecangola is running some bot to improve citation formatting. They are doing in in such a way that is deleting lots of important information from the citations: namely, author, publication date, publisher name. Typically, this user is replacing a "plain text" citation with a "cite web" formatted citation. The intention is okay, but they delete author & date information in many instances.

Several users told the user (in their Talk page) about this problem in early April 2024, but the user has not replied to the complaints. In fact, the user is still deleting information as of yesterday. For a examples & details, see User_talk:Ecangola#Why_delete_author_&_Publication_date_in_article?

I'm not too familiar with the ANI process, but can someone with authority please tell the user to stop deleting important information when they run citation bots? Noleander (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the user's contributions at Special:Contributions/Ecangola, and it looks like all they do is run bots to improve citation formatting. There is nothing wrong with that. They started in 2017, and have been doing it continuously. In 2017, it looks like they were more careful: I don't see any changes from 2017 where they deleted information (author, publication date, publisher) from the citations. I'm not sure when they started getting sloppy, but certainly during 2024 they've been deleting information.

It is very hard to re-add info into formatted citations: one has to track down the original citation, find the data, and re-insert it into the new citation. Noleander (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if they are running a bot, though they are definitely running a script (this is pretty funny: <diff> *don't think ignoring a 'are you a robot' check is proof of being a bot) and WP:ASSISTED has it's own rules. Honestly they have gotten many bot notifications this year and a few complaints, the only one I've seen them respond to was a question about what fmt means in their summary, doesn't seem like they addressed or even communicated with any of the people with concerns in their talk page.

I think we all might like some concrete examples of the problems you're claiming, but so far, from their talk page and some cursory checking, it's looking pretty bad.

– 2804:F14:8093:BD01:94B9:757A:5CC5:C94C (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC) *edited: 20:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that it is script, not a bot. I've never used bots/scripts, so I'm not an expert in the automation side of things. Following are some diffs showing changes that deleted important information about the source/cite. All of these were done within five minutes on a single article; I suppose that similar information deletions frequently happen, based on some comments in the users Talk page.

a) Name of author (of newspaper source) deleted: [28]

b) Name of author deleted: [29]

c) Source of the citation is EPA, ("EPA" deleted) [30]

d) Date of publication deleted: [31]

e) Date of publication deleted: [32]

f) Author name deleted: [33]

g) Name of publisher ("The Guardian") deleted: [34]

Again, the user appears to have good intentions, but needs to be told to NOT DELETE INFORMATION that article-creators labored to find and document. Noleander (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I said I don't know if they are running a bot, not that they aren't. I'm not familiar with where Wikipedia draws the line. – 2804:F1...C5:C94C (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• I will say, I do find it bad that with all the comments on their talk page they have used a User talk page 7 times in their 76,000+ edits, and not on a single occasion used an article talk page or project talk page. 76K+ edits for only ever making 7 talk comments (well 6 since one was just deleting comments) is pretty bad. Canterbury Tail talk 22:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  And none of the talk page edits where in reply to editors raising this same issue again and again over years. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest an article space p-block to mandate engagement with those who have concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether their edits are manually or automated (probable), they are expected to check the results to ensure they are accurate. While many of their edits are improvements, many are not, and communication is required when valid concerns are raised on their talk page. Some more examples of errors:
• changed title
• left author out
• changed title
• changed title and left author out
• changed title and changed dead link to generic url when an archive link was available
• sales ad fails verification
• generic url fails verification appears to be WP:UGC
• self published source
• blog is UGC
• wrong last name
• wrong author name

Let's wait and see if they reply here before proposing any sanctions. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• If they are using a bot, and it isn't a WP:BAG approved bot (and I don't see evidence they approved), then they need to be blocked anyway. There is a reason we restrict bots to approved only. They can screw things up, really fast, which is why unapproved bots aren't allowed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t use a bot. I just click on the "convert" button when offered and trusted the results so far with some manual improvements here and there. The loss of information in the process, such as the name of the publisher, was not intentional. In the future, I will enter more information manually, as the automatic conversion isn't trustworthy, obviously.--Ecangola (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Improving references is always welcomed, but all the automated tools suffer from some amount of flackiness. Just make sure to spend some time after pressing convert to make sure the output is correct, the results are not always to be trusted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ecangola .. you can see from the examples above the kinds of data that is being deleted or changed: author names, publisher, publication date, etc. So if you could focus on doing a visual review to make sure that all the original information is NOT deleted & not changed, that would be much appreciated. Noleander (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will make sure that no information will be lost in the future. --Ecangola (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Question: does anyone who is familiar with the "convert button" know which UI it appears on and what script it calls on the backend? If references are being damaged by part of the mediawiki interface we've got a problem and should figure out who owns the offending codebase. Folly Mox (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: I found it mentioned in Help:VisualEditor#Editing an existing reference when they said they used it - but I don't have that option as an IP(*edit: turns out I can, was just doing it wrong). I am unable to confirm if it's the same thing as Help:VisualEditor#Using Automatic tab, but it sounds like it is (that one says it uses the Citoid service, with a link). – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:29D0:A5B4:8E85:AAD8 (talk) 10:59, *edited 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess I'll go bother the maintainer of mw:Citoid again. Folly Mox (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Bothered, and crossbothered in case it can be fixed in VisualEditor by doing some basic output checking before overwriting existing citations. Folly Mox (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I added my 2 cents to those two pages. I need to try that Convert button myself and see what kind of feedback it provides to the user: does it popup a warning that says "Tool was not able to convert all information from raw citation. Proceed or cancel?"  ? It's hard to believe that the script is deleting information silently. Noleander (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If this UI element is invoking a call to the Citoid library, it's not actually converting the information in the affected manually formatted citations: it's fetching the website at the url provided and running it through a Zotero translator to return a metadata object that it formats into a citation template.

This is precisely the problem we had with ReferenceExpander last year, although that script would process all the references in an article in a single pass rather than one at a time like the VisualEditor convert button appears to do.

When citation generation algorithms have structured metadata supplied by the source webpage, they produce really good results. User:Citation bot fetches structured metadata from Crossref, which is why its error rate is so low. It turns out processing the html of an arbitrary webpage to extract useful metadata is super non-trivial, which is why the Zotero community has grown up to write libraries for individual domains to achieve that.

There's some discussion of this at :mw:Talk:Citoid § Improving citation quality, a thread I opened about a year ago in the wake of the ReferenceExpander debacle, but Citoid has a single maintainer and little to no progress seems to have been made on the problem on their end.

Sadly, string processing on a manually formatted reference would likely lead to better results, with no lost information but increased incidence of misparameterisation. It's unclear why the VisualEditor team chose to incorporate a Citoid library call into this unnecessary cosmetic feature. Maybe someone who knows how to file phab tickets could open one about this problem, because the feature should be disabled or altered to highlight possible information loss and force the user to manually ok each parameter in the generated citation to ensure people are checking closely instead of just trusting that the output is perfect and correct in every case. Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:HiddenFace101

User:HiddenFace101 has made >10k edits while racking up perennial warnings about seemingly indiscriminate additions of their personal opinion to articles. They have made 8 edits to their own talk page, and none of them are responses to editors repeatedly telling them about this. Remsense诉 10:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Not just warnings, blocks too. One for a week, the second, shortly after, for a month. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some kind of action must be taken. This has been going on for too long and there is very little communication coming from them. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well then if they refuse to communicate, they are not participating or rectifying their behaviour. As a result they should be indeffed. Editors like this should be forced to convince the community of their competence and ability to edit in order to regain editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Swarleystinson88

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.

---

How does this user know so much about editing, despite having joined hardly a month ago? He is definitely a sock, I just don't know whose. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Kailash29792, notify the user as you're required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I intentionally used the noping template so he wouldn't abuse me upon finding out about this discussion, the way Padmalakshmisx once did through one of his socks. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

See the note, visible every time you edit here: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Do that, and we can then ask them how they 'know so much'. If they actually do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 How can you be so sure that they're a sock if you haven't even attempted to discuss your concerns with them? Please remember to assume good faith and don't assume you'll only be met with harassment as previous socks have given you (and no, it's not an excuse to fail to notify the editor either); just because a new editor is an expert doesn't always make them a sock. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Because I didn't know who it could be a sock of. Swarleystinson88 shares a similar attitude with Padma, although his English is far better. And he is not the first with a pro-Telugu agenda, linking to Telugu cinema rather than language. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So now you accuse me of being a pro-Telugu. I can say the same to you as well that you are a Pro-Tamil. But it’s not about accusations, you give me a valid point as to why such an important information should be omitted, then I won’t meddle again.

I clearly added only the industry the film was produced in and I didn’t change anything about it being a bilingual. A lot of Telugu films were and still are shot as bilinguals but they are produced by Telugu cinema (Tollywood) just like Baahubali series or KALKI 2898AD.

I gave you two credible sources that stated “Mayabazar” as a “Telugu film” shot in both Telugu and Tamil. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So you are accusing me of being a sock because I tried to add facts and counter your point on Mayabazar (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mayabazar&action=history)? Is this how you shut people up for adding reliable sources by trying to block their account. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(ANI stalker) While precocious editing can be a sign of a sock, it does not mean that the user is definitely a sock. A legitimate newbie could be experienced from editing as an IP editor, being a legitimate alt, editing other wikis, carefully reading policies and guidelines before editing, etc. I don't think there is enough evidence to block here. If more signs arise, a Checkuser could help. QwertyForest (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Learned of this from here) This report has a 10% chance of correct (and utterly unhelpful), and a 90% chance of being a severe violation of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:26, 15 May 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.

193.163.150.131 Vandalism, unconstructive and insults

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

---

IP user vandalising the page and insulting people on the page. Most of their historic edits have been reverted, most likely for being unconstructive. LouisOrr27 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@LouisOrr27, if you are sure of the vandalism. Then take the issue to WP:AIV where its best solved and will be given immediate attention. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: That was a (Non-administrator comment) (template created with {{nacom}}) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:51, 15 May 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-hopping user is causing trivial headaches with an edit-war

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 most recent one is 2600:1700:5003:D800:6C71:5BC1:26B:9AA1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but see also 2600:1700:5003:D800:9851:1695:3F20:5D84 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 2600:1700:5003:D800:88DC:47D2:FE30:50D5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 2600:1700:5003:D800:28D2:E6B0:CDAB:8A80 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This person keeps on arbitrarily changing a color at Saturday Night Live season 50. I thought his initial edit was a mistake or test, so I changed it in a way that I thought would resolve his error, but then it became clear that he is engaged in edit-warring and insists that his color needs to prevail. I bowed out of any further edits, as I am under WP:0RR and cannot revert, but also because this was clearly not going to be productive: he would not respond to posts on his talk, it was not clear what his goal was (hence I originally thought his edit was just a mistake and he didn't understand hex codes). Since then, Jgstokes has reverted and I have posted to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase where Daniel Quinlan suggested that I warn the user and post here prior to escalating. All that said, this is completely stupid edit-warring and the IP only bothered to even try to talk about it once he was told that I was reporting this issue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) See also Lists of Saturday Night Live episodes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The vandalism continued, with the person responsible using multiple accounts now to skirt punishment. Page protection would be appropriate, in my view. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 07:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a short-term (three days to one week) rangeblock and a medium-term (multi-month) page semi-protection is appropriate and what I would like to request. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

koavf, it's unclear to me how your two most recent edits are anything other than reverts to your preferred version. Your first revert replaced the new color with a color that is same color to the previous color. Your second revert replaced the new color with a color that is very similar to the previous color.

2600:1700:5003:D800::/64 and Mcleodaustin have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Jgstokes has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan:, I was not clear on what the user was trying to do: his first edit seemed like a mistake or someone who didn't understand hex codes, so I changed the name to a hex code, which is what I thought he was trying to do. The second edit was trying to change it to a new color that maybe he thought would make sense (and was not the same as the initial one), but when it became clear due to his edit summary that he was only interested in "darkgrey"/"555555", then I stopped editing. I was not trying to revert/undo/etc., but just try to fix what I thought was an error. If you think this is a violation of my 0RR, I hope you can accept that this was an incidental and accidental one and not a strategy. As I noted above, I will not edit war and am disallowed from doing so--even in cases of unambiguous vandalism, I have not undone any edits since my 0RR and when I have sought clarity about what constitutes any kind of revert/undo/etc. Note that some kinds of accidental reverts were discussed during the discussion that placed my restrictions on my editing and I have tried to never even accidentally end up undoing anyone else's edits and sometimes have self-reverted when I thought it could be interpreted as reverting. Again, if you are interpreting the inclusion of different hex codes as a revert, I will self-revert on that page and allow the discussion process to play out. My revert restrictions are serious and I do not want to in any way contradict them and have sought discussion, escalation, requested edits, etc. in all cases that I would have otherwise used undo or direct or sneak reverts. In good faith, I'll undo for now and I hope that you can see that I'm abiding by my editing restrictions.Well, actually that would directly undo someone else's edits, so I think more editing would not be constructive. Again, please give guidance if you think this is an issue, as I am very serious about not engaging with edit-warring or reverting in any way. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan: E.g. is this a revert? An article was tagged as an orphan, I linked it so it is now no longer an orphan and consequently removed the template. Again, I want to be very conservative about abiding by these restrictions as the community was very clear that edit-warring on my part is completely unacceptable, so I have not used any direct method to undo anyone's edits at all and want to only progress articles toward new consensus versions and not remove whatever someone else has tried to add to an article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would consider that a revert. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well please do let me know if any of my edits look like they are in the realm of contradicting my editing restrictions: I am very serious about trying to abide by the community wishes and I want to continue to be a productive member that proves that he can avoid edit-warring in all respects to regain community trust some day and maybe get to a 1RR in a year or so and no editing restrictions in a few years. Thanks for your feedback. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

All I can say is that those two edits on Saturday Night Live season 50 look like reverts to me, especially considering that it's not just one edit, both lack an edit summary, and it's the color you added that you're trying to restore. Anyhow, at this point, I would recommend leaving the color alone. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Honestly, I will just try to not remove anything or change any existing content and just only add things at this point. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This user has now made the account Mcleodaustin. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think until/unless there is an issue again, this is resolved and no protection is necessary at the moment. Anyone who disagrees, please remove the below template. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the resolved template, I think it was added a little too hastily here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:50, 15 May 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 Rishi_vim making disruptive edits and not stopping after multiple notices

Looking at the contribution, it's clear the user is making bad faith edits in a particular article. All their edits have been reverted but they continue to make same edits. Reason for their last edit is "Trueth by God".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rishi_vim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenm v2 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Rishi vim is an SPA entirely focused on whitewashing the article Rampal (spiritual leader) by removing mentions of the subject's murder conviction & status as a cult leader from the article's lede. They've been warned and reverted multiple times over the last month, and have no edits outside this article. Suggest they be blocked from the article, so we can see if they'll contribute positively elsewhere, or just leave. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, as noted, there are attempts to move a detail of the murder convention, wipe the crime, edit-war to add an honorific, and one edit that was just a random sentence of praise for Rampal. From a look around the internet, this type of thing seems to be common among his followers, though it peaked several years ago. P-block is a good start, but I'm admittedly not optimistic about this editor contributing elsewhere. All the vandalism was extremely poorly written. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed. Nothing productive can come from this account. Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I keep this article on my watchlist because every few months someone comes along to wipe the mention of his conviction & status as a cult leader. Any additional eyes would be welcome. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

90.211.17.224

90.211.17.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - repeatedly warned, and previously blocked, for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs. They have returned and carried on. A longer block merited? GiantSnowman 17:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Jackpack38 (talk · contribs) WP:NOTHERE

It appears this account (talk page) is used solely for communication of two schoolfriends. I [User talk:Jackpack38: Difference between revisions did tell them that wp is not for socializing]], but probably I was not clear enough. - Altenmann >talk 17:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Izno (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple rule breaking edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I don't see any reason for this to stay at ANI. I doubt any Administrator would block any of the participants and if there is a real editwarring issue, which I don't see, that can be taken to the appropriate board. This discussion is basically about original research/synth and this is definitely not the right place to discuss that. It needs to be taken to WP:NORN but please try to keep the discussion only about the use of sources, not other editors. That won't help and sours discussion. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

---

I have removed content from Siege_of_Güns that was unsourced. The claim, given within the page's infobox, gave an estimate for one side's force strength at a particular battle. This number is not mentioned in any of the source that were linked which is why I removed them.

User user:OrionNimrod has broken multiple editing rules in response. First, these sources which do not substantiate the listed claim, and have been continually re-added. I made sure to create a talk page heading in case anyone was able to find new information in regards to this claim, but the same user didn't seem very interested in engaging with the talk page and would simply re-add the sources. Again, these sources do not contain the information claimed.

Finally, after refusing to engage with the statement that the removed sources do not make the listed claim (which I continually asked them to address on the Talk Page) user:OrionNimrod proceeded to engage in WP:OR by using other sources (which were never ones that I'd removed anyway) that also do not make the listed claim, to speculate about figures. Whatever one speculates, reasonable or not, about a certain force strength based on a given number at some other time and place constitutes original research, as this fact is not stated by those authors and is entirely an assumption on the part of the editor.

This user also stated "the story is well known" as an revision explanation, which does not constitute a source, and also stated "you arbitrary misunderstand the sources because you dont like the numbers" which is both insulting and indicates their re-adding of the sources is strongly biased. (Lostsandwich (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC))

Hello, Lostsandwich,

Do you have any diffs to demonstrate these improper edits? It's important to provide evidence when you bring a complaint to ANI. You also posted a notice on their user talk page about a discussion about them on WP:ANEW but I don't see you started a discussion on that noticeboard. Maybe you could remove that message if you didn't follow through on that claim as it would otherwise be confusing to the editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Liz

These are the diffs where the current edit (my own, with the source material removed) is reverted to re-add the material (which does not contain the information):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1222668863

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220849001

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220709871

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_G%C3%BCns&oldid=1220511172

All 3 sources are easily accessible, but I'll past the most relevant areas to make it easier.

From the linked source: Conflict and conquest in the Islamic world : a historical encyclopedia, pp 151

"But Suleiman returned in 1532 when he led some 200,000 men from Constantinople at the end of April."

Which you'll notice, doesn't address this specific battle- but only the total force at the beginning of the campaign.

The linked source: "The Ottoman Empire, 1326-1699" pp 49-51 states:

"Suleiman the Magnificent launched his Vienna campaign on 10 May 1529 and reached Osijek on 6 August with an army of perhaps 120,000 men."

Which of course is 3 years prior to this battle, though it does mention the following on page 51:

"Suleiman was back in Hungary in 1532 for a second try at Vienna with an even larger army than he had brought with him in 1529"

Which is again, not an estimate for the size of forces at this particular battle.

The third linked source: The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe pp 59-60 doesn't give a numerical estimate anywhere and only mentions this particular battle in passing:

"In 1532, Suleiman attacked again, but by a different route. This time the Ottoman army began its march earlier, and, instead of heading north towards Buda, marched westward towards the uplands and the towns south of Vienna. En route the army had briefly invested and captured seventeen fortified towns or castles. On 5 August it arrived before the small town of Köszeg (Güns), south of Sopron and only a few miles from the Austrian border. The castle at Köszeg was an insubstantial obstacle and many stronger places had yielded without a fight."

That's why I've removed those sources, the simply do not state what the data in the infobox claimed. The editor in the talk page continually refused to address this point and then used a considerable amount of speculation, which I believe meets the criteria for original research to not only leave up the numerical figure, but also the linked sources.

As for the edit warring notice, I must have pasted the wrong notification template on the page. Will editing it to point to WP:ANI suffice or does it need to be added anew for purposes of tracking?

Lostsandwich (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the article Siege of Güns marked as good article since 2012, those Ottoman army numbers were there for 12 years long already, and Lostsandwich suddenly appeared and started an edit war, many reverts to remove arbitrary the numbers, and remove many academic historian sources. Me and Kansas Bear were involved in the talk page, where we provided many academic historian sources which confirmed those numbers: Talk:Siege of Güns#Ottoman force composition strength, even I provided several additional non cited historian sources which confirmed the same, even campaign map. We think with Kansas Bear that the sources and numbers are valid but Lostsandwich still deny everything as you can see on the talk page, as he want to remove the Ottoman army number at any cost from the article.

I do not know if I would break any rules if I restored 4 times (within 2 weeks period) the removed content and talked in the talk page about this. Morover other users also did the same as I did, so Lostsandwich did more reverts than anybody else.

Unfortunatelly we can see this tendency in Ottoman battle articles, that many users (mostly new users) are obsessed to minimze the Ottoman army, Ottoman losses and maximize the enemy army and losses and claim Ottoman victory where it was Ottoman defeat.

Lostsandwich started to do the same in other Ottoman articles: [35] OrionNimrod (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think this sounds pretty good. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The DRN isn't going to touch any dispute from these two until the behavioural issues (if any) are addressed here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the article Siege of Güns marked as good article since 2012, those Ottoman army numbers were there for 12 years long already,

The length of time an article exists is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you're making excuses or continuing to talk past the point, which is the linked sources not saying what the infobox claims.

many reverts to remove arbitrary the numbers, and remove many academic historian sources

They were removed for a reason, which was noted in every edit and in the talk page. The reason is that sources do not state what the infobox indicated. Making things up entirely is pretty strongly against what wikipedia is all about.

Me and Kansas Bear were involved in the talk page, where we provided many academic historian sources which confirmed those numbers:

The additional sources do not claim what the infobox does. You interpreted it as such, and this, are conducting Original Research. Similarly, "additional sources" were not removed by me. This was noted time and time again, and you continued to talk past this.

We think with Kansas Bear that the sources and numbers are valid but Lostsandwich still deny everything as you can see on the talk page, as he want to remove the Ottoman army number at any cost from the article.

For the purpose of this noticeboard, I even pasted the relevant areas of the linked sources (which I removed), they do not state what the infobox did.

I do not know if I would break any rules if I restored 4 times (within 2 weeks period) the removed content and talked in the talk page about this. Morover other users also did the same as I did, so Lostsandwich did more reverts than anybody else.

Using sources that do not make the claim that is being cited, and conducting original research very much are against wiki's editing policy.

Unfortunatelly we can see this tendency in Ottoman battle articles, that many users (mostly new users) are obsessed to minimze the Ottoman army, Ottoman losses and maximize the enemy army and losses and claim Ottoman victory where it was Ottoman defeat.

Your bias is affecting your ability to edit articles. Whatever historiography you believe is occurring is also irrelevant as wikipedia policy requires that claims match the cited sources, which the ones I have removed did not.

Lostsandwich started to do the same in other Ottoman articles:

You should probably review your own bias before making accusations. My removal of material was in concert with wikipedia's policies. The ironic part is that in the past I was in agreement with you over an article using inflated numbers.

Notice as well that two more users have agreed that the removed material does not make the claim that the infobox did, and also generally agree that interpreting total-force estimations at the start of the campaign as being one and the same as that at this battle constitutes original research. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely merit to this. I read through this post, Talk:Siege of Güns#Ottoman force composition strength, and the sources mentioned, and I see no reason to keep restoring this version. The 3 sources for "100,000–120,000" simply don't verify the content. It doesn't matter if one or all of them were used when the article passed its GA review, because they don't actually verify the content. At the Talk page discussion, OrionNimrod found some entirely new (and possibly reliable) sources that give more estimates: "bulk of the army" (Banlaky) and "at least a hundred times superior force" (Rubicon). But then Kansas Bear and OrionNimrod discuss how to synthesize the original 3 sources with "bulk of the army" and "at least a hundred times superior force" to arrive at a brand new set of unsourced numbers. OrionNimrod, you've had 7.4k edits over almost 3 years. Kansas Bear, you're at 47k edits ove 17 years! Both of you should know you can't do this. If Banlaky or Rubicon are found to be reliable sources, then we should cite them instead. But we can't just multiple estimate A by estimate C and estimate B by estimate D and arrive at numbers that feel right. Woodroar (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was about to say. Lostsandwich definitely does have a strong rationale when it comes to disproving the sources provided. Reading through the entire thread was a hassle, but I know that the sources provided by the two do not directly mention a Siege of Güns, instead an army by Suleiman sent from Constantinople that could diverge, get lost in battles, retreat, split up, ect. "At least a hundred times superior force", even if this could be useful evidence, note how it says at least: it could be much more. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I usually like and I suggested here also to separate the estimations by sources, so we know that more historians have more views, this is quite common that historian A estimate 10K army and historian B estimate 50K army regarding medieval battles.

The Ottoman army started its campaing from Istanbul against Vienna, (we can see the different historical estimations from that starting army), and Kőszeg was on the route to Vienna, that is why the city was besieged under the leadership of Suleiman the Magnificent. Of course it was raiding units for more directions (only light cavalry units), but I think this is the speculation to claim that not the main army led by the Sultan himself was not at the siege but just a small part, and those historian sources mention the campaign and starting army regarding siege of Kőszeg. It is not true claiming the number of army is unknow, that is why we have more or less estimations.

A Hungarian map about the campaing: Research Centre for the Humanities - Institute of History: Big line: main Ottoman army, dotted lines: raiding units [36] We can clearly see the main Ottoman army arrived at Kőszeg.

I found more Hungarian historian work about this: [37] here I can see, it mentions "entire army" even the army composition, google translate: "Seeing that the Turks were coming with their entire army, Jurisics set fire to the two suburbs, which were difficult to defend anyway, and moved the inhabitants to the city center. On Saturday, i.e. the 10th, Ibrahim raised eight cannons to the vineyards surrounding the city and fired from there throughout the day. The actual siege did not begin until the following day, the 11th; On the 12th, the battle was interrupted due to the arrival of Suleiman. Overlooking an army of 12,000 Janissaries, 20,000 Spahis, 26,000 Rumelians, 30,000 Anatolians, and 15,000 Tartars, the Sultan ordered a general assault on the following day, the 13th."

Another Hungarian history book, mention that contemporary Ottoman sources boosted how big was the army under Kőszeg: [38] page 296, google translate: "On August 10, the army led by the sultan arrived under the Kőszeg castle, which was already very close to Vienna, where the Glorious Padisah [the Sultan] ordered an encampment, thereby postponing the siege of Vienna until he made a decision about the campaign in the divan. Spies and travelers took the news of our huge army to the main enemy of Muhammad's people, the Habsburgs. It was very important to make our army's strength known, so that they wouldn't think of invading Hungary" OrionNimrod (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please show where the (removed) sources state that 10,000 (or any other number of) Ottoman soldiers were present at the battle in question. You have, for the umpteenth time, refused to engage with this very basic requirement.

Any interpretation based on those (or other) sources that the force composition at the start of the campaign was present, in full or in part, at this particular battle is yours and yours alone, and unless cited in referenced material, constitutes original research. Wikipedia is not for guesswork or speculation. Lostsandwich (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:V, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material (emphasis mine). There's also this clarifying note: A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source (emphasis in original). In order to us to give numbers for the Ottoman forces at the Siege of Güns/Kőszeg, the sources need to give numbers for the Ottoman forces at the Siege of Güns/Kőszeg.

Out of everything so far, the newest source seems to come the closest, giving a total of 103,000—though it's only part of the total and we can't combine it with any other sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar I’m not convinced this belongs here rather than NORN. The editor who bought it here has very few edits spread out over more than three years. I suggest this should be closed with the recommendation it be taken to WP:NORN. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Lostsandwich, those sources which you removed clearly write the army numbers of the campaign in the starting point, and the main army led by Sultan went againt Vienna and Kőszeg was on the way besiged by the Sultan, which was part of that campaign (and it was no battles before Kőszeg, the other castles on the way surrended whitout fight), why do you expect that all historians should say in every single sentences that on August 20 the army number was 10000 and on August 21 the army number was still 10000... anyway the numbers are just estimations, not strict numbers. The showed other sources also confirmed those sources that the main army arrived at Kőszeg. So why the numbers would be "unknown" as you claim? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, fair enough. Maybe the regulars at NORN can convince OrionNimrod that we can't use sources this way. But given the replies here, I feel like this is just going to get kicked back to ANI eventually. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Woodroar (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod because that would be speculation, assumption and/or interpretation. The article is about a siege, not about the "start of the campaign". If one wishes to discuss a fact about a particular instance, one must cite a source that references it, not maybe sort of kinda in a haphazard roundabout way sort of suggests it. That there were X people present at Y time and place, therefore X people were also were also present at Z time and place is completely immaterial unless that is stated in the referenced work. None of the removed sources do so. Lostsandwich (talk) 03:28, 16 May 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.

aggressive revert by user as if vandalism on dab linking and refusing to answer a contradiction?

originally Running water redirected to tap water with no dab links put in tap water for other terms referred with running water. so i create running water (disambiguation). then i find out that dab exists in Running Water (see difference in case), so i move it to running water (disambiguation), add link to it in tap water. @Bkonrad reverts the edits at with no reason given. at first i thought they mistakenly did it in the middle of the move so i just revert their revert, which you can see in the 3 pages history and my contrib. then i find out that they revert constantly with no explanation. so i ask them in User_talk:Bkonrad#why_revert_dab_referencing_of_running_water?. notice their attempt to avoid answering specifically why the page with sentence case should be redirect but the one with title case should not and persistently sticking to reverting. i am requesting admins to look into this matter and see the validity. who is right in here and how so? Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and the user is engaging with you at their personal talk page. Nothing to do here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

aggressive unexplained reversion and avoiding explaining. where to report? can you explain why Running water should be redirect but not Running Water and running water (disambiguation) should not exist as dab? admin response wanted Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This does not require administrator intervention, I recommend discussing the matter further with the editor you disagree with. Remsense诉 14:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot is also incorrect that I gave no reason for the revert. My main objection was performing the move by cutting and pasting and secondarily without providing any sort of rationale or consensus for the change. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Lightburst on WT:DYK

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.

---

On WT:DYK, Lightburst referred to nonbinary singer Nemo as a man in a dress. I can't read this as something that's not transphobic. This is unrelated to above discussions about WT:DYK. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment This is the second time LilianaUwU has taken me here, this time with a deplorable label. History, I referred to LilianaUwU as they as it is my practice to use they instead of he or she. LilianaUwU came to my talk page and requested I use she. I told them I refer to everyone as they out of caution. LilianaUwU was preparing to get me in trouble over not using he or she. So I came to their page and apologized and said I would try to use she when referring to them. Since then LilianaUwU has had it in for me. Took me to ANI in the middle of the night over my participation in an RFA. I trouted LilianaUwU after the discussion was closed. And now LilianaUwU takes me to ANI in the middle of the night again , this time by referring to me as a blatant homophobe. I call it aPA and an aspersion and I ask that LilianaUwU strike it. Regarding blatant homophobia I thought I saw a man in a dress like when Harry Styles wore a dress on Vogue. I used the image of Nemo to illustrate how we make editorial decisions at DYK and elsewhere by choosing what to promote on the main page. I did not read the article and nobody corrected me until now... at ANI of all places - like gotcha! Here I am told I did not see a man in a dress. So after looking at the article I see it is a non-binary person in a dress. I stand corrected. I do hope LilianaUwU can stop following me around to try and get me in trouble. Lightburst (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you're trying but homophobia =/= transphobia and I don't find LilianaUwU's characterization of your comment to be unjustified. Can you explain what you mean by "how we make editorial decisions at DYK and elsewhere by choosing what to promote on the main page"? What editorial decision was made in regards to that image? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Editors select the image they want to promote and the image of NEMO was a provocative image. It was an editorial decision and that was the point I made. HEB, you also did not tell me I was mistaken. I really do not have anything more to add and so I will do my best to observe WP:COAL. Lightburst (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying an editorial discussion was made to promote a provocative image and that the image is provocative because it depicts the event its about? I will also point out that someone did correct you [39] (I was trying not to get sidetracked... Not that it mattered, you didn't respond to me anyways), if not in the nicest way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Man, if the thing you're trying to say is, like, "some proportion of Wikipedia's readers will think that's what the pic is and find it offensive" -- then for Christ's sake, say that, and clarify that this is what you mean, rather than the thing it sounds like you said, which is stupid and cruel. jp×g🗯️ 06:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It feels combative when you communicate with me. I even saw that an hour ago you reverted my collapsed section at DYK and you left a snotty edit summary. So I am afraid to answer your questions because you throw the answers back at me daggers. Also, I did not see that comment, the thread is a mile long and they did not ping me. That is why I collapsed it. Nearly all DYK is tied up with these discussions all over the project. Lightburst (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean HEB or Liliana and not me, because I don't think I did any of that stuff (?) jp×g🗯️ 07:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

HEB did open the section back up, yes. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you in trouble. I saw a comment that seemed to be out of order and went to ANI. I should've discussed it with you first, yes, and I tend to pull the trigger on the CESSPIT a bit too fast, but to me, transphobia is a bit of a hot issue - whether it's an experienced editor or a newbie, I don't feel safe when people have comments that sound like that, because they directly concern me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, you opened an AN/I thread titled "Blatant transphobia about a BLP subject by Lightburst on WT:DYK", seemingly without any attempt whatsoever to communicate with them or ask what the comment meant or clarify it or etc - I mean of course you are within your rights to do that, but... jp×g🗯️ 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I can say that I don't feel safe. Lightburst (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, Lightburst did get called out on it. He gave no response to that specific callout, but he collapsed the discussion despite being involved. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is a mile long as I said above... it is you assuming bad faith because you can see they did not ping me. And I collapsed the discussion because I started it and it ran its course. I actually closed two discussions but first I posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=1224082792&oldid=1224074294 this message saying I would close a few on WT:DYK. The Tate thread was not a vote it was a discussion so I was not involved and I only hatted it to make room on that page which is now full of long threads. Lightburst (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what specific image Lightburst was talking about, because she he messed up the diff link to the Main Page (i.e. it transcludes everything, so I can't see what was there, or what the hook was). Was it File:Nemo PreparyES 01 (cropped).jpg? What was the hook? I don't see anything at Talk:Nemo (singer). jp×g🗯️ 06:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This one JPxG File:Nemo Eurovision Song Contest 2024 Final Malmö dress rehearsal semi 2 06 (cropped).jpg. Lightburst (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it was that picture on the ITN tab, as they won Eurovision. Also, AFAIK Lightburst uses he/him. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Lightburst, I have been trying to come up with a word to describe your a man in a dress remark, and I am stuck between "catty", "snide" and "obtuse". So maybe all three. Your usage twice of in the middle of the night is also bizarre. Surely you know that Wikipedia is a worldwide project operating in 24 time zones and what is the middle of the night for you is breakfast time, lunch time or party time for many other editors. No editor is expected to take your personal sleep schedule into account. You can reply or not reply as you see fit the next time you log in. Now, let's take a look at I would try to use she when referring to them. But in that very statement, you used "them" instead of "her". Why did you choose "them" in this specific context? Your "trying" meant very little when you were discussing that issue right here. It seems to me that you have difficulty with word choices when discussing certain topics, and I would advise you to be more cautious and thoughtful. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Then again, Cullen328, it's 3am where I live. I really shouldn't be up this late myself. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, it is "round midnight" here in California so I might make a few more edits before turning off the lights. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh hell I will fix it. jp×g🗯️ 08:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I get the point LB was making that Wikipedia will publish content even if "some readers may find that offensive." I get that if a person didn't know that the subject was non-binary, they might misinterpret the pic as being of a man in a dress. I also get that "man in a dress" is a common pejorative aimed at non-binary and transgender people, likely to spark a strong reaction. Seems like this was a misunderstanding or unintentional faux pax that could be rectified by striking/correcting the comment at issue. Then maybe we can all have a laugh at the irony that in trying to make the point the Wikipedia publishes content that might offend some readers, an editor inadvertently published content that offended some readers. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Despite Lightburst's backpedaling in this thread and claim that nobody corrected his misgendering of Nemo, as LilianaUwU has pointed out, Lightburst was informed that Nemo is nonbinary, and he hatted that discussion rather than acknowledge this. If this was an unintentional faux pas, why didn't Lightburst apologize then rather than obfuscate this feedback about the misgendering? Rather than laugh about transphobia and misgendering, I think we should be strongly committed to creating a Wikipedia where there is no queerphobia. I'll add that I find unpersuasive Lightburst's claim that being called out for transphobia constitutes a PA ([personal attack]) and an aspersion. I place a very high value on our policies on civil behavior and prohibiting personal attacks, but they are not a self-destructive pact that requires the community to simply take transphobic slurs like "man in a dress" on the chin. Rather than just wait for the next time Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors, the community would be better served by taking action to prevent such behavior in the future. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Hydrangeans really sorry you feel this way I put down some links and timelines above. And I announced that I would be hatting threads to make room on the page - link above. I hatted two.
• I have now struck the comment that LilianaUwU referred to. Lightburst (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I would strongly echo Cullen's suggestion that you take more time to consider your word choices: I would struggle to characterise that comment as anything other than intentionally provocative. While we're on the topic of word choices, "I'm sorry you feel this way" is about the worst apology possible, so you might want to reconsider that too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

    Accusations of gaslighting, implicit or explicit, should not be made lightly. I thought that Lightburst's tone in the comment was genuine, and I would suggest that the pile-on stop now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 16 May 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.

Vulgar language usage and personal attack

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.

---

These 5 users were socks (Ubishini (talk · contribs · logs), Naughty Nightingale (talk · contribs · logs), Sanuthi Aahidya (talk · contribs · logs), Chilli Soonyam (talk · contribs · logs) & Veraswini (talk · contribs · logs)) The main ID is Neoshine (talk · contribs · logs) which is blocked and its continue via these IDs, Neoshine K.Sreeram Official (talk · contribs · logs), Neha Xorg (talk · contribs · logs), Shanvika Drake (talk · contribs · logs), Wikishini (talk · contribs · logs), VAW 2404 (talk · contribs · logs) - Many IDs are blocked in Commons, ta.wiki as well as here in en.wiki too.

The person uses very vulgar words and uploads some images and write to attack some people. Last affected page is Thangamagal (TV series). I request admins to take appropriate action and be cautious since the scammer active from February. The main edit pattern is this. AntanO 13:17, 16 May 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:Bigboss19923

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.

---

Bigboss19923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new editor clearly determined to edit-war a grossly-excessive level of plot detail into The Day Britain Stopped, after multiple warnings, links to policy/guidelines, and requests to discuss the matter. Almost all of their few remaining edits have been reverted, and none to appear to make any attempt at sourcing.

This may possibly be a sock of a blocked contributor - the behaviour seems familiar - but regardless, WP:NOTHERE would seem to apply, given the total refusal to communicate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This was reported to WP:AIV, but WP:EWN also would have been appropriate. I've issued a pblock for the moment. Izno (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Their contributions are suspiciously similar to 82.22.120.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was blocked for 6 months. The user also requested the page's protections be removed when they created their account (incidentally, this is within the block range of that IP), and now... this. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:24, 16 May 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 talk page spamming, BLP violations

• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:c028:6865:a4e7:19ef (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:4d72:e68d:7730:97f9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:fd2e:ec13:175c:eace (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:6a86:f300:9d2b:614a:8093:3c (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C:DC1B:8E8E:1B80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2604:3d09:927f:e900:34fb:baef:36b:88a5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User has been repeatedly spamming Talk:Nikki Benz with unsourced/poorly sourced WP:DOB info. I have given two warnings after politely explaining WP:BLPPRIVACY and its applicability to talk pages. Nonetheless they say they "won't stop". A clear failure to WP:LISTEN, evidently WP:NOTHERE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's right, I will not stop writing DECEMBER 11, in the TALK PAGE.

So do what you must to block, or I will continue. 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The links posted at Talk:Nikki Benz do not satisfy reliable source. The birth date is not a big deal and it is standard to leave it out unless there is a good source. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

But will the whole Wikipedia project collapse if the words December 11 are left in the talk page? 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant question. You say you are trying to "generate discussion", but to what end? There's nothing special about the date that I can see. Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't help us arrive at a decision to include it in the article or not. Honestly, it seems like you're just trying to get around the requirement for reliable sources by posting things to the talk page instead of the article. However, BLP policy applies to all pages, including talk pages. Your most recent comment dismissing all this as "esoteric terminology" suggests you're not interested in learning how Wikipedia works or collaborating with others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) edited 08:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A hit dog will holler. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Your interactions with me have been poor and unprofessional, while the user ActivelyDisinterested «@» has shown cordial behaviour. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C5AD:8DF:E02:753E (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no hollering or admission of any guilt, that you are implying. You have been authoritative and trying to belittle with all your Wikipedia rules. There has not been anything professional of the way this discussion went. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C5AD:8DF:E02:753E (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyways, I have come back here to end all of this. What has been said has been said. I hope the Wikipedia project can move forward with more cordiality all around.

Thank you. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C5AD:8DF:E02:753E (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that "I won't stop. Grow up" is not anything professional. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That was in response to you authoritatively removing the words DECEMBER 11, like it was something cancerous, and then trying to throw your weight around with all your jargon.

Good bye 2604:3D09:927F:E900:A539:E4D4:908D:E115 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I think we should do the horse thing on here, where we just decide everyone's birthday is January 1 and get on with it. jp×g🗯️ 20:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Could we do something similar with ethnicity? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

like assuming everyone you meet on the internet is secretly a 60 year old hacker (or worse, brazilian)? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive article creation by IP

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

This IP is disruptively making unreferenced stub articles on motorsports topics in disregard of sourcing requirements and WP:TOOSOON. Talk page is full of recent warnings on the matter, but today this user tried to create 2025 IndyCar Series, 2025 MotoGP World Championship, 2025 Moto2 World Championship, and the bizarre Draft:Draft:2024–25 Liverpool F.C. season. Suggest this user take some time out. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on their edit history, this is almost certainly an IP hopping editor that I reported here once before. They make unsourced edits to motorsport and year in music articles, never make edit summaries or respond to warnings, and when their current IP is banned they wind up finding a new one. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Doc Strange, I think you're right. Another IP (180.74.68.219) made the same edits as 180.74.216.10. Both IPs are in the same IP range and same geographical area so pretty sure it's the same person (or group of people). Annh07 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like ScottishFinnishRadish blocked ....68.219. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Ali00200 inserting copyrighted material past 5th warning and prev ANI report

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:Ali00200 Previously reported at ANI, but they ceased editing for three days and the thread was auto-archived. User then resumed editing, initially not performing copyvios, and then has preceded to add more copyright violations post-warnings. I don't know why they're not responding, or understanding that you can't just copy-paste things into articles, but they're not and this is an issue an admin needs to solve.

Copyvios since last warning:

[40] from [41]

[42] from [43]

[44] from [45]

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Ali00200#Indefinite block. El_C 05:53, 19 May 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.

Drew1830 and personal attacks

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.

---

Not for the first time, Drew1830 has used "school marm" to describe an editor (myself) who reverts a MOS:ACCESS-breaking edit to content they seem determine to own. This comment was made after reverts to this table and this table that removed MOS:DTAB-compliant captions and other work that was explicitly recommended for an FAC. This is not a new behavior, as evidenced by this discussion at WT:FOOTY, but I think intervention is needed. It's clear that previous blocks and warnings aren't working with this user. SounderBruce 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It never ends with this guy. I've been standardizing the MLS season pages for months. He randomly picks certain years to throw hissy fits and revert all of my edits without consultation. If he does it to mine then I'll do it to his. Simple. He contributes nothing and all he does is go around trying to be a mall cop. I agree that intervention is needed. His rampages need to be stopped. Drew1830 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

SounderBruce has explained their position clearly here, and provided diffs to back it up, and your reaction is If he does it to mine then I'll do it to his. Seriously? I haven't taken a deep look at this but that attitude is very troubling. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Turns out one doesn't need to dig that deep to determine that this person has an attitude that is an extremely poor fit for a collaborative project, and has had numerous "warning shot" blocks that should have clued them in that they needed to tone it down and not weaponize their editing. Indef blocked. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:02, 18 May 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.

Anthony Hudson (soccer)

Is it me, or is there a clear case of WP:COI with the user Katieklops specific edits directed to the article. I found the last edit rather odd, [46], Govvy (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also baring in mind that wikipedia does not censor. Govvy (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I also replied the following to Bgsu98 when my edit was flagged: I follow soccer and obviously have my more favorite managers/coaches. When coming to this page for updates, I always feel that there is a clear agenda by certain disgruntled fans, especially from Colorado Rapids, that seem to constantly edit the page to highlight any potentially negative information about Anthony, which I feel is very unfair. Is trying to remove content that is clearly added to show a person in a negative light considered Conflict of Interest? I obviously want to adhere to the rules and guidelines, but also feel that the addition of specific information on a constant basis should also be scrutinized and the agenda of that addition should be questioned as well.

I'm all for non-bias and transparency, which is obviously the whole purpose of Wikipedia, but seeing constant addition of information and some "information" is clearly a smear campaign. Katieklops (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Katielops: Since you created your account all you have done is edit and only edit the Anthony Hudson article, this is not normal editing behaviour! This suggests that there maybe a conflict of interest. What's your relationship to this person in terms of editorial? Govvy (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As I've said to Bgsu98, I follow soccer and have a few coaches/managers' pages that I always look at, and his page is the only one that seems to have edits that are constantly added to put him in a bad light, which seems like a smear campaign to me. I've never felt the need to edit any of the other pages that I've visited, but these blatant edits feels very unfair to me. So yes, you're right, I've only edited his article, because the added edits always seemed off and unfair to me. "Normal editing behaviour" implies that it's my hobby or focus in life to edit Wikipedia pages, which it's not. I constantly came across something that felt off and bothered me, so I felt the need to "speak up" by submitting edits. I'm sorry that bothered you so much. Katieklops (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Katieklops, in this edit, you said in the edit summary "Took out references to being officially born in US (although raised in England), as he's currently receiving death threats working as coach in Qatar." Where did you learn that he is receiving death threats? I have not been able to find any information about this. CodeTalker (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it on a message board - can't remember where. Just sounded serious enough to make me nervous about potentially endangering someone with information that, in my opinion, doesn't really need to be on there. Does is really make a difference putting a birth place on a Wikipedia page when it could potentially endanger someone? Katieklops (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Cicihwahyuning6

Probably a sockpuppet of User:Cicihwahyuni6 just banned, doing the same disruptive edits: of adding Nordic languages to the pages of Turkic countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cicihwahyuning6 a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Clear duck sock Maestrofin (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Protection from me, requested by Tencerpr

A bit of background: the Tencerpr account is 10+ years old, but having made a dozen or so edits early on, has been dormant for a long time. They have now become active, editing what I would describe as a promo piece with no evidence of notability, at Draft:Rebecca Grant (TV host).

I declined this at AfC and tagged the draft as possible UPE, and also posted a paid-editing query on their talk page, because of the edit history and their user name (the 'pr' bit at the end made me do a quick Google search, and turns out there are a couple of PR agencies by the name Tencer out there). They deleted the query (as is indeed their right) from their talk page without responding to it, and also deleted the UPE tag from the draft (whether or not that's their right is probably debatable).

But then they decided to up the ante and accuse me of paid editing (paid to do what, exactly, I don't know?), and also call me a liar and a vandal "with zero credibility". And, as seems only reasonable by this stage, they're now requesting "protection" from me, and that I should be blocked from editing the Grant draft/article. So I guess that would be an IBAN and TBAN, respectively.

Could someone please look at this with fresh, objective eyes and tell me where I got it wrong. And BAN me as appropriate.

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Well, before anything else, "Tencer PR" is pretty clearly a username violation. Hard blocked, given the clear evidence of UPE as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• I don't understand why the article's lead photo shows a wax-museum replica of the subject. EEng 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This may be relevant: a Tweet [47] from 2019 by Rebecca Grant, retweeted by Become Famous aka. "rob tencer pr" [48]. Still, could be just a coincidence, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

They've now changed their name, but the rest of their unblock request shows the same very combative attitude as the previous remarks. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Declined the unblock but gave them the OK to make a case for what else they'd like to edit about. Not inclined to unblock to edit about Grant Star Mississippi 01:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:204.69.3.4 and transphobia

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

Yet another IP at Talk:Moira Deeming to argue against what reliable sources say. Won't be the last.

As part of their rants against reliable sources, they've commented at Special:Diff/1224210575 and Special:Diff/1224211713, writting "... steal credit from women for who is actually trying to push back on trans identifying men (XY) from stealing women's rights" and "Women are waking up. Peak trans I just found out they called it. Liberal women. Yes, they are waking up. We go all our lives being warned and SEEING the nefarious, creepy things men will do to have access to us, but we are not allowed to notice all the straight men (who have no macho aversion to wearing a dress) waltzing in to our spaces?" respectively.

This sickening display of transphobia should not be tolerated per WP:NOHATE. TarnishedPath^talk 00:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur, and I also suspect they are a sock puppet of SkyfoxGazelle, who was recently banned for extremely similar editing on the same page. GraziePrego (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for six months. Star Mississippi 01:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Ravpapa (talk)

User:Wikiwickedness has taken issue with much of the content of this article. He has recently twice deleted documented content that he disagrees with. I urged him, should he have reliable sources that support his view, to expand the article to include them, rather than merely delete what he disagrees with. When he deleted the material a second time, I restored it and opened an RFC to hear what other editors think. But then I discovered that I had created exactly the same RFC two years ago. Wikiwickedness's views in that RFC were universally rejected. So I now think that a second RFC is not the proper course, and this noticeboard is where the issue should be dealt with. Ravpapa (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not the same. This time it's specifically on the terms "Prior to opus 20", "This was virtually unheard of in Haydn's time." I only asked you to explain the terms with proper citations (from the authorities you seem to consider unquestionable), which you've failed to do. If you can't it's proper to just delete that section, cause the things said in them are debatable. The article would still be fine without that section. Wikiwickedness (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the RFC then was about @Wikiwickedness's deletion of the section "Opus 20 and the Development of the String Quartet". The current dispute is over his repeated deletion of parts of the same section. Ravpapa (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a little different from the usual edit warring in music articles. Though there aren't any diffs here, from the history I see exactly two removals of content and you starting an RfC. I'm not sure what admin action is required here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. @Wikiwickedness has now, rather than deleting sections wholesale, made an edit to the section that is perfectly fine with me. I consider the matter resolved. Ravpapa (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

GoneWithThePuffery

User GoneWithThePuffery has been reported by me at SPI, the case was handled by Drmies and it appears that my suspicions of sockpuppetry were wrong (however, GoneWithThePuffery often edits Wikipedia while being logged out, which they confessed). Since Drmies asked me to do so, I apologized even if I was not convinced that GoneWithThePuffery is here to build an encyclopedia. From that point on, this editor has been actively aggressive towards every single editors they disagree with along with personal attacks and edit warring. Personal attacks : [49], [50], treating Hu741f4 and me of "muppets", reason of them being warned by C.Fred : [51], edit warring (before and even after having been told by Drmies that 2 editors disagree with them) : [52], [53], [54]. To make it short, I made a mistake by accusing the reported editor, not the first time I've been wrong about that kind of thing, probably won't be the last, but I don't think that this mistake of mines should bring such personal attacks and edit warring on GoneWithThePuffery's side.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you started this whole thing. Not only by accusing me falsely, but also by refusing time after time to talk about the content on the talk page. My very first post there was an invitation of discussion and reaching common ground. Instead, I was attacked, not only by you, but also by Hu74. Your assertion that I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia" is another attack on me (even though all my edits thus far have been constructive and substantiated by reliable sources).

Since that incident, I asked you multiple times on the talk page to explain your concerns, but time after time you refused to do so. My question: what exactly do you want? You reverted my edits now again, without going to the talk page to talk about it. Sorry, but you're the one who is consistently not willing to work this out in a constructive manner. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to discuss with you, so did Hu741f4, but all we got in response were personal attacks and edit-warring. I rest my case.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You tried to discuss with me? Where? I can't find one instance where you even attempted a normal conversation. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

While Wikaviani was too quick to declare you were sockpuppeting and was in the wrong for that, an inaccurate accusation does not grant anyone a hall pass to act as hostile as they want. If the unfounded accusation has made it so that you cannot engage with people who disagree with you, then you ought to take a step back until you cool off, else an admin will likely institute a sanction that *will* be deserved this time. You even tried to bite the head off Drmies, the one who cleared you of sockpuppeting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand Drmies, he noticed everything that went on, also noticed that I am on no way related to the user that was banned, and still he has apparently no problem with the hostile and aggressive attitude of Wikaviani and Hu74. Please note, it's not only about falsely accusing me, it's also the dictatorial and arrogant attitude Wikaviani and Hu74 occupy at that page (i.e. the complete unwillingness to engage in a discussion). I, on the other hand, was open to discuss and talk from the beginning. You can see it for yourself on the talk page. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

GoneWithThePuffery, do you understand that comments like Are you completely stupid or what? are utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia? Are you going to stop abusing your fellow editors that way? Cullen328 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That fully depends. If people are accusing and harassing me, then they can expect an appropriate response. You're now taking one sentence out of its context. I know I uttered that sentence as a reaction on Wikaviani's hypocritical behavior; he was falsely accusing me and then went to my talk page to complain about my reaction!

I really don't understand why you're asking this. How would you respond if you are being accused of something you didn't do. How would you react if the first response to a perfectly sensible edit you made, in good faith, with reliable sources, was one of suspicion and hostility? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

GoneWithThePuffery, I highly recommend that you drop this matter and move on. Your ongoing belligerence and combativeness reflects very poorly on you. Before you respond further, please read Assume good faith. As for how I would respond, I have been an editor for 15 years and an administrator for six years, and have had abuse hurled at me countless times. I ignore it. . Cullen328 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I already dropped this matter and moved on. However, Wikaviani is constantly bringing this up everywhere, which forces me to respond and defend myself. (If I hadn't defended myself in the first place, I would've been branded a fraud, because of Wikaviani's false accusations.) GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring like you do right now at Snell's law ( 3 reverts of two different editors within less than 24 hours) and blatantly ignoring WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS and WP:BRD is not "moving on", rather, quite disruptive.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, that does not give you a blank check to continue being hostile and rude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, Wikaviani is bringing this matter up EVERYWHERE, which forces me to respond and defend myself. He's the one who can't stop talking about this, instead of going to the talk page to engage with me in a discussion on the content (to which I have invited him now ten times or so). If Wikaviani spend as much time on the talk page of Snell's law discussing the content of Ibn Sahl's manuscript as he has complaining about me, this matter would've been dealt with long time ago. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How about responding politely that there must be a mistake ? you can see that when you interact politely with people without labelling them as "fucking stupid" or "ridiculous", things tend to run more smoothly ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani, I DID RESPOND POLITELY THAT THERE MUST BE A MISTAKE!!! This was my response after you accused me of "evading a block":

"@User_talk:Wikaviani, I suppose WP:GOODFAITH is no longer used? So no, I'm not Casteiswrong. I don't know who that is, and up until now, I've never met him. I am, however, the person who made a substantial edit on 02:03, 7 May 2024, which has been reverted, then that reversion was reverted in turn, and then apparently an edit war broke out. I'm merely wondering what was wrong with my edit in the first place. An explanation is appropriate since I've supplied my edits with proper sources."

Now you tell me, what precisely is not polite here?!

After I wrote that, you still didn't believe me and then that guy from India started accusing me. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me again of not assuming good faith and this kind of response while you have been told by an admin that my suspicions about you being a sock were not made in bad faith shows again that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, that's not contructive, can you understand that ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh my lord! I'm quoting (!!) the first remark that I made after you accused me of being a sock. And yes, you were clearly not assuming good faith, as you immediately said: "You are probably Casteiswrong, please keep in mind that evading your block will not help your case". How is that assuming good faith? You didn't even react to the legitimate points I raised.

I don't have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but a WP:DEFENSE mentality whenever I'm unjustly attacked. The only person here who has a battleground mentality, next to Hu74, is you! I'm the one who constantly asks for a discussion, on the content, at the talk page. You keep ignoring that. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So what's this ? Isn't it from an admin saying that according to them, I didn't act in bad faith ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So if an admin says it, then it's true? The admin can tell me the earth is flat, I don't care, I don't believe it. If you accuse me of being a sock, without even checking who I am (which would already have ruled sock-puppetry out completely) then I'm sorry, that's simply acting in bad faith. I have to say, the complaints you're uttering here and on my talk page are also examples of acting in bad faith. Just like the way you and Hu74 are behaving on the talk page of the article is acting in bad faith; points raised by me or Casteiswrong are structurally ignored. Why? I thought you were here to "build an encyclopedia". You're simply ignoring people and reverting edits; that's acting in bad faith. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm baffled to see that despite all the people who told you that your are on a wrong path, you still don't seem to understand that your behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Interaction Ban

Regardless of who started it, it appears that these two editors will not or cannot coexist peacefully. I propose that there be an interaction ban between the two of them.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop overreacting please. I can survive a false allegation and a personal attack. I just don't like it when people complain after they started behaving aggressively. Apart from that, I have no problem interacting with Wikaviani. And actually, there is not much interaction going on at the moment, as Wikaviani currently ignores every form of discussion on the content, and I am really only interested in talking about the content. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be helpful at all, for at least 3 reasons. Firstly, we are 3, GWTP, Hu741f4 and me, secondly, we will not be able to deal with the issue at Snell's law, and last but not least, you seem to put at the same level an editor who filed a SPI (me) which was declined and another who keeps attacking and edit-warring with fellow Wikipedians, including two admins with one of the admins being the one who cleared GWTP at the SPI case. 3 years ago, I was accused of Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry with no legit reason, I did not start attacking and being rude towards the admin and the user who baselessly accused me, rather, I responded politely and explained why I was unrelated. Additionally, I already said that I had no problem to discuss with GWTP if they are capable of bringing legit rationale instead of labelling as "stupid" and "ridiculous" every single editor who disagrees with them.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think it would solve the issue here. as far as I can tell, Wikiviani has been fairly civil, while GoneWithThePuffery has been uncivil to multiple editors [55] [56]. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  You must be joking. Fairly civil? So to accuse someone of "evading a block" and aggressively trying to get him blocked is "fairly civil"? And where have I been uncivil to other editors? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  you were shown not to be that editor, and he apologized. so why don't you just drop the stick? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  He apologized after he was being asked to do so, not because he wanted to. And I'm absolutely willing to "drop the stick", as long as my edits are being taken serious, which is not happening; they were being reverted without a proper argument, without having a discussion about it at the talk page. The same goes by the way for the editor that is now banned; he was raising some legitimate points. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I just gave you the "proper" argument below, the fact that you find a source that supports your POV does not mean it should be included in the article, inclusion requires WP:CONSENSUS. While WP:BOLD allows you to edit any article in order to improve it, WP:BRD says that you must not reinstate your edit when it is reverted, rather, you should seek consensus, which you refused to do properly since you attacked me and other editors instead.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't suppose something completely crazy like "you two got off on the wrong foot, let's start again, and everyone try to be nice to everyone" would have any chance? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with that. As long as my edits are being taken serious. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  ~Your edit was made with no consensus and with a source that is contradicted by expert sources few lines after (Rashed, Smith), it has to be removed at least until a consensus is found on the talk page, but instead, you are engaged in edit-warring. So far, I don't see any legit reason for your edits at Snell's law to remain, but we're here to discuss your behaviour towards several editors, not for discussing the edits at Snell's law which should be done on the article's talk page.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, now who has the battleground mentality here? I said above that I have no problem with "you two got off on the wrong foot, let's start again" and again you started to complain about my behavior. My friend, I think I have more reason to complain about your behavior than the other way around.

  And again: I don't need a consensus for every tiny edit I make on Wikipedia, that would be absurd. And also again: how do I reach consensus if you're not even engaging in a discussion? For instance, you're saying: "a source that is contradicted by expert sources few lines after". What source are you referring to? Note that Rashed's work is controversial and that researcher do not always agree with one another. A reason more to explicitly mention Rashed in the light of his Ibn Sahl claim. You never explain yourself properly. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here we go, that's exactly the problem, every time you disagree with an editor, said editor gets words like "stupid", "ridiculous", "absurd" and so on, don't you understand that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia ? don't you understand that people don't want to discuss with someone who systematically insults them when there is a disagreement ? I already said that I had no problem to discuss with you if you were capable of a collegial discussion in which everything I or other editors say is not labelled as "ridiculous", "stupid" or "absurd".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I really don't want to hear anything from you about what's acceptable on Wikipedia or not. Not after I've seen how you are dealing with people with whom you disagree. And where am I systematically insulting users after a disagreement? I indeed said a few things to you after you insulted me by falsely accusing me of something I didn't do.

  More importantly: saying that you want to have a discussion is one thing, but actually having a discussion is another. Instead of putting all your energy in complaining about me on these pages, you could've went to the talk page of the article long time ago; instead you chose the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to continue complaining about me to the admins. I'm sorry, but you're not really in the position of complaining after insulting me with your false accusations. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Everybody can see that I never insulted you, but you insulted me and other editors and you still sound like you don't get how unacceptable your behaviour is. Good night.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ah I see, you never insulted me, is that the reason why you apologized? A good night to you as well. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I apologized for the incorrect accusation that I made in good faith, not for insults towards you, I provided many diffs of your insults towards me and other editors, could you please provide diffs of so called insults I made towards you ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought you were already asleep. Accusing me of being someone who started an edit war, accusing me of sockpuppetry, even though you could have known I wasn't that editor. Saying that I'm not here to "build an encyclopedia", even though I'm only making edits based upon reliable sources. That is insulting! GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam I tried to suggest that at Talk:Snell's law (diff), but GWTP's response was to go right back to discussing, in their words, "two users who are not even focusing on the content, but rather engaging in an edit war and behaving like dictators of this specific article" (diff). GWTP might have worn out their welcome on the topic, if not sitewide, as a result. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fred, I'm perfectly willing to do so, I even said this right now to Floquenbeam. However, just as I wrote my comment to Floquenbeam, I was again confronted with another diatribe against me and what I did wrong etc. For the last time: I'm willing to end this entire discussion, if the discussion on the content of the law of refraction is being taken serious on that talk page. Now, is that a sign of not being willing to "build an encyclopedia" or what? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Sitewide block for GoneWithThePuffery

Since GoneWithThePuffery cannot disengage from discussing other editors voluntarily, administrative action is required. Recommend a one week siteblock to GWTP for continued edit warring and incivility, along with making it clear that if the behaviour starts back after the block expires, a longer block will be applied.

• Support as proposer. —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I really cannot believe this. Seriously? For what? Disengage from discussing other editors voluntarily? What are you talking about? Wikaviani started these discussions himself! I didn't start this. He started complaining on my talk page and now here! GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is really disgraceful what you're doing here. I was falsely accused when I was making a perfectly sensible edit on an article, and after that I was being brought before the inquisition on this page. And now I'm the one who is getting blocked. It is really scandalous what you are doing! What is the matter with you? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is triage. Yes, you were falsely accused; as you've noted myriad times, which has clearly been acknowledged by everyone in the discussion. However, being wrongly accused of something, again, does not give you carte blanche to act in a manner that would be completely inappropriate if that accusation had never happened. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• We've already spent far too much time on this user, and it's not getting better, but steadily worse. I've indeffed GWTP for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good block was reading thread with a mind to do the same. Regardless of the sock accusations, they're not here to improve the project. Star Mississippi 00:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support after reading the whole thread, and especially the responses in the proposed interaction ban. Wiki admitted they made a mistake filing the SPI & apologized; assuming there was enough behavioral evidence presented to warrant CU, that seems to be a good faith filing in my eyes. Judging by the response to every message critical of the behavior GWTP has shown, they're incapable of dropping the stick and admitting they could possibly be in the wrong. That's a mindset not suited to a collaborative environment. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As I was writing this, two more comments from them still refusing to drop the stick. Nope. Thank you, Bbb. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support block - GWTP was not willing to drop the stick and was indignant to everyone here, including admins. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for handling this case. And now I really need to go to sleep or even coffee will not save me tomorrow morning.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block I encouraged this editor to disengage and move on. Instead, they continued ranting ad nauseum. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block/community ban - If you're trying to domineer an Incidents noticeboard thread, you make it crystal clear you're not interested in collaboration except in the manner you dictate. That is not acceptable; you must be willing to both compromise and to leave the past in the past if you're to have any chance of being a productive editor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block However, I do encourage that if this editor cools off a bit in a few weeks, there be an extra dash of liberalism in the unblock evaluation. As I've noted above, the behavior is inexcusable, but them losing their temper in this situation, while not justified, is at least a skosh more understandable than in most similar cases. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Good block - I wasn't sure what action needed to be done, but GWTP answered the question with a tantrum. It worked about as well as having a tantrum on WP:ANI usually does. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block - After reading carefully and passing through different links of this conversation, I decided that I will support a week-long block for the user. As it seems, the user does not disengage with the conversation and just ignore it, like the user has been told previously. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block. GWTP's editing history shows that their mindset is hardly compatible with a community encyclopedia where collaboration is crucial. months ago, their interaction with other editors were already quite aggressive : "I think I explained my changes pretty adequately, why is it so hard for you to understand?", "Last but not least. I don't know if you do this to other users as well, but why do you feel the urge to bother me with your take on 17th century scientific practice and even quantum gravity(?!)? Not only are those matters completely irrelevant to this discussion, but what makes you think I'm interested in what you have to say about it?". Sounds like this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hokkien; not getting the point; off-site canvassing

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:Mlgc1998 is a major contributor to Hokkien. This isn't a content dispute, so I'll be brief.

1. The infobox on Hokkien was far too long, as to defeat the purpose of infoboxes. I try slimming it down some.
2. A month later I notice it's been reverted without explanation, and I restore the slim version while starting a discussion on the talk page pointing out the guidelines to Mlgc1998, trying to establish consensus. Unfortunately, during this discussion they do not seem interested in anything that involved the article shifting away from their personal preferences. They generally ignored all reference to site guidelines and norms, and their reasons terminated in their knowing more than me about the particulars of this subject. To wit, their instant assumption that I and others were lacked basic knowledge of the topic left a bad taste in my mouth early.
3. I ask for input from three relevant WikiProjects, and the five people who comment in some form generally agree with reference to the aforementioned guidelines. This seems to matter little to Mlgc1998. While I am irritated, it seems increasingly unlikely that they are arguing in good faith or are trying to get the point.
4. Meanwhile, there's a worrisome sideline about basic verifiability, but this isn't about that other than to better illustrate my concerns about their conduct.
5. This morning, I get a message on Discord from another editor who saw Mlgc1998 had asked for "reinforcements" regarding the article in a topically-related Discord server. I don't feel I need to name them, but I have permission from them to do so and provide screenshots if someone needs me to. Upon me confronting them on the talk page, Mlgc1998 plays dumb.

Could likely be briefer, but I tried. My apologies. Remsense诉 10:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

1. User:Remsense initially removed a lot of data/info on the Hokkien page here, which I later put back some vital info that was not specifically explained the removal of prior. The speaker population number was also generalized less than what the initial Ethnologue sources had mentioned here and here.

2. A month later, I was asked to join this discussion, Talk:Hokkien#Infobox,_etc._problems, I provided information that unfamiliar editors may not have known about nor knew access of. Initially, it was amicable, but midway User:Remsense started accusing me over some disbelief they held, which I replied with more evidence, historical context, and comparisons. User:Remsense decided to ignore this and somehow took it as an offense, doubling down with more accusations and ad hominem attacks on me. I replied with more information to clear up the situation. It was ignored again and more accusations and ad hominem attacks were levied. They chose to somehow transfer their frustration to me, who only willingly provided them contextual information and evidence to them. I asked what was their specific intent anyways, besides the rough idea of trimming down the infobox. It was ignored yet again. User:Remsense then decided to edit the page anyways with what they wanted and interpret their intent as the supposed "consensus". Another editor, User:Cinderella157, later came and started threateningly talking about "WP:NOTGETTINGIT", and "WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY", and "It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK" kind of language. User:Remsense later admits that they have asked to get more people's input. This other editor is currently repeatedly reverting any attempts at improvements to the infobox of the Hokkien page.

3. As can be seen in my past recent edits regarding the infobox of the Hokkien page, I have repeatedly tried to look for consensus and better the infobox section of the Hokkien page. I have reduced some redundant repetitions, putting some info in footnotes instead, and made it more neutral by splitting the speaker population again to per country and changing the "Region" field to the "States" field, that User:Remsense once spoke about, yet perhaps these helpful acts matter little to User:Remsense.

5. I have not asked anybody to do anything. It's natural some discord server about this topic or anywhere else discusses about happenings that take place in a widely known website that many people read. User:Remsense repeatedly talks about "canvassing", yet they themselves initially admit to it. I do not know why User:Remsense repeatedly accuses me of things they do themselves.

Apologies if there are anything of my words anywhere that may be seen as disingenuous. Mlgc1998 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not asked anybody to do anything

  Remsense诉 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I have not asked anybody to do anything.

That picture you posted basically just says that the 2nd user is asking someone what to do. And the 3rd user has simply informed them what they asked for. Perhaps, you can share a picture of your own "canvassing" yourself of other editors, since you like to repeatedly behave in a toxic manner. Mlgc1998 (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(To be crystal clear, this is Mlgc1998 asking another person to undo a specific edit on their behalf. If anyone else has any questions, let me know. I've paraphrased enough guidelines so far that I know my continuing to do so won't help them understand here.) Remsense诉 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(To be crystal clear, Remsense is repeatedly falsely accusing me again of acts they themselves admit to also doing. It is telling of their unchanging toxic behavior of accusations. The supposed screenshot merely cuts away the context of what those people in that discussion were discussing about. Remsense has set their eyes against me for some reason and resorts to using off-site tools like that just to frame people. If there was a screenshot posted here as well of their supposed off-site actions, would it do anything for their case? I do not know why this person keeps putting their frustrations on me and how this is any constructive to the website, with the destructive conduct they show.) Mlgc1998 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear, if you continue to hurl accusations at Remsense without any supporting evidence (or if you accuse them of "toxic behaviour" and similar regardless of evidence) I will block you straight away. Now either provide diffs of your allegations against Remsense, or feel free to remove them. Choose one. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Here are some of the relevant diffs that Remsense has done on the page with context to our discussion. I would like to mention to pls consider how these looked like from my shoes. I'm not sure as well if this is due to cultural differences.

• [Remsense-1] the initial edit that Remsense said they tried to slim down last April 2, 2024
• [Mlgc1998-1] I edited it back cuz the last user, Remsense, just said that it was "stuffed" but didn't explain more specifically why the specific data that was picked to remove is to be removed
• [Remsense-2] after we talked on the Talk page and Remsense decided to ignore what I've explained when it seemed the info infuriated them last May 7, 2024
• [Mlgc1998-2] the next day I saw it and reverted it because we werent done talking and they simply ignored what I've said. I have split the speaker pop to each country as well since there is some level of uncertainty with the data on one of the countries at least.
• [Remsense-3] a revert of theirs
• [Mlgc1998-3] I put it back, cuz their only argument is "no, we gang up on you". And, compared to my last edit, I have changed the "Region" field to the "States" field that Remsense initially was complaining about in the talk page
• [Mlgc1998-4], [Mlgc1998-5] I decided to cut down on some redundant repetitions and put some long text in footnotes in an effort to make things better
• [Remsense-4], [Remsense-5] Remsense added some tags saying that some parts are overly detailed, and changed the "States" field back to the "Region" field
• [Remsense:Talk-1] Remsense suddenly adds that they tried to recruit more people to help here
• [Cinderella157-1] Cinderella157 suddenly appeared and put everything back to what Remsense wanted
• [Cinderella157:Talk-1] Cinderella157 starts talking threateningly as well in the talk page
• [Programmeruser-1] Programmeruser suddenly appears to put back at least the speaker population field to show each country's speaker population
• [Cinderella157-2] Cinderella157 reverts it again

Now, I'd like to say that I'm all for reaching a consensus and improving that article, but after the time I explained to Remsense about the historical context, it was nothing but accusations and ad hominem remarks from them and they didn't really discuss much about what to do moving forward and that's what I was always waiting for, rather than them continuously pinning bad things on me. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Some day, you will read literally the first paragraph of what WP:CANVAS actually says. Remsense诉 15:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been like this if you had read the books and website evidences I linked, but Idk maybe I assumed people I was talking to knew how to read Chinese characters. Mlgc1998 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I am positive they don't contain secret manuscripts of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE no Westerner yet knows about. Remsense诉 15:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend to learn the supposed "secret manuscripts" to better know how to deal with those "secret", cuz they're not that "secret" these days and they won't be "secret" if u know. Don't have to be a native speaker to know a bit on it. Before you call me smug, I have even expected you to know how to read them. This wouldn't have started if you hadn't started accusing me and doubting what I provide. Some of those info are free for you to see yourself. not even need to buy books. Taiwan ROC MOE has a website all about it but their real legit website might not be the most userfriendly but mirror sites exist like moedict and sutian. you wont find any mention of "Hokkien" there of course nor its counterpart in Chinese characters, 福建, referring to the language. ROC and PRC prefer "Minnan"/"Min Nan"/"閩南"/"闽南". If not sure how to read the Chinese characters, put them in google translate and press the listen button in "Chinese". "Hokkien" is a word that originated in Southeast Asia, such as Singapore or Malaysia. It is usually data from those countries who would readily use that word. Mlgc1998 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(I didn't post the preceding messages because I didn't want to appear like I was trying to make them look as bad as possible. First and final, them.)

 Remsense诉 14:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Would like to clarify as well for anyone confused. the picture with another screenshot of a picture above is a different person to the initial picture posted before it. Remsense is just showing some people's personal discussions and reactions on a matter for whatever purpose Remsense has in mind. Pls notice as well their very act of posting more pictures of different people, all for the point of framing someone and further antagonism. If that is not "toxic behavior", we might as well reevaluate the current definitions of "toxic" in most dictionaries. I do not know why disagreements about an infobox leads them to go to such lengths.) Mlgc1998 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Mlgc1998 I asked you to show evidence of your allegations against Remsense (i.e. canvassing), or remove them. You have done neither. Indeed, you have done the opposite by continuing to accuse Remsense of toxic behaviour with no evidence whatsoever. My patience is not infinite. Are you going to do one of these things? You are on the edge of a block, and it won't be a short one. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Hold on, alright. Which allegations are you looking for? Isn't this one and this one that I mentioned above. If you mean repeated accusations and ad hominem attacks, it occurred in this talk page. Is it not understandable that I'd have to clarify another picture they use to defame me? I'm sure if you were in my shoes, you'd understand why I'd reply to that one. If it's about using the word "toxic", I mean from my perspective, it seems that way, wouldn't it? Being repeatedly accused and being defamed and all. Mlgc1998 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those diffs shows anything like canvassing. Have you read WP:CANVASS? Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite What do you mean? I was talking about canvassing as a word itself and that was just a side comment about how ironic of their accusations to accuse that when they effectively do it themselves. The example that I've linked are but hints at their initial act. There's no telling if they had not done any canvassing off-site themselves as well. This part about canvassing is not the main thing being discussed anyways. It is just Remsense's way to try and find a way to have people banned, so they can get their way on the edits they intended. I repeatedly replied to them in the Talk page about the forward plans on the article, but from the past days, Remsense continues to choose to be antagonistic and disingenuous about it. They have threatened twice "to go to ANI" and from my perspective, I am not sure what troubles them on what I had said. In my culture, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what I told them. Perhaps, the repeated accusations and threats are something of a norm in the culture they grew up with? I am not really sure and do not understand why they took lengths to to take things here on perceived offense. From my perspective, I have gladly provided info and been repeatedly ignored and accused of. Perhaps, I should have used emojis for my words to not be misconstrued? Mlgc1998 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

When we use "canvassing" here, it is per a specific Wikipedia rule. Trying to use it in the general sense is going to muddy the waters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I just want to say that, while I've not always agreed with Remsense, they have consistently been a constructive editor who operates within the bounds of good practice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Had to scroll back through your contributions. If the biggest thing we disagree about is whether it should be CCP or CPC, that's fine grounds for a working relationship imo. ) Remsense诉 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be CPC damnit. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Try again

@Mlgc1998, I really do not like being an antagonist for someone who is trying very hard to contribute about an underrepresented subject that is deeply important to them. I do increasingly feel like something has been lost in translation between us, and that's partially my fault. The last thing I want is to get such a contributor booted off the site, we have so precious few and I can't improve these articles by myself, nor do I want to. I understand how it seems I appeared out of nowhere and started ripping up work in an arbitrary manner. I don't know how to say this in the most elegant way, but it's because I really care, and I really do want these articles to be as educational and illuminating as they can be, like those GAs and FAs I tried to link you as examples on the talk page. That's why I think the infobox is so important, its design follows very particular principles meant to introduce totally new people to a subject at a glance. I want them to come away from the article knowing a little more about Hokkien and Sinitic topolects no matter how little time they happen to read the article, that's all. Can we try again? I'm sorry that my communication was not effective at certain points here. Remsense诉 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Alright finally. :) I apologize as well if there are any words that seemed offensive from what I wrote before. Since, we are communicating via written word, it lacks a tone so one could read it in different ways. My realm is mostly in wiktionary anyways. I do not like arguments like this. I've poured a lot of time studying this language that has been in decline and often set aside even in my country all to help fellow learners of it and to understand the speakers of it around me. The books I have on it are things others have shared with me as well for me to continue with adding the data for the world to learn about. Not everybody knows how to read these chinese text in my country too, but I knew at least that some taught it could reach out and further learn how to grasp it. Chinese languages are daunting to learn, but it is what it is. This language has a saddening history and my contributions in wikipedia and wiktionary are my efforts to try and improve understanding about it, despite the different bad factors that have come to plague it. It is rough, but I know multiple native speakers of it and learning it opens the mind as well on understanding why the other chinese languages speak the way they do. I fear that continued lack of data or worsening quality of info on this language would later contribute as well to its future possible demise, but we work with what data is available and at least build on top of that, even if its a rubble. I've trudged through it for the past 6 years or so, all so it can be more accessible online and be easier to search up, especially native speakers often do not realize we do not 100% understand them or their logic of speaking sometimes, but anyways Thank you! Mlgc1998 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 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.

Talk:Yasuke is a complete dumpster fire

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.

---

Personal attacks flying left and right, vaguely racist comments, all-caps shouting, ... I suggested WP:DRN at first but I'm realizing this is far from sufficient and the behavioral problems alone mean someone should definitely take a look at the page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, what in god's name is going on on that page? And who made the racist comments, User:Chaotic Enby? I have a hard time sifting through the disorganized and verbose comments by these new users. And what am I doing here? Drmies (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for the ping, I tried to notify everyone who commented on the talk page and accidentally also notified a few people (including you) whose comments were much older than today's drama, as the threads were often all mixed up. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  No idea, I saw someone asking a question about it on I think Yamla's talk page and went to look. Evidently Yasuke is featured in a recently announced video game and <insert typical Gamergate bullshit>. Favonian protected the article a little while ago, and I've been working through the threads on the talk page responding to edit requests, removing personal attacks, and have blocked a few IPs. Probably could use more eyes (since I'm about to go do something else) but it does seem to be more or less under control. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  WakandaScholar could probably do with a block as a troll/WP:NOTHERE, noting the edit that got blocked by the edit filter. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just finished pinging everyone involved, hope I didn't mess up too much. Comments like this one (alluding to a racist dogwhistle), and the dozens of removed personal attacks that litter the conversation. I'm honestly having a hard time following too, so that's why I hoped someone more experienced could take a look. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  The edit I was repeatedly removing yesterday was originally made on 15:21, 15 May 2024, pretty obviously done by (Personal attack removed) people upset at the new Assassin's Creed video game featuring Yasuke as one of its protagonists. The fact that I wasn't even adding stuff explicitly referring to Yasuke as a samurai despite the consensus from multiple historians that he was one, but merely removing a biased statement claiming that he explicitly was not one and that any categorization of him as a samurai is a myth I think speaks to the (Personal attack removed) that were invested in diminishing the historical of a black person in Japanese history.

  Like even Japanese documentaries refer to Yasuke as a samurai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#Japanese_Documentaries/TV_Series_that_talk_about_him_being_Samurai Theozilla (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also thank you to Ivanvector for finally removing the original unnecessary addition that was added At 15:21, 15 May 2024‎, also I would personally recommend keeping the Yasuke page locked for more than three days. Theozilla (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Theozilla: while we appreciate your contributions, please familiarize yourself with our edit warring policy. Repeatedly restoring any edit is not allowed, even if you think you are right. The policy explains how you should respond if you find yourself in an edit war. Also, please find a way to express these sentiments without the personal attacks. We normally don't protect pages for any longer than needed to resolve the immediate conflict, but there are lots of admins watching the article now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't "restoring" an edit though? I was doing the opposite, i.e. removing an new unnecessarily added edit (though yeah, it still definitely devolved into an edit war). And I don't believe I personally attacked any other users. Unless noting the fact that the Assassin's Creed video game reveal is what attracted racist reactionaries to the Yasuke article somehow qualifies as a personal attack. Theozilla (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, calling someone or a group of people "racist reactionaries" is a personal attack. You can say things like "this edit should be removed because it does not accurately reflect the sources cited", or even "because the source cited promotes a racist point of view" although you should support that with evidence. You can't say things like "this edit should be removed because it was added by someone with a political agenda". I hope the difference is obvious, but the policy summarizes: "comment on content, not contributors". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, but I was never directly calling a specific person or group "racist reactionaries", I was stating that racist reactionaries got attracted to the Yasuke article, which seems pretty undeniable as even Chaotıċ Enby noted how there was racist comments abounding in the Talk section or comments in the edit history. Theozilla (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oof, yeah that IP was definitely dogwhistling there. Might be time to semi-protect the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  HandThatFeeds, it was semi’d a little while ago by Drmies. Hopefully everything will calm down now. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Very Busy) 16:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh thank goodness. That was probably the messiest talk page I've ever seen. Glad something was done eventually. Zinderboff(talk) 18:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hello and thank you for the ping. I am a Japanese and was concerned about the discussion regarding the article and previously commented on the talk page.

  I feel that there is a very western-centric narrative being pushed on the page, by users such as Theozilla and Mmsnjd, that edits regarding Yasuke not being a samurai are by racists. By doing so the concern of Japanese people, who know more about this topic given how it is about Japanese history, are being silenced by western people who seem to be trying to push an agenda.

  Yasuke is sometimes depicted as samurai in fiction, because it is more fun to do so. He is sometimes called samurai by internet articles, because ignorant people spread false information. But all Japanese historical records show that he was not samurai. Why should badly-written internet articles by Americans who did not do research and do not cite reliable sources be taken as fact over real Japanese historical records in a topic regarding Japanese history? This in itself feels extremely racist to me.

  Furthermore, Theozilla says that this is racist backlash because it happened in response to the announcement of a video game. This is nonsense. This announcement brought attention to the topic, so of course people would discuss it. I have no interest in this video game, but I am concerned with non-Japanese people appropriating Japanese culture and warping Japanese history.

  The fact that these users are attacking anyone who does not share their point of view as racists shows that they have no impartiality and I believe that, if possible, they should be removed from editing the article.

  Thank you.

  27.84.15.217 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do not claim to speak to Admins, but no, WP:NOR, and WP:PA, moreover, your fundamental thesis is incorrect, as there does exist japanese sourcing to indicate the at minimum possibility that the article's subject was infact either a samurai or conferred a similar social status. There is apparently little controversy to apply the title of retainer, a title most often given to samurai. 2601:190:402:BFA0:94B4:D71D:BECD:7695 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I was tagged mistakenly, but I'm glad to know the page's long-term issues are finally getting some daylight. natemup (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed that the Talk:Yasuke page is a bit of a mess.

I do take issue with the statement above that there is any "consensus from multiple historians that he [Yasuke] was one [a samurai]". From what I've read so far, I see no such consensus among historians, and instead I see a preponderance of pop-culture publications that describe Yasuke using the word "samurai", but without any clear sources, and without defining how they are using the word "samurai".

As detailed in older threads at Talk:Yasuke, and as currently described over at Samurai#Terminology, "samurai" referred historically to a hereditary social class of Japanese nobility, something one could be born into or marry into. Meanwhile, "bushi" referred historically to something more like a job or profession as a soldier / warrior, regardless of family connection. There were samurai who served as bushi, and there were non-samurai who also served as bushi. These are two distinct categories.

There appears to be a lot of confusion in English-language texts, especially outside of academia, where "samurai" is used with a sense more like "any warrior in pre-modern Japan", which is decidedly not what "samurai" was used to mean historically. For any source describing Yasuke as samurai, we need to be clear (both in our understanding, and in how we edit the article) about how that source is using the word "samurai". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

However, so far the strategy has been for POV editors to just delete all references to him being a samurai in any sense of the word, leaving the article somewhat pointless in its focus. natemup (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Natemup — Why would omission of the word "samurai" make the [[Yasuke]] article "somewhat pointless"? I'm afraid I don't follow. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the entirety of his significance, as evidenced by the original version of the article, was that he was a samurai, in at least some sense. If in fact he was just, as the article states now, "a man of African origin" who served a Japanese ruler, it's easily arguable that there is little warrant for a Wikipedia article on him at all. (Save for his now ubiquitous pop-culture presence as—you guessed it—a Black samurai). natemup (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that Yasuke is potentially less historically significant as a non-samurai. Given the pop-culture interest, I think Yasuke as a topic is probably noteworthy enough to merit an article, not least to portray the actual historical picture, as opposed to the romanticized vision of an active warrior. If I've understood things correctly, we only have historical evidence that Yasuke fought in the Honnō-ji Incident and its immediate aftermath, which is quite different from the armored and fully armed popular image. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke was not a samurai in any sense by Japanese standards. I feel that claims that he was are attempts at historical revisionism by western people who are purposely ignoring Japanese historical records. The Yasuke discussion has a lot of such people who argue what samurai means, even though it is clearly defined. Western people trying to warp the definitions of Japanese words and culture to fit their own feelings feels extremely racist to me. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's nice. The article should reflect the sources, however, per Wikipedia policy. Currently, it does not (and may be one of the single worst examples of such on the entire site). natemup (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

While this IP does show up as resolving to japanese, I do think it is worth making clear that despite these claims of racism in following vetted research, WP:NOR applies and that claims that pre May-15 versions of the article that described the subject of the samurai as some western invented myth are flatly untrue. The japanese article calls him a samurai and many japanese sources, both primary and secondary, give credence to accounts that grant cultural status similar to if not exactly that of a samurai, as has been discussed and cited numerous times here and elsewhere. 2601:190:402:BFA0:94B4:D71D:BECD:7695 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This user's statements are false or intentionally misleading. There is no historical sources that state Yasuke is a samurai. There are Japanese theories and fiction that state Yasuke is a samurai but it is generally not accepted as historically accurate. This user is applying original research and using pop culture and non-academic entertainment internet articles as proof that Yasuke has "cultural status similar to a samurai" while arguing against actual facts. The fact is there are no historical Japanese sources that definitively state that Yasuke is a samurai, and rather the wording used regarding his serving as a servant to Nobunaga would suggest otherwise, which is why he is considered to historically not be a samurai. If a Japanese news article about an anime calls him a samurai, it is because the anime shows him as a samurai and it is more catchy to call him samurai in the title to gain attention, rather than not. It is not a western invention, but many westerners purposely warp these inaccurate depictions. Furthermore I am very disgusted by this statement "While this IP does show up as resolving to japanese" for it feels like racist gaslighting where this user is trying to cast doubt on my ethnicity. WP:NOR and WP:PA 27.84.15.217 (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore I wish to point out that even this user says "similar to a samurai" meaning not a samurai. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That talk page clearly needs that template warning people about how it's bad if someone told them to come here. I suggest leaving the semi protection on for at least a month until some of the more persistent SPAs get tired of arguing and either leave or get blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: As some people are discussing article content in this thread, I'd like to remind everyone that ANI is for discussing behavioural problems, not just content disputes. In the interest of not getting too far off-track in this thread, I would like to direct everyone interested in discussing Yasuke himself to head back to Talk:Yasuke and follow content dispute guidelines from there. There is clearly a legitimate discussion to be had regarding Yasuke's status within Japanese society during his life, but we're here at ANI to discuss the behavioural issues at Talk:Yasuke, not to debate the content of the Yasuke article :P

Moving back to the main topic of this thread, the discussion on the talk page seems to have calmed down since it was semi-protected, but I am a bit concerned that trouble will continue to plague it, either by disruptive users waiting for autoconfirmation or when the protection period ends.

Worth noting that an online gaming news publication by the name of Niche Gamer has covered the "controversy" that seems to have brought attention to the Yasuke article[57]. I'm not sure if a media outlet covering this constitutes as canvassing (though I imagine this has also circulated on sections of social media in a way that likely would be considered canvassing), but I must note that Niche Gamer appears to have a particular political slant and seems to have played a role in drawing WP:NOTHERE users and IPs to the discussion. In particular, I have noticed that several of the IPs and users involved in discussion of the talk page are recently created accounts or IPs with few or no other contributions, some of which consist solely of involvement in discussions on the talk pages of other "gamer culture war" type topics (such as Sweet Baby Inc). This indicates to me that some individuals have come to the Yasuke article purely in the interest of pushing their particular views, not in the interest of making the article more historically accurate. I see that some of the more disruptive accounts have already been dealt with, but I believe further scrutiny of new accounts and IPs involved in this talk page is in order - some appear to be sockpuppets, others are simply NOTHERE. I won't point out the specific accounts I have concerns about in this comment, but if any admins think my concerns are warranted I am happy to discuss further.

Many thanks to the editors who stepped in to try to control this dumpster fire - hopefully my concerns are misplaced and all further discussion on this talk page will be respectful and evidence based :) Ethmostigmus (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is also spilling over into the Talk:List of foreign-born samurai in Japan with some edit warring and not so subtle trolling if someone can take a look. Yvan Part (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Kind of a side note but this does create a weird scenario where the article/talk page is very clearly something that would normally fall under the auspices of Gamergate related sanctions; but does not clearly fall under the WP:GENSEX sanctions.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The end of the first paragraph of the motions in WP:GENSEX states For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy so it would fall under WP:GENSEX, even though this incident has nothing to do with gender or sexuality. I do think it was a mistake to merge Gamergate into WP:GENSEX though, as gamergate has grown to encompasses all kinds of stuff (race, religion, politics...) and as a result the warning templates and notices and so forth don't really make a lot of sense in some situations. We saw this a few months ago with all the disruption around Sweet Baby Inc. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple. My plain reading of that line is that is saying that the original GamerGate controversy is considered a gender-related dispute, which was true; however that does not mean that *all* GamerGate-related (or inspired) controversies are considered gender-related. Those that are not, could quite easily and reasonably be read to *not* be independently covered by WP:GENSEX. Regardless, it's at the very least an area of ambiguity.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The funny thing about all of this is that the Japanese Wikipedia article on Yasuke very clearly defines him as a samurai, how that came about, and what that meant for the period. With proper references and everything. So all the claims of "Japan doesn't consider him a samurai" is nonsense on its face, without even considering the massive amount of Japanese cultural and media depictions of Yasuke going back decades considering him a samurai. But hey, Gamergate bigots are gonna bigot. Silverseren^C 01:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems pretty bad faith given that there are legitimate objections, and not all the people making them are new/IP users. I've been looking on scholar, and basically none of the scholarly sources by authors specialising on Japanese history explicitly call him a samurai (e.g. [58]), the exact objections Eiríkr Útlendi made above. Exaggerated portrayals long after his life do not make one a samurai either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The objections are by people who very blatantly don't know what they're talking about and are at odds with numerous Japanese historians that have already spoken up and confirmed that Yasuke was a samurai (resulting in aforementioned Gamergaters then harassing the historians for saying that). There's even a response over on AskHistorians with a detailed answer specifically using the Shinchō Kōki as a source. I notice that there's also someone named EirikrUtlendi over there in that very thread very poorly arguing against the clearly more educated person on the topic. Our EirikrUtlendi will have to let us know if that is indeed them or someone else with their username. Silverseren^C 03:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Having seen that thread already, I was just about to link it here. (You saved me a trip! :D) Loki (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So your "reliable source" is a Reddit thread by an anonymous user with no clear subject matter expertise, basing their claim on their own interpretation of primary sources in a language that you do not understand? I'm not necessarily saying they're wrong,

but I would want verification by someone fluent in Japanese. I'll let @Eirikr:'s elaborate on their arguments. Reddit upvotes/downvotes do not necessarily indicate the intellectual merit of the posts. It seems to me that a lot of this is mostly about the vague way "samurai" is used in English (and probably why the term is avoided in scholarly literature about Yasuke) an is therefore to a degree a semantic dispute Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if you are familiar with r/askhistorians, but it and answerers are not anonymous randos but infact actual vetted historians who have verified with forum admins their expertise. In this case the user is listed as an expert in Sengoku Japan, and if you bothered to read it you would know it actually cites japanese sources 2601:190:402:BFA0:94B4:D71D:BECD:7695 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been the issue for some time now. The English article previously reflected this scholarly consensus, but a few users (and one in particular) deleted a bunch of content and effectively blocked effective corrections throughout 2021, IIRC. I'm hoping it will finally get resolved. natemup (talk) 05:35, 17 May 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:Kingsif

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.

---

• Kingsif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Follow my dreams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has reverted edits I made to Follow my dreams on the basis that they are not referenced or unsourced. At no time have I removed any references or added any information that is not in these sources. I have simply specified that this work was modified in 2023. Also on the Talk:Follow my dreams I made a proposal to make two separate pages since the modified 2023 work is very different from the 2022 original work and I have also made an explanation to WikiProject:Arts explaining the problem. This user is constantly threatening to block me as well as instructing other users to do so, as can be seen on the Talk:FC Barcelona Femení and my Talk page. According to him, I make only vandalic edits. This user is making me feel that I am not capable of contributing to any page to this shared project. These are all arrogant comments. As a new user I don't think this is a pleasant situation. Need help. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Blow.ofmind78 when you report editors here you need to notify them on their talk page as it explains at the top of this page. I've done that for you. Shaws username . talk . 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and help Shaws username, I didn't know how to proceed correctly. Just wanted to point out the problem and if anyone could help to resolve it. Blow.ofmind78 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

OP blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I'll look into this a little more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - Blow.ofmind78 now confirmed to be sock of a disruptive agenda account, not a shock based on their behaviour. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You made changes based on your opinion about the subject, even though sources (including the artist himself) said otherwise. This, after you had been told multiple times by multiple users to learn how sourcing works.

And reporting someone for reverting - with reasonable explanation - your unsourced edits is just trying to bully your own way. Kingsif (talk) 21:02, 16 May 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:MarsVHS

Recent time-limited block for disruptive editing. Is now issuing legal threats on their Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking funny to me, I can't get what she wants to say, she said "You guys are interrupting my business", "You're impeding on my business." How can Wikipedia interrupt business. Lol GrabUp - Talk 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation was "Wikipedia won't publish my article --> my business gets less business --> I get less money --> this is legally actionable". Which, seems like a bit of a stretch. I'm not a lawyer, though. 142.245.193.2 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed email access now. No comment on someone else deciding this account has no future here. Izno (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Spamming multiple articles with The Famous Orpington & District Amateur Boxing Club

Box32 (talk · contribs) adding promotional content to [59]; [60]; [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]. Declined draft is here [65]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is why I have to bring crap like this here: [66]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That is appalling. I'll notify the contributor responsible, and ask them to explain here why they labelled your initial edit (more than adequately explained in the edit summary) as 'vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was something homophobic because I seen the revert summary "Stop with this gender bullshit", that was on my part i should of seen the other edits before reverting. ModdiWX (message me!) 15:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry--where did you see that comment related to this thread? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed for advertising/promotion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

By entering into this and by the confused explanation above, there may be WP:CIR issues at English Wikipedia regarding Lolkikmoddi. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be evidence that at minimum Lolkikmoddi needs to be a lot more careful with the use of rollback tools. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive, perhaps, but I'm not sure why this [67]] was considered 'homophobic.' Rollback privilege needs to be looked at here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It was a mistake. Sorry for any ruckus I have made. ModdiWX (message me!) 15:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand. It looks like what we have here is an editor who has access to offline sources, but has no experience with something like Wikipedia. Is there anyone who has the time to help them out a bit? I think they're editing in good faith, but Wikipedia is quite a bit different than being a boxing coach. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there's someone here [68] who'd be interested in helping. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't hit the right note, while this is unfolding, for the editor to restore unsourced content [69]. They've already earned their share of warnings for this since 2021. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Orpington & District Amateur Boxing Club has been re-created. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I understood unblocking them, but COI and WP:OWNERSHIP are so deep that I'm requesting a topic ban at the very least. This could allow for uninvolved editors to determine whether the article was ready to proceed beyond the draft, and if so, begin the necessary clean up. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Langalakh

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

The only edits this user has made have been to my personal talk page. They asked me some questions about desertification and tungsten carbide which are easily answered by reading those articles. They said this was for a school assignment. They have repeatedly jumped into conversations on this page with other users in unhelpful ways. I asked them not to do this and said they might be blocked from editing if they aren't using talk pages to help write articles, and they said they understood but then did so again anyway. Previous jumpings-in:

• Special:diff/1223834172
• Special:diff/1223668700
• Special:diff/1223557584

-- Beland (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:CastlevaniaWriter

Apologies in advance if this is the wrong section. Please redirect me. I would like the adminstrator's guidance in this matter. Alucard (Castlevania) is an article about the character's appearance in the Castlevania franchise, and not exclusively the video games he first appeared in. The character was confirmed to be bisexual in the animated series by the producers, Sam Deats. Reliable source: https://x.com/SamuelDeats/status/1237933897687740417

User:CastlevaniaWriter has consistently removed the categories Fictional LGBT characters and Fictional bisexuals from the article, their argument being that Alucard is not LGBT+ in the original video games. I reiterated the article covers Alucard in all media, even in the lead summary. When they said Iron Man from Marvel was not tagged as such, despite being bisexual in a spinoff, I thought the category Fictional LGBT characters in animation was still warranted - Alucard was confirmed as such in the animated show. CastlevaniaWriter then reverted it without explanation or offering another argument.

I noticed from User:CastlevaniaWriter's edit history they have a fixation with what they personally believe to be fraudulent categories of LGBT+ characters. I posted a warning on their talk page because I at least find their edits to the Alucard article to be disruptive.

Why? Correct me if I am wrong, but none of these categories were invalid, and they are backed up by a reliable source. At the very least, the category Fictional LGBT characters in animation cannot be disputed. I also know Wikipedia generally allows these tags in articles about fictional characters, even when their original incarnation is not LGBT+. Harley Quinn is a noted example. My question for the adminstrators: is this correct? What does the manual of style say? MailleWanda (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MailleWanda. I suggest you try the various suggestions at dispute resolution. Admins don't mediate content disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. MailleWanda (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible UPE/socking

• Lakasera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bamalli01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Onoja1
• Yahaya Bello (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure if this might be better suited for SPI but figured with potential UPE as well I'd bring it here. User:Lakasera is continuing to restore content at Yahaya Bello added by a different user, User:Bamalli01, and both have ignored questions about paid editing (even though it's obvious they have seen them as they have removed warnings from their user talk page). Both have had similar issues with copyright on the same pages (see Draft:RanoGaz Company - LPG). No opinion on the content dispute at Yahaya Bello because I haven't looked at the content itself very hard, mainly concerned about the very similar issues between the two accounts. Tollens (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Stumbled across the very similar Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onoja1 which has had issues on Yahaya Bello with identical content to what's in dispute right now (Special:Diff/1164476122). I can take this to SPI if that would be easier. Tollens (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly straightforward sockpuppet of User:Bamalli01; likely also be connected to the blocked User:Onoja1, User:Ogoos11, and User:Kwaro1 as the accounts are adding the same text and have similar mannerisms. On the content, this seems likely to be a very biased group of accounts or (more likely) a paid editor due to their other aggrandizing edits and article creations. The accounts blank the well-sourced and previously-discussed Controversies section then add biased and unsourced puffery. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

how could I paid in free encyclopedia was not like you I don't know any user ogoos11 and kwaro1. Bamalli01 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There's sufficient evidence that you have other accounts. One other account made a very similar edit like yours on the article. GoodHue291 (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the other account what I know is that I am editing in Wikipedia I don't when last I contributed in Yahaya Bello article. Bamalli01 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The edits and mannerisms are very similar between all five accounts, it's possible you have no connection but that wouldn't be relevant to the POV violations and section blanking that all of the accounts do — that's still inappropriate behavior. Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know any user with like that I have right to contribute in Yahaya Bello watercheetah99 don't have any right to stop me. Bamalli01 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked both users as socks of Onoja1. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ingenuity: Looks like there's an IP to block back on that article again. Maybe page protection would be useful too. Tollens (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I've protected the page for a month. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and POV pushing on Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico

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.

---

85.67.101.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done nothing but make POV, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTHERE arguments based on personal biases and utter misinformation on Talk:Attempted assassination of Robert Fico, including this edit: [[70]]. Borgenland (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, but you've done nothing to explain to the editor what they're doing wrong. I warned them. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Apologies. However, I am uncertain as to whether directly communicating with them given such odious fringe promotionals could contravene WP:DENY. Borgenland (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Establishing trollness after four edits is a bit quick, to my mind. If they come back, feel free to report at AIV, with an explanatory note, and please mark the edit summaries when you revert--NOTFORUM would have been legitimate here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

      Thanks for reminding me of WP:FORUM. I do have forgotten to use that keyword lately. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

      @Drmies their reply to your warning: [[71]] is clearly proof of WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA and WP:IDNHT. Borgenland (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yet another example of why we should leave breaking news to news outlets, and start the article no less than a week after the event, when the dust has at least started to settle. EEng 18:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • If only admins could get a mandate to enforce NOTNEWS, User:EEng. For shits and giggles, look at Yasuke and the talk page. Ha I bet that talk page is bigger than yours! I was way ahead of you. You might think that a 300k discussion about whether a guy in a video game was or was not a samurai couldn't get any more ridiculous, but actually it can: there's someone there was someone there speculating about whether the guy was gay -- a black gay samurai. Now I've seen everything. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 18 May 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.

SPA removing sourced and due content from Edcel Greco Lagman

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.

---

• Edcel Greco Lagman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Gabnaparato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an SPA account with a possible undisclosed COI, has been reverting sourced and relevant information about Edcel Greco Lagman despite repeated warnings. I had filed an ANI report three months ago but was advised to warn them off first about COI and SPI and WP:OWN. They have not provided any explanation and clarification as to their activity, have not bothered to respond to warnings and have resumed wiping off data from said page after a hiatus. Requesting for definite action to be taken on this. Borgenland (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The previous ANI was here on March 11, where the only admin comment was from User:Dennis Brown. To stop the removal of sourced content we might consider WP:ECP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Can this be filed to the requests for page protection page? Borgenland (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Unless there is disagreement here I can apply the EC protection myself. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

None on my part. Appreciate this remedy. Borgenland (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• ECP sounds good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 18 May 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.

Lonermovement Investments / 41.115.23.137

Greetings from Commons. I just zapped the User:Lonermovement Investments's uploads as spam over on that project and see they're trying to plug their brand here too. The IP came in right after the account and added more spam, with a fake edit summary. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Reported to UAA. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Lonermovement Investments for promotional username/promotional edits. Thank you, The Squirrel Conspiracy for bringing this to our attention. Thanks also for the 105 million media files that Commons hosts. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested block of non-communicative unregistered editor adding external links to articles

Can an administrator please take a look at the actions of User:2a02:587:a13:3600:15ca:6f11:362d:ce16 and their previous IP addresses 2a02:587:a13:3600:e9a1:caf7:86f9:ab37 and 2a02:587:a13:3600:8ad:a8ea:6792:9bea? Many of their edits added external links to the body of articles (e.g., [72], [73], [74]). I have asked them to please stop and they have continued. They have not replied to any Talk page messages or ever used an edit summary. I'm afraid that the only way to get them to stop violating WP:EL is to block them. ElKevbo (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

IPs belonging to the range 2A02:587:A13:3600::/64 are all used by one person; there are actually a few more than the three you give, User:ElKevbo, also with similar contributions. (All contributions are here.) This is not a good reason for the person to ignore the warnings at the most recent IP, User talk:2A02:587:A13:3600:E9A1:CAF7:86F9:AB37. I've blocked the /64 for 72 hours. Bishonen | tålk 00:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks for blocking the IP addresses. But it appears they either had an account this whole time and they're now logged in or another editor is making the exact same edits - 15mav0. I'm happy to open an SPI but I think the behavioral evidence is strong enough to warrant a block for block evasion. ElKevbo (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo we can’t do an SPI to identify an IP address with an account due to privacy issues. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

A CheckUser can't link an IP to a named account. Anyone else can, and an SPI can certainly be filed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

An SPI is unnecessary - there are clear behavioral grounds to link these accounts. They edit the same articles over the same time spans in the same ways - it can't much clearer. They're continuing the same behavior that led to their IP addresses being blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I considered a hardblock (="apply block to logged-in users from this IP address") when I blocked, suspecting this might happen. I've changed to that now, as well as lengthened the rangeblock to a week. And blocked 15mav0 for a month. Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC).

User:Galamore, gaming the system

Having joined Wikipedia some 6 months ago, user Galamore has made hundreds of copy edits, in the span of 1 month, spamming categories to articles, in order to pass the 500 edit requirement for extended confirmed protection. And later, immediately started editing controversial, ECP articles after gaining the permission. Ceasing all copy edits involving categories. Ecrusized (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, can you show diffs where they have used spamming categories. I just looked briefly on their contributions and I can't find much thread. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@SafariScribe: 130+ Category edits from 20 to 31 March 2024. Number of total edits during this period went from 300 to 500+. The last 300 edits are specifically made on ECP protected pages. Showing the user has no interest in editing non-ECP content. Ecrusized (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

JBW, you unblocked them a few months ago. What do you make of this, if anything? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm someone who is very willing to revoke ECP if it is clear that somebody gamed it, but I'm not convinced that is what happened here. The category work looks pretty solid to me, I don't think I'd characterize it as spamming. They certainly did dive headfirst into controversial topics once they got the EC permission, but I don't think a solid case has been made for gaming the system. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I thought basically the same thing. With the lack of concrete consensus on what amounts to gaming EC I let this slide without comment when I saw it. If there is any disruption in the ECR areas, WP:AE is the place to bring it up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish Mmm ... removing sourced information with POV unsourced information? [75] and bit of an issue here too. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thanks for pointing that out. Galamore, this...well this is bad in many ways. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  The edit at Palestinian Political Violence was introduced by a confirmed sock-puppet [76] and that sock-puppet was later identified in part because a second of their accounts was pushing to keep it in the article after it had been removed. My understanding is that Galamore was deemed not to be a sock of that group during that SPI process, but I have to wonder if there is, at the very least, some off-wiki collaboration with the sock account going on. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I enquired at CU, nothing turned up, more a case of aggressive (forceful?) editing, then, seems to be their style. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Others who made that edit were part of the Arbcom motion on off-wiki canvassing/proxying, but there are even more that made the edit that weren't connected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  While that isn't an edit I'd choose to make, it is a summary of (some of) the body. The Palestinian political violence diff is more concerning, especially with the sockpuppet issue. However, based on my literal minutes of research, it looks like it was edit warred over as far back as last year, so it's not like this is coming out of nowhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  ScottishFinnishRadish, I hear you, but they changed from "considered credible" to "others cast doubt on their reliability"; the body of the article does not bear that out: those "others" is one single man, whose arguments are countered in the article. So that's a pretty clear POV edit, and I'm also concerned that they haven't returned to discuss or counter these serious charges. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  There was also Biden and Kirby that cast doubt, so not quite as bad, but still not great. It's not outside of the norm of editing I see in the topic area. I'm more concerned that on top of the NPOV issue, it's also content we know has been targeted by socks and quite possibly off-wiki canvassing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as the administrator who a few months ago indeffed Galamore as a suspected UPE, after they wrote several extremely promotional articles about non-notable subjects: this doesn't seem like gaming the system. This seems like somebody -- I despise more than anybody for this to be true, but I must admit it -- editing in good faith, or at least not doing anything visibly wrong, along the rules that we explicitly tell them that they have to follow. At the

If we don't think that "500 edits and one month" is enough for someone to edit CT articles, we shouldn't have thousands of words of policy teling people, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that making 500 edits and having an account for a month is required to edit CT articles. jp×g🗯️ 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I frankly couldn't care less if someone is gaming ECP as long as their following CT edits are 100% productive and NPOV. That, however, is very rarely the case - like this example. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly know if it's rare or not? Anecdotal experience and confirmation bias are no substitute for data gathering and analysis. There have been thousands of new editors editing CT areas, and AFAIK no one has ever gathered data about or analyzed their productivity. Levivich (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not what I said. I was talking about editors who had clearly gamed ECP to edit those articles, not "every new editor". Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Even so, I feel Levivich's point still applies. I mean if it's too blatant and harmful, people may catch gaming regardless. But for someone like the subject of this thread, I strongly suspect most of the time people only notice the gaming when they are concerned over their editing and investigate further. In other words, if an editor makes perfectly fine edits in the area it's never going to come up. So unless you've carefully looked at a large enough sample of editors who've just gained ECP and determined if they're gaming then whether their edits are problematic you have no idea if most gamers are really problematic. The fact that most gamers you've seen are a problem may simply be because gamers who are a problem are the main ones who's gaming comes under scrutiny. Personally I suspect gamers are generally a problem in part because I feel most people who are desperate to edit an area make bad editors in that area. And also because IMO the 500 edits isn't just a way to ward of all but the most committed socks and make it a little harder for even the committed; but also increase the chances the editor will gain some experience how things work here before they dive headlong into a such a problematic area and the chances of this happening go down a lot when the editor just games to get there. But I'll freely admit I have no good evidence that it's truly the case, for all I know gamers are actually better than the average existing editor in the area. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't have much to add but when I first signed up (my sign up was with the intention of fixing incorrect unsourced information in an article) I made very simple edits to fix common spelling errors to get 10 edits. The edit I made to a protected article after reaching 10 edits was uncontroversial: it was never challenged and still stands to this day. With this editor they are controversial (any edit to Israel-Palestine issue is) unless their edits were very obviously gaming the system (I've seen an editor who adds wikilinks then removes them, often resulting in disruption to an article, which is quite obviously gaming it because why would you want to reverse your own edits so often?) I don't think revoking access is proper. Traumnovelle (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, my name is Gal, Gal the teacher (in Hebrew with English letters it comes out GALAMORE). I entered Wikipedia because I wanted to write about technology, I wrote the article on Perplexity.ai (which received 568,902 views so far!!), after I wrote about a few more high-tech companies I was temporarily blocked and warned not to engage in business matters probably for fear of receiving money for it. Almost every morning, before I start teaching, I go to Wikipedia to edit and I enjoy it very much. I am Israeli, so the Israel related topics interest me. If it is relevant, politically, in Israel I believe in peace with our neighbors and want an end to wars. When I see something that is biased, I try to balance it and bring sources from both sides. Even if there is an Israeli editor who makes claims that are "in favor of Israel" but are not substantiated, I will correct it - because I truly believe in balanced coverage of topics. I am not obssessive to my edits, I just enjoy adding information and I think it is productive to humanity. On this occasion, may I ask where and when can I request that the prohibition to write on tech companies be removed? Galamore (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll @JBW: the unblocking admin who can hopefully say more about you editing tech companies. By my read, you weren't really formally topic banned, so technically there's nothing to appeal but JBW could clarify further. However I have to say since it's only been 3 months since you were unblocked and editors have expressed concern about other aspects of your editing since, I'm not sure it's a good idea to go back to editing areas where you got in trouble before, so soon. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Also @JPxG: the blocking admin who was concerned about your editing although I'd note the concern was over the creation of new articles generally, and what you said is "promise not to deal with commercial companies or anything related to that" rather than tech companies in particular. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

ok. thanks. The fact that the article I wrote, and remained even though they wanted to delete it, was very successful and received over half a million views, doesn't that reinforce the understanding that I am a capable editor? Galamore (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• When I unblocked, I said that I was doing so "On the basis of the assurances you have given about your future editing intentions", which appears to refer to "I promise not to deal with commercial companies or anything related to that, I will only edit articles related to education and education in Israel, maybe also about people from Israel's history". As far as I can see, Galamore has stuck to that undertaking. However, while not returning to exactly the kind of editing that they said they would continue, they have instead moved on to highly contentious editing in another area, and unconstructive editing practices, which I regard as if anything worse than the practices which led to the block. I therefore think that my unblock has turned out to be unhelpful to the project, and I will have absolutely no objection if another administrator decides to reblock the editor. However, since there have been no infringements of the conditions of my unblock, I think that any reblock should be regarded not as reverting my unblock, but as a totally new block, and I don't feel my opinion should have any more weight than anyone else's, just because I unblocked before. Pinging Drmies & Nil Einne, with apologies for not responding earlier to your notifications. JBW (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• I read the accusations and I do not understand what you want from Galamore. He contributes to Wikipedia, he came here wanting to write about companies and was blocked and then started to edit other topics and amongst other things started to edit articles on the conflict (which Israeli user who deals with Israel didn’t reach the conflict in the end?). Israel is a small country and half of what’s written on her in Wikipedia is considered “ controversial “. What is interesting is that he wrote on 4 companies in the tech sector, 3 Israeli and 1 international… Guess which 3 were erased… Eladkarmel (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw what BilledMammal wrote in the Arbitration request and what Eladkarmel wrote above about my case. This reading made me think that what I’m being accused of is unfair also outside my mind, because I don’t think I broke any rules. I want to make it clear I did not mean to hurt anyone. I apologize if i broke any laws. I want to contribute to Wikipedia and I truly enjoy writing. However, if you think i need to take a break to calm down I understand.Galamore (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandal is back yet again with disruption, stalking and 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.

---

Following on from this and this, the same vandal has returned under the new name DiddyDidIt2ya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), reverting a string of my recent edits, again with uncivil edit summaries. As before, that account has made no constructive edits to the encyclopaedia. – SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

indeffed. Rack 'em jp×g🗯️ 10:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

These British LTAs need to write me a guide to their weird insults. What the hell is a "plonker"? What's a "wittol"? Is that RD2? I know calling somebody a "nonce" is RD2. jp×g🗯️ 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

A plonker is either a part of the male anatomy or a man who consents to let his friends sleep with his wife/partner. It can also mean fool. 2001:4430:4175:F3BF:81EB:595:63D6:6A92 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I did ask directly, so thanks, I suppose. jp×g🗯️ 11:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• JPxG Given the initial vandal from the first thread was operating from a South Korean IP address, and given this (incorrect) comment is also from an IP in the same region, I’m inclined to think there may be a connection. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Somewhat bizarre. That's the only contribution from this IP, whereas the /32 has many hundreds across different articles, including some quite arcane discussions on back-office drama boards such as this one. I don't know exactly how these subnets work, and should probably leave this to somebody more capable of not blocking an entire ISP, although I guess bro here can catch 12 hours. jp×g🗯️ 11:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

BTW, a plonker is a dick. Same meaning - both as penis and acting like a dick. The IP was wrong on the rest. - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is definitely a mild insult meaning "fool" ("Rodney, you plonker"), but I've never heard the other definition; however a "wittol" is a cuckold. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary says plonker means fool, penis, and cuckold all in one. wound theology◈ 11:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cos Wiktionary is about as reliable as it gets...not. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The old OED thinks it comes from the onomatopoeic verb "plonk" and describes something dull or thick, including in a nineteenth-century example, cloth. I've often heard it used that way, including in polite company, but not anatomically. NebY (talk) 12:08, 19 May 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.

Sass (style sheet language)

• Sass (style sheet language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be a nice, sedate one about a technical topic, but one of the software's authors expressed an opinion about geopolitics, so now a rotating series of IPs are adding stuff like this diff to the page. When citations are added, they are links to github histories / issue forum posts and used as a launching point for OR. I think the article could do not only with protection, but someone willing to go through and revdelete BLP violations. - MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The article has already been semi-protected. I partially blocked the IP for a bit longer than the page protection will last. It seems this person has decided that Wikipedia's reliance on secondary sources is stupid and was only invented to stop people from righting great wrongs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The recent addition would seem to be covered by WP:ARBECR so the IPs are not allowed to touch that whatever their sources. Same if they try to complain on the talk page now that it's been semied, just warn and revert IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I get that it is sometimes obvious what the contentious topic is, but why do so many people revert or talk about it by saying only WP:ARBECR?

ARBECR is a remedy, the starting text says "The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas." and does not mention what the topic is at all, shows no evidence that the area being reverted is covered by the remedy at all and is usually not the only remedy applied to a topic. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:90E7:C193:821D:E8C2 (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for others but I'm fairly sure whenever I've reverted I've always gone to the editor's talk page and at least given them a CTOP alert for the Arab-Israeli topic area. Alternatively if I'm closing a thread on a talk page I might explain when closing. IMO in a case like this it should be standard practice. I mean an edit summary is probably okay to provided you link to the A-I case or similar. That said I can understand editors feeling it unnecessary if the whole page is so clearly in the topic area e.g. an article directly about the current war that the talk page has notices and there's maybe even an edit notice. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, in such cases the article is unlikely a problem since it's already EC protected. But the talk page can be when editors try to do stuff besides edit requests. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User needs TPA revoked

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 Dadaab Refugee Led Organizations Network (DARLON) is currently under a soft block for a username violation but recently posted a bunch of promotional text to their talk page. Should be changed to a hard block with TPA revoked. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Endorsing TPA revoking, account clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Cullen328 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 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.

2601:646:201:57F0:0:0:0:0/64 again

• Contribs

Since the recent report about this got kind of forgotten about, this IP really needs the long-term CIR block reinstated. bradv's unblock was really inappropriate. Their contribs consist mainly of irrelevant link dumps on talk pages and in articles, long quotes inserted into articles, possibly pushing COPYVIO, and an apparent inability to communicate about the problems raised. The disruption has only continued at a high rate since the unblock with no signs of stopping. A mass rollback might be warranted here as well. (Not notifying the IP due to the near impossibility of doing so with an IPv6). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's just one of many such edits, for an example. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

5ive9teen, ownership behaviour and possible competence issues

• 5ive9teen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shōgun (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe 5ive9teen (talk · contribs) is exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour on the article Shōgun (novel). In a month's time, starting April 16, they made 300 edits to the article (see its history). Over those 300 edits, they repeatedly made unnecessary additions. I have told them this several times. See diff, it includes unnecessary piped links, stylistic errors, incorrect curly apostrophes, grammatical errors, factual errors (Dutch and English people are not considered Northern European, while the Portuguese are considered Southern European) and more. This discussion went on their talk page and later on Talk:Shōgun (novel)#Premise. Sergecross73 edit protected the article. In response, 5ive9teen workshopped the premise section on the talk page, in 40 revisions.

On May 15 I edited the article. I strongly urged them to read, check and double-check my edit before reverting again. Instead, 27 revisions later, they mostly undid my edits again.

Perhaps it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue, but it's definitely WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour. I have repeatedly stated I do not agree with their edits. They utter hollow words, stating they want to establish consensus, here for instance, without actually taking the time to discuss the article.

They have also been recently warned by FlightTime and Anachronist for edit warring on two separate articles. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Also notifying CapnZapp, HiGuys69420, Areaseven, Wikipedialuva and Aoidh, who also recently edited the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi guys is there a problem, I have no idea what is going on HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but you're not directly involved and don't need to participate here if you don't want to. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday, 5ive9teenremoved the notification of this discussion and have not replied here. Instead, there have been five more edits, bringing their total edit count to the article to 307. WP:OWNERSHIP continues, WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT behavior continues, adding incorrect markup continues. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

New user is turning redirects into unreferenced articles. Not responding to reverts or talk page comments

Selamsize (talk · contribs) has so far turned several redirects into articles that are completely without references. I and several other users have reverted these edits only for them to revert back with no edit summary. I have placed a couple warnings on their talk page but this user has not responded. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (article space): User talk:Selamsize#Block from article space. El_C 22:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: thanks for reporting this. The behaviour actually began with Sevgilerde (talk · contribs) (created 18 April), first creating similar articles about DCi and CRD, then Selamsize (talk · contribs) (created 18 May) creating them more aggressively. Might be a forgotten password, or might be SP/MP.

Worth mentioning that newer account Selamsize's persistence also extends to at least twice creating their malformed list articles at talk pages: article attempts at Talk:D4-D were twice moved to Draft:D4-D 2 and Draft:D4-D 3, the first by User:Liz and the second by me. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Those pages may eventually require long-term protection, but I guess we'll see. Feel free to keep me updated. El_C 06:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Sevgilerde has today resumed editing on the same topics, and recreated them in main space at D4-D, Ford TDCİ engine, CRD (engine) and DCi. There seems little point in draftifying these, as the editor appears to either not be interested in the feedback, or may possibly have a CIR issue: note the frequent use of Turkic capitalised "İ", same as Selamsize. Should I open an SPI for this? Wikishovel (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If you do (open an SPI), may be worth including Alirasitsaribas in it, as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And now Mervanlar as well, created 15 May, first edits today. Okay then, an SPI it is. Wikishovel (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Just came to say that. It's starting to get a bit disruptive, they're moving these drafts around, submitting to AfC without any improvement, or just publishing. Taking a lot of time and effort from others to keep cleaning up the mess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly is. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sevgilerde is now filed, with a backlink to this discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User needs TPA revoked

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.

---

Blocked user Mrnehalislam63 (talk · contribs) is continuing to use their talk page for promotional editing. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 19 May 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:Researcherofgreatness

For a substantial period of time, the user Researcherofgreatness (talk · contribs) has made questionable edits and blanked content on dozens of pages related to Nigeria. There appears to be a concerted effort by this WP:SPA to remove or diminish notes of non-Yoruba ethnic groups and their languages while falsely amplifying Yoruba groups; this has now escalated to an ethnic-based attack on another user.

To cite a few examples of Researcherofgreatness' conduct:

1. South West (Nigeria): For context, the South West is a "geopolitical zone" in Nigeria that roughly lines up with the Nigerian section of Yorubaland but includes many other ethnicities. Researcherofgreatness was first brought to my attention when they removed most non-Yoruba languages without reason from the South West page. This is a tactic that has been employed several times before on geopolitical zone pages, with ethnic jingoist accounts associated with major ethnic groups removing the languages of minorities (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It is a good mark for a user that is not here to build an encyclopedia and was a key piece of evidence in the eventual blocking of a similar user. However, it had not occurred on the South West page yet so I reverted and went to Researcherofgreatness' talk page. In the replies, the account somewhat reveals their motivations, falsely claiming that the Ewe and Gun languages simply are not spoken in Nigeria and dismissing non-indigenous languages as languages for "migrants" that do not count for whatever reason. In a move I just noticed today, Researcherofgreatness actually went to the Ewe people page to remove southwestern Nigeria from its lede. Clear attempts to remove non-Yoruba groups and languages from pages relating to southwestern Nigeria.
2. Agbada: For context, Agbada are a form of popular Yoruba robes. Researcherofgreatness created the article for Agbada in 2023; however, the account has spent the last few months engaged in a dispute. Like other flowing robes in West Africa, most historical accounts (that I have seen, I'm not an authority on this topic) categorize the agbada as a form of boubou (a West African kaftan) which was adapted from clothing brought from North Africa through trans-Saharan trade networks. A user — Oluwafemi1726 (talk · contribs) — has attempted to add this history to the Agbada page, but Researcherofgreatness has repeatedly removed the section without stated reason. In line with an ethnic agenda, it appears as if Researcherofgreatness does not want such an iconic Yoruba garment associated with a foreign origin regardless of factual accuracy or the literal millennia that may have passed since the kaftan first arrived in Yorubaland. Moreover, the account clearly has issues with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR on the page, regularly referencing that they created the page as if others need approval to edit it and threatening to "lock" the page if others make edits (despite not having that power).
3. Cannibalism in Africa: It appears one of the only times that Researcherofgreatness has edited something about a non-Yoruba group and not mass removed information was when they added "reports of cannibalism in post colonial Igboland" to this page. The source was flimsy at best and appears to be self-published, so it looks like an attempt to disparage Igbo people — another large Nigerian ethnicity.
4. Yoruba people: One of Researcherofgreatness' most recent inappropriate edits was to entirely remove the "Names" section from the Yoruba people page, claiming it was "lies and antagonistic" that wasn't on the Hausa or Igbo pages. This again shows that the account has no interest in building an encyclopedia as they are entirely willing to blank well-sourced sections purely because they are here to wage ethnic disputes. Like with the Agbada page, it appears as if Researcherofgreatness did not want evidence that Yoruba is a relatively recent ethnic identifier on the page regardless of factual accuracy.

There are many other examples throughout their editing history, some relatively banal (like a penchant for adding "of Yoruba descent" to pages without sourcing) and some pretty obviously rule-breaking (like implying that I have no right to edit the South West (Nigeria) due to their perception of my ethnicity). There needs to be some form of action against this user, this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-biased edits — which are not common but have plagued some Nigerian pages (I reported a similarly biased account last year). Researcherofgreatness' focus on Yoruba food and clothing seems genuine and would be a well-needed addition to Wikipedia; however, they seem incapable of being objective and their conduct towards other users is very worrying. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

There are definitely some troubling, consistent patterns with that editor. Constant hostility, edit-warring, opinion-pushing. The Agbada diffs are particularly bad, not just from a content standpoint, but the WP:OWN and strongly implying in the edit summaries that they have administrative powers if people don't cooperate [77] and [78]. Whether WP:NPA, WP:NOTHERE, WP:EDITWAR, or WP:FAKEADMIN (and on and on), there's a smorgasbord of things to choose from for a justified indef. This is an area that needs fewer battlefield generals, not more. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Objection. It's the user above that has a bias. There are so many trolls on Wikipedia. I am only here to contribute honest content not engage in troll drama. Researcherofgreatness (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have edited topics for other ethnic groups all in good faith. Recently, as you can see, I edited on Jambalaya and Gumbo. The User above is a liar. I won't even bother addressing the other accusations, that blatant lie alone is clear. Researcherofgreatness (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Researcherofgreatness, Watercheetah99 has compiled a compelling case demonstrating bias in your editing. It is detailed and likely to sway uninvolvd editors who review cases on this noticeboard. It would be to your benefit to address the specific complaints and not just dismiss them by casting aspersions that the other editor is a "liar". That's a terrible defense if you want to continue to edit here. What happens with you on this project will partially be due to providing an adequate response to what seem like valid complaints about your behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

What did the above user lie about? I have never interacted before with you and my conclusion comes solely from reading the things you have written. Some of the things you've written have been completely inappropriate (and I linked two of them). Just in the 90 minutes after you responded here, you had multiple posts removed, one for poor sourcing and another for falsely accusing someone of making racial slurs because of a section you've edit-warred to remove.

It's your prerogative, of course, to not address anything brought up about your behavior. But uninvolved admins and editors similarly can judge your lack of candor when evaluating what actions, if any, need to be done. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked Researcherofgreatness.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Anonymouselz777

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.

---

New editor making repetitive, large text removal from a CTOP article. See:[79] O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah surprised to see this account still kicking. Arkon (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I corrected article bias, which was complained about by others in the talk page. Articles should not contain political bias leanings. They should only state the facts. Objective3000 tried to keep the left leaning bias in the article. Sadly, this behavior makes people believe that Wikipedia is a liberal website. Every Wikipedian should be working to eliminate article bias. I still left many of the negative statements about James O’Keefe; I simply removed some of the bias in the article. Unless such changes are made to all articles, Wikipedia will continue to be regarded as a liberal website. This should not be a political battleground but a reference for people on all sides of the political spectrum. Anonymouselz777 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit-warring was reverted by four editors including an admin and you have not discussed on the talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia’s edit warring policy, I am not edit warring because I am stopping vandalism to the biography of a living person. Anonymouselz777 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You have now tried to force this change for the fifth time. [80] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Anonymouselz777 for 72 hours for edit warring. They can use that time learning what vandalism actually means on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah after the block they have continued to accuse O300 of vandalism. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me. Let them vent a bit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 19 May 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:Smefs Continued harassment / personal attack after previous block for harassment / personal attacks on May 7 expired

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 advised by Deepfriedokra to bring this issue here after this behavior from Smefs continued. Smefs was blocked by Acroterion on 7 May 2024 for personal attacks/harassment. During their block, a random IP came to revert my edit on the Hin Bredendieck article, a fairly obscure article which had seen exactly zero edits from IPs before or after their block. After their block expired, they continued reverting my edits in a harassment campaign, claiming various rationales in edit summaries that were usually a partial version of reality (claiming I removed sources when I hadn't, claiming they added reliable sources when they hadn't etc.) Some examples of misrepresentation:
Edit sum: "Undid edit by edit warring user removing further reliable information, obfuscating massacres, etc." I had done no such thing, as I added a source and used information from that source.
Edit sum: "Yes, I added a reliable source to the original page." They had not done that. A reliable source was eventually added by a different editor, only after I opened a discussion at WP:RSN.
Claimed, on the talk page, that I removed reliable sources from the Rhodesian article. I had not removed a single source; in fact, I had added one. I'm also the one who opened the talk page discussion after their choice was to start edit warring there.
Edit sum: "added src". Obviously, no source was added.
They have also not stopped with the personal attacks, today stating "Unlike you, I don't have hours a day to go back and forth on Wikipedia -- I'm a grad student with a lot on my plate." They then followed that up with "Is that an insult? It's not meant that way, it's more of a statement of fact" on Deepfriedokra's talk page. I don't know where else to turn at this point. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

As I was typing this up, they continued to edit war at Propaganda in the Rhodesian Bush War to force their preferred version, with no edit summary and ignoring the points I discussed on the talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You have been continuously editing the page in order to whitewash massacres committed by African paramilitary groups and have failed to acknowledge that fact. Smefs (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

1) This edit is from Wisconsin, a state in which I do not live. This is a complete non-issue: you brought it up once before and Deepfriedokra confirmed it is an unfounded accusation. You have no grounds for this accusation. The article is notable and linked publically on Google. It makes perfect sense that someone would edit it soon after creation.

Deepfriedokra did no such thing, so your statement here is, again, not the truth. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I linked to where Deepfriedokra stated that in my original reply. Please take a look.Smefs (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

2) This user's edits clearly and obviously removed information and were an attempt to whitewash massacres committed by paramilitary organizations during a war. They removed information on the St. Albert's massacre and used their one added source as a means to totally rewrite the section, making the actions of paramilitary groups seem less atrocious.

3) I did in fact add a reliable source to the original page. The source is Greyscape, which is only unreliable according to you. The only editor which has claimed Greyscape is unreliable is Fred Zepelin. I know this because he has posted on the reliable sources noticeboard to which nobody else claimed it was unreliable. You are deliberately misrepresenting the truth to make me look like I am making unfounded changes.

4) This is one of the most egregious misrepresentations you've made. I'm the one edit warring? Fred Zepelin has continuously and repeatedly been hounding my page for no other reason than that I made conflicting edits with him on the page for True North Centre, showing obsessive and unnecessarily aggressive tendencies in his speech. The only reason he is even editing the Hin Bredendieck page is because he saw it in my revision history -- I was the one who translated the article from German to English. If this doesn't show clear bad faith I'm not sure what else will. For posterity, I'd like to reference Fred Zepelin's talk page, on which multiple users (1, 2, 3) have complained about a similar pattern of behavior. This war was started from Fred Zepelin stalking my page and reverting edits I've made months ago, which aside from being obnoxious shows clear bad faith.

5) I added the source to the original page. Again, clear misrepresentation.

The claims about me starting "personal attacks" are totally unfounded. Aside from one regretable comment I made where I questioned this user's sanity, I have been exceedingly respectful, especially considering this user's persistent, relentless attacks on me. I do not find any joy in continuing to edit war with some guy on Wikipedia. If this behavior continues, I would be interested in filing a notice for harassment myself.Smefs (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I seen them here cause my talk page is not the place for this.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

As they've already rode out a week block for personal attacks and immediately jumped back with editing the page in order to whitewash massacres even here at this ANI I have blocked them indefinitely, until they can demonstrate that the behavior will not continue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 20 May 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.

Entire IP range vandalizing and disrupting tons of Wikipedia pages. +SOCK

2603:8001:B202:3294:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This entire IP range is vandalizing / disrupting several articles without hesitation and stop. Most of the edits are sourceless and few of them include unrelated sources. Many of these accounts are sockpuppets that target the same articles, but not only that, it seems that just over the past 24 hours, the IP range has started to vandalize article's talk pages, user talk pages, personal user sandboxes, personal user archives and several Wikipedia articles as well, of course.

This IP range is already blocked from 2 articles, but I would suggest to block the entire IP range from editing anything in Wikipedia (anon-only) as the disruption will never start.

Here you can see just some of these examples. Affected pages just within the last 24 hours (except from the Croatian kuna page, as the range was blocked from there 3 months ago) and the other pages are from the last 48/72h:

• Almería (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tabernas Desert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eurasian eagle-owl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• El Ejido (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Climate of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Climate of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Totalitarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Germany–Japan relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Croatian kuna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Almería (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Joy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Farell37 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Farell37/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Scheridon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Asqueladd/Archive003 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Last 24/48/72 hours as well:

• KCBS-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WBBM-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WLNY-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WFOR-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WCCO-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KPIX-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KCNC-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WJZ-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WKBD-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WPKD-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And many more TV stations pages, honestly won't count them all.

• Villa La Angostura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as well.

--WikiEditor1890 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This user also seems to break WP:NPA in their own talk page when asking to be unblocked from the partially blocked pages: Unblock me, if not, you are a Catalan separatist! --WikiEditor1890 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

72.134.38.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) new update: Seems a sockpuppet of the above IP range as it's targeting the same pages and the location is identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditor1890 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Also, it seems that i'm being targeted by these IP users, sincc i'm more active editor than WikiEditor. The fact that this IP user's edits are not properly cited with reliable sources, he himself sent me on my talk page about the snow in the Almeria mountains, which doesn't even have anything to do with the article. Furthermore, he edited my sandbox unnecessarily, just saying that they are talking about setting up some autonomous communities. Also, this same user changed the Koppen climate classification of the Tabernas desert without any specific reason.

Now my point of view: all this gets stranger after the confrontation with the user Weatherextremes ends. I say this because this same user has already tried to add several unproven sources that it snowed in Almeria, instead of just relying on AEMET data. Furthermore, as soon as Weatherextremes became inactive (last edition 15 march), these IP users began editing the Almeria article for no specific reason, in addition to editing other Wikipedia articles. This is my assumption, since there are other things that this user edited that don't make any sense and that Weatherextremes has never edited articles of this type. Farell37 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDOIT has been blanked four times by 3 different accounts

As of a few minutes ago, the redirect page Wikipedia:JUSTDOIT pointed to a page that just says . The blanking was first made three weeks ago,

• first by an account User:Gebelil that no longer exists on March 14.
• then by an IP account 65.25.1.132 and
• Then by by another IP account 2001:ee0:229:14ce:d102:ed09:7ce3:c07b.
• and again by the same account o "Giatricotloi".

I reverted again but I think this page needs to be protected temporarily and the other two IP accounts need to be blocked or banned or something. I hope this makes sense. Feel free to ask questions. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a month. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly this isn't a page that requires editing to be open at all. It's not likely to be valid to change it to anything else. Canterbury Tail talk 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

71.174.52.146 (talk · contribs) Vandalism and disruptive only editing IP for years

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.

---

Looking at the talk page history and the recent, it shows this IP is not here to build an Encyclopedia. This is a disruptive, vandalism editing IP and needs blocking.

The history is too long. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:27, 21 May 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:elshadabulla1954 accussing of supporting not good people

so recently i was discussing with user:Elshadabdulla1954 about the importance of citing sources since they attempted to just claim on the elshad abdullayev page that elsha adbullayev was performing some crimes related to fraud. I of course reverted these edits since they were unsourced, however quickly I was accused on my talk page of "supporting a fraudster" and "defending a criminal" by user:Elshadabdulla1954 even though all I did was request for sources to be provided. I'm not entirely certain what my best course of action should be in this situation so if someone could help me out it would be greatly appreciated! ps: the comments are still on my talk page if you want to take a look at them Gaismagorm (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

alright the user has been blocked, so the issue is now resolved Gaismagorm (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be a username block here sine the account is editing the relevant page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b1c8:b754:6106:ae10:b44d:ecfc (talk • contribs) 11:29 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I don't want to be too hasty before reporting them to the username board Gaismagorm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Reasonable suggestion re username block but probably unnecessary in this case. From their edit history they're not trying to impersonate Elshad Abdullayev. And of course they are already blocked indefinitely. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here? If I am not mistaken (which i very well might be) you are trying to say that the username block wasn't fully justified? I am not sure if this is what you are trying to say, so if it is not a clearer explanation would be greatly appreciated. Gaismagorm (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

EuroLeague - User:Cf203, User:Coining, and IPv6s

There seems to be some odd stuff going on at EuroLeague and its talk page. Primarily, it's Cf203 (talk · contribs) apparently in a bit of a content dispute with some IPv6 users who they're accusing of using VPNs, and lumping Coining (talk · contribs) in with them. Right now there's a slow-motion edit war on the article and I've removed tit-for-tat block requests from the talk page (from Cf203 targeting Coining and an IPv6 targeting Cf203). See also: User talk:Coining#Last Warning and User talk:Liz#Vandalist, as those are also related to this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

My thanks to Jéské Couriano for raising this issue. For now, I point to my prior defenses at Talk:EuroLeague and my user talk page, and I convey that I'm happy to answer any questions an admin has for me. I get that Cf203 doesn't care for the anonymous edits that were made by others, but they weren't from me -- I approached things directly and publicly on the article talk page, and yet the reaction from Cf203 goes against WP:AGF WP:SIG and I'm sure whatever policy Wikipedia has about not leveling charges of vandalism without a proper basis. Coining (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi , now i havent issue with User:Coining . I messaged their talk pages. And I requested to block VPN and protect pages from destruction.

In the last ten days, one person has broken pages many times with different VPNs.

Last VPN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:6C2D:134D:F618:6F9B

Others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liz#Vandalist

more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:388E:3741:ADCC:24E4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:8B05:4300:916:D566:7B6:5972

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:6C2D:134D:F618:6F9B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:9805:1400:532:38F0:C5DC:18AA

- Athens, Attica, Greece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.167.197.143

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.203.97.145

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.218.90.24 Cf203 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) *sig moved by 2804:F1...53:A19D (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC): diffs1 (19:34), diffs2 (19:45)

Respectfully, Cf203, though you say you don't have an issue with me, you've left up your false vandalism charge against me at User Talk: Coining. It really should be replaced with an apology that shows contrition. As for the substance of what the IPv6 accounts are relaying -- the thing you call vandalism -- I can only speak to the EuroLeague article I've been involved with, but I think you are mistaking genuine disagreement with vandalism. Those accounts and I (who, again, are not the same people) are all trying to point out that the concept of gold, silver, and bronze "medals" and the EuroLeague simply don't go together, and you haven't cited an outside source that says they do. So, your effort to keep reinstituting a "medals table" keeps getting reverted (never once by me, but by others -- I simply raised the point in the article's talk page). Just because you disagree with that determination doesn't make it vandalism. But what likely got you here, to this administrative discussion, is that you turned the disagreement into a "war" (your word, on my user talk page) and I, an innocent bystander, was caught up as collateral damage, when you falsely charged me with vandalism. And when Jéské Couriano tried to explain proper Wikipedia procedure, you also summarily ignored him. And, no matter how many times I try to point you to the requirement to sign your posts WP:SIGN, you keep not doing so. I hope an administrator sees fit to give you some sort of time out. Most of us would rather focus our efforts on improving articles rather than having to deal with things like this. Coining (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• It's clear to me that the situation at the EuroLeague article, and related articles, is a content dispute. There is no vandalism taking place there. Accordingly, I've given Cf203 a standard templated message about edit warring, as they are subject to being blocked if they breach the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

He continues to vandalize, insult, edit war and destroy articles. Who should stop him?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:85f:ecd7:d600:c0e6:3e48:10d2:525d

His VPNs should be blocked and his articles protected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EuroLeague#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:55AA:85E3:7089:389C

I did not enter into an editorial war. I have discussed enough here. The account user did not respond. VPN had no answer except destruction and manipulation. Cf203 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, User:Cf203, be careful about how you phrase things. You say at the beginning of this last comment "He continues to vandalize, insult, edit war and destroy articles." A casual reader would think that I am the "he" you are referring to because the topic of this conversation refers to the two of us. Continuing to read your comment, the accounts you are complaining about are the IPv6 accounts, which I have explained to you time and again are not me. You claim you don't have an issue with me, but you seem to not be willing to distinguish between those you do have a genuine dispute with and those, like me, whom you've simply made up accusations against. Do better. I continue to leave in place your false vandalism charge against me at User_talk:Coining in the hope that you will take it upon yourself to reverse your edit and apologize. You haven't seemed to be willing to do that yet, but you still have a chance. Coining (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See this history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIBA_Europe_Cup&action=history

One of the users deleted his edit and he restored it again with different VPNs. All his VPNs should be blocked forever. It should be checked which VPN it uses so that all its addresses are blocked.

{{GoodHue291}} hello remove all edits of this vandalist and lock all pages for ips and vpns.Cf203 (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cf203: Do you want to explain why me template signing your unsigned comment, and reverting your section title change with the clear explanation that your change violates WP:TALKOTHER, is to you blocked user nonesense content? Further, you've now included me in the list above - what exactly am I being accused of? – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:C0E6:3E48:10D2:525D

Cf203, you just linking to IPv6 contributions without providing any additional context is not doing you any favours, —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither is the WP:FORUMSHOPPING [81] [82]. Your verging ever closer to WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviours and that wont turn out well. Amortias (T)(C) 16:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred: And upon inspection they went and reverted for a 4th time in a fraction under 24 hours and just minutes after your warning so I've issued a 24 hour block. Amortias (T)(C) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Harshdeep Singh Ramgarhia

Harshdeep Singh Ramgarhia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They've repeatedly changed Sidhu Moose Wala's infobox image back to a low-quality one without any discussion ([83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]). They've also edited other India-related pages (e.g. Diljit Dosanjh and AP Dhillon) disruptively. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Sex cult apologetics

This is about recent edits by Maribela777 at Gregorian Bivolaru. They smack of sex cult apologetics. The rub is serially performing WP:OR. Like how would Ion Cristoiu and Gabriel Andreescu know in 2017 what happened in 2023 and 2024, e.g. These are allegations that the press obsessively repeats, even though no official accusations of pimping or prostitution have been made? I.e. information about 2023 and 2024 is WP:V to WP:SOURCES written in 2016 and 2017. More details at Talk:Gregorian Bivolaru/Archive 1#Cristoiu and Andreescu. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The edits aren't of good quality but, despite the poor quality of the edits, there is the question of how to handle WP:BLPCRIME for non-public persons. That article, both pre- and post-Maribella777's edits is not in a good place BLP wise. I'm going to post something to WP:BLP/N shortly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Maribela777, the latest series of edits were more than enough to warrant it on their own. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: As far as I remember, I have only mentioned the name of one person, namely Bivolaru's French right-hand man. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article after Maribela777's edits is going to be hard work. :-( Robby.is.on (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Bilseric Contentious Behavior Continuing

User:Bilseric is a WP:SPA editor dealing with Croatian topics. Last month, there was a discussion about their contentious edits in this area, documented by User:Chetvorno [89] the discussion among multiple editors led to Bilseric filing a very long complaint at ANI [90] that ended with a logged warning to Bilseric for their behavior [91]

The subject of their behavior in this area (apart from the invective found in the ANI filing) continued to be discussed with Bilseric on their talk page by User:Doug_Weller and User:El_C among others. It ended with Doug asking Bilseric to make an informal agreement to stay off the pages until 2025. Bilseric agreed to this. [92]. Doug made it very clear that Bilseric was explicitly agreeing to that so that everyone could move on.

A few days later, Bilseric continued their behavior, arguing about the subject, and Doug reminded Bilseric that the agreed to stay off those pages until 2025, but took no further action [93]. Bilseric noted that the agreement had been made and intimated they were going on a break for the rest of the year [94].

Bilseric made an edit to the Nikolai Tesla/Nationality page that had been a focus point of the disputes today and Doug issued a one-year page block from that page. [95]. Bilseric then denied that any agreement had ever been made [96], accused Doug of retribution [97], accused Doug of making threats [98]. There was more, but in the interest of brevity, one can continue on the page.

Doug's taken a lot of abuse from this editor, and I think given that Bilseric repudiated an agreement that likely forestalled formal sanctions, both denying that the agreement existed or that any agreement would have any validity, more formal sanctions are in order, along the lines of a topic ban from topics dealing with Croatia, broadly construed, or a more generalized community ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Bilseric#Indefinite block. I've already warned Bilseric a few weeks ago in no uncertain terms and more than once. If they want to work towards softer sanctions, like an WP:ABAN or a WP:TBAN, they can integrate that into their unblock request. I, however, will not permit them with a free-for-all unblock request (or otherwise user talk page), and will revoke TPA if they continues being combative against others, including to admins like Doug and myself. El_C 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: In light of their latest personal attack—one that pings Doug to read (in part) Doug Weller, you are a terrible person [...] (diff)—I've revoked TPA. El_C 23:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on ship-related articles

Merzostin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Obsidian Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Djong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Junk (ship) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. There is an ongoing edit war on the articles I've linked above, primarily between Merzostin and Obsidian Soul. Both editors have warned each other, yet continued with the reverts. Could an admin look into this? Thanks. (I didn't post at WP:ANEW because I wasn't sure whether I could, as I'm not directly involved in this, sorry if I should have posted there) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Not just those two articles. He also removed a large portion of sourced content on K'un-lun po. I have already tried talking to him. His removals and reverts are based on vague claims of "disinformation" and "disruptive editing" motivated by nationalism in complete disregard to sources. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANEW is indeed the right place for reports of edit warring violations, even filed as an uninvolved party. Although short of highly contentious topics, I don't believe action is typically taken until 3RR is broken, which Merzostin seems to have done on Junk (ship). GabberFlasted (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This editors have made a lot of reverts based on nothing literally, he didn't check the arguments neither did he check the sources, his reverts is definitely disruptive motivated by nationalism or bias towards other ethnicity.

Anyhow this users adhered to a certain biased agenda, as his edits contained double standard, for example he said that Chinese sources are not reliable and should be removed from Junk (ship), that they might exaggerate the size of ships but at the same on the Djong, he provided the same "unreliable" Chinese sources as fact on Djong page because the Chinese apparently describe a large ships of the Southeast asian from 3rd century, i guess they are reliable now and they didn't exaggerate this size of the ship.

he did this a lot, which showed his real intention in downplaying one ethnicity over the other. Merzostin (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not Indonesian.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

who said that you are? "downplaying one ethnicity over the other" you don't have to be of that ethnicity of the main article to downplay other ethnicity. While i am Indonesian and i hate misinformation and disinformation in general, especially regarding my own country and culture. Merzostin (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I said WP:PRIMARY sources including direct quotes from Chinese historical texts (many of them legendary, like your texts from pre-Han China) are not reliable, can not be taken literally, and need to be filtered through a reliable secondary source. That is not "downplaying" anything. Mentioning that the terms "junk"/"junco"/"juanga", etc. originally applied to Southeast Asian ships per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. Removing quotes from medieval travelers who are describing Southeast Asian (not Chinese) ships again, per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. Removing irrelevant sections on legendary naval battles in ancient China that did not involve junks, is not "downplaying" anything. Expanding and clarifying foreign and Chinese maritime trade from the Han to the Ming dynasty, is not "downplaying" anything. Correcting the actual characteristics that define a Chinese junk (and how it differs from the Southeast Asian ships) per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I fully protected this page by way of RfPP (diff) while unaware of this thread. But Merzostin, your approach suffers from excess WP:BATTLEGROUND, which you need to tone down. Above, Obsidian Soul made cogent points regarding the reliability and veracity of certain sources, expressed in a matter-of-fact tone. If you disagree, you need to likewise tone it accordingly. That is to say, in good faith; in a dispassionate and scholarly and civil manner. This, then, is a formal warning that if you choose to continue engaging the content dispute/s, you need to fulfil that. No more personal attacks or WP:ASPERSIONS about underlying ethnocentrism (diff), and so on. Otherwise, you risk sanctions that, in one way or another, may remove you from the page/s in question. El_C 09:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Yoyo360 Ignoring of page restriction after warning by admin

User:Yoyo360 is not adhering to page restrictions after having been warned by an administrator.

Warning by administrator

• [99]

Edits in violation

• [100]
• [101]

Intention to ignore and violate the restrictions

• edit description sets out intention to ignore admin warning and page restrictions

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I'd need a clarification to determine whether this is at all actionable. It seems that after being cautioned Yoyo360 did not, in fact, edit in article space and, instead, edited at article talk. Is the 500 edit restriction relevant to participation at article talk or is it only relevant to article space edits? Tagging @Acroterion: as the admin who issued the warning in question. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I re-read the original caution from Acroterion and it answered my question. Maybe a very short-duration block just as a way of them understanding that their edit history on FR-Wikipedia isn't relevant to these sanctions? The diffs presented don't seem particularly disruptive so I don't think a major action is necessary at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If the topic is under an extendedconfirmed restriction then non-EC editors are allowed to make edit requests on the talk page. This is not quite that but it's in the spirit IMO. No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I am sensing coded language here that somehow Am I prohibited from editing in a way which is not prohibited by others? what on earth do you mean by "No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them" It seems that there is a failure by the people to stop going after me as I and admin asked for a group of people to not comment on my talk page and that was ignored. This seems to be a way of going PP666 stop doing what are normal editing practices. Are you accusing me of harassment? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording of the warning is clear and I do not get the oblique comments above about what was said regarding "stop bothering them".PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that the wording of the notice was not optimal. Acroterion has already been pinged, but I'll remind everyone here that, per WP:ARBECR, Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. I interpret the two edits you linked to as making an edit request, although they did not use the template to request it but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; WP:IAR applies. Other admins reviewing might disagree with my interpretation, I'm just going to leave it at that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see this revert from an admin which this report is a follow up from [102]

Can this edit then be looked into as to if it was correct as it seems to have caused confusion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot, I just reminded an editor that the talkpage is under editing restrictions. They are free to make appropriate edit requests, but not to generally opine. Since this is a confusing area for restrictions, there's no reason to be draconian unless there's significant problematic behavior, we just need to remind people. Wikipedia isn't a court or a bureaucracy. PP666, I don't see anything that merits more than what was done, different language WPs handle things differently, and it takes some getting used to. This isn't about you. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as my edits are being discussed I will chime in and say that I do find this a bit confusing. My edits (the deleted ones highlighted above) were intended to be edit requests, so with the above taken into account I'm now not sure why they were deleted. I won't kick up a fuss about those specific edits because the issue they refer to was resolved, but clarification on what is/what isn't allowed would be useful in this area. For instance: PP666 is currently policing who can and can't be considered part of 'consensus' based on this deletion, but it's hard to tell where "edit requesting" and "consensus making" draws a line. If edit requests are allowed but opining isn't, then it sounds like I would be allowed to suggest an edit, but just not publically agree with someone else who suggests an edit? Is that correct? I just want to know what's expected here because there seems to be several different interpretations here BugGhost🎤 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the Arbitration Committee did not sufficiently clarify in their decision regarding edit requests, and so in the limited instances where I do enforce the sanction (because I think it's very badly overused) I interpret their decision as allowing any talk page comment which suggests an improvement to the article, but disallowing general discussion and conversations with other editors, though I usually let those slide as well as long as they're not disruptive. Many other admins will interpret this as meaning that only properly formatted edit requests using the {{edit extended-protected}} template may be considered and will remove any other edit; I feel that's bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Still others will indiscriminately remove any edit by a non-EC editor, which is clearly wrong but it still happens. In shorter words: Arbcom left too much space for interpretation, and so it depends on which admins see your edit. If you are proposing an improvement to the article then you should be fine, but some admins have harder asses. I believe it to be unfair, but that's what we've been given. If you think an admin is removing comments inappropriately, you can ask for a review at WP:AARV. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with Ivanvector. It's a question of drawing a line between chat and specific suggestions for article improvement (sans editorializing), and it's sometimes hard to discern where that is. For this kind of thing, I would prefer a fairly format edit proposal, rather than an extended commentary, since that tends to lead to trouble. I really meant to remind everyone in general to maintain decorum. Bugghost has 120 edits, which is a little scanty for contentious areas, so I just want them to think carefully before commenting in areas where restrictions exist, however fuzzily defined. As I've noted before, the Eurovision contest is a strange place to see restrictions like that, so editors may need more guidance than would be the case than if it were plainly within a contentious topic. . Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to both of you for more clarification on the topic. I won't be going to AARV because I understand that the scenario is nuanced and I think Acroterion is being reasonable. As a side request, if someone possibly reply to this comment to refer to this discussion or a summary of it? At the moment I think it is misrepresenting what you two are saying. I did it myself but realised that me doing that would ironically probably actually be against the rules that we're talking about, so decided to self-revert it for my own peace of mind. BugGhost🎤 19:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please with draw your comments of ‘policing who can and can't be considered part of 'consensus'’ as that is unhelpful to this discussion. I could say the same about people trying push me off the page for having an opposing viewpoint (I’m not it’s an example of what I could say). That though is not helpful. Perhaps take the invective out and we’ll all get along better. Yes this is contentious but don’t let it eat you. I don’t think inflammatory language helps anyone.

As has been said the Arbcom decision is ambitious let’s focus on that and not go after each others throats with barbs and alike. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "policing" is the correct term here, and it's not invective. You are taking the interpretation of the rules and attempting to enforce it on the public, which is the definition of "policing". I don't feel like squabbling over terms or causing a derailment. This AN/I doesn't strictly involve me, so I'll be going now. BugGhost🎤 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You may consider it correct but it is inflammatory and unhelpful to furthering the positive moving on by all. If you do not wish to withdraw it then I will know the colour of the person I am talking to. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Demanding apologies for every minor infraction does not seem to me to be in the interest of "furthering the positive". You may be interested in reading the essay WP:DROPTHESTICK. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@PP666, appointing yourself as moderator of that that talkpage and posting your interpretation of policy/consensus on what restrictions imply is a bad idea. We're trying to do this with a light touch. Please revert your notes on who can and cannot post. You are not an uninvolved party. Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is done but the irony of your comments is not lost on me. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, this wasn't done. The posts weren't reverted, they were simply wikicommented out and your instructions still sit uncorrected and visible to other editors of the talkpage, just slightly obscured. Commenting-out is not the same as deleting and I don't think it should be used in this way. BugGhost🎤 10:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Having read the guidelines on talk pages the guidelines frown upon deletion. I don’t think a strike through is a good idea as the comments themself are still visible. I did though remove them from being viewable. This way content is not deleted as the guideline frowns upon that and the inflaming content is not viewable. The relevant section is WP:TPO of WP:TALK. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

For wider context, this is part of a longer set of contentious discussions where there are claims of consensus and there have been quite ugly comments on a lot of sides this user included. Would you like me to provide diffs relating to that? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Restricting participation in talks due to edit number is absolutely ridiculous, especially in regards to the fact that, if we were to discard sections launched by contributors with less than 500 edits, we would discard all edit requests from these editors. And they may be pertinent. Also discarding an opinion based on a number is ridiculous. As for my wiki:fr edit number, I mostly bring it up because I am actually more experimented on wiki than my count edit here lets know and I feel infantilized by PP666. I just try to collaborate here because the corresponding project in French isn't active and I like to have opinions from other editors. Block me if you think that is necessary and that my actions are disruptive but I think, once again, that blocking edits on a talk page is ridiculous and counter effective. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous and stupid, but that is the rule. Anyway, you are now extendedconfirmed, so this thread is moot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your leniency. And with my apologies if my behaviour was incorrect. Maybe I don't have the subtleties of wiki:en yet. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's more a matter of giving you the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation. I don't think your behavior is a matter of concern, it's more a general concern that the talkpage discussions remain within boundaries. Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to double check, you're using WP:TPO, the section titled "Editing others' comments", as the reasoning for not being able to remove your own comments? BugGhost🎤 13:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems futile now and I am disengaging. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Related question

Can I get an admin opinion on this question/request by a new user on the talk page Talk:Eurovision_Song Contest 2024#Revert neededPicturePerfect666 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything in the disputed content that warrants mandatory removal (i.e. WP:BLP violations), and otherwise edit warring is forbidden, including edit warring over whether or not certain content should or should not be visible while being discussed on the talk page. In other words there is no particular policy or guideline compelling keeping it in nor keeping it out, the important thing is to discuss. Your suggestion to take it to dispute resolution is a good one, but say what your issues are with the content itself, don't just argue about keeping or not keeping it in the meantime. If someone else has restored the content after you removed it, let them, and keep discussing. There's no rush. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Noted and thank you for the suggestion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Welp, so much for that idea. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m off to the teahouse now see what they say. Also thank you for the close in the discussion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

IP 2409:4070:4403...

2409:4070:4403:4E16:0:0:2366:30B1 is a one-purpose vandalism IP causing disruptive edits such as changing and adding false years in film-related articles. Carlinal (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Carlinal, I see you reverted their edits to Disney.com. Since they'd already had a level 4/final warning recently for vandalism, the quickest remedy is to report them to WP:AIV. (I've done that now.) Your Twinkle dropdown menu (the ARV option) makes it simple to do. Schazjmd (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I hope I did this most responsibly. Carlinal (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

New editor, mass changes in article descriptions, what could go wrong?

ByzantineHistory435 (talk · contribs), changing "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" in dozens of article descriptions without discussion or edit summaries. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh joy, it had been far too long since someone decided to mess with the delicate status quo there... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've mass reverted most of the problematic edits and issued a Final Warning. This is a new editor, so I am not inclined to block them for now. Hopefully they will take the hint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ad Orientem. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and User:Licks-rocks civility concerns

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.

---

Both of these users have raised serious civility concerns on Wikipedia_talk:No_queerphobia#Replies_to_Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist. YFNS made a pretty blatant personal attack, saying I will say it plainly, stretching the absolute limits on assuming good faith, that was stupid and raises serious WP:CIR concerns. If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll. Licks-rocks is constantly assuming bad faith from me and making false statements about my edits, such as repeatedly saying that I removed a bullet point when I had actually merged it for redundancy, and later for saying that I had speculated on YFNS's competency to edit in this topic space based on her age at transition, something I did not imply. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• For clarity: I said this briefly before in a comment below, but I think this info should be at the top for clarity since I'm potentially/partially withdrawing one of the two users from this report. I think I can safely drop the WP:STICK against specifically Licks-rocks (the report stays up for YFNS though, I'm not letting the personal attack nor the disruption slide). Maybe a warning could be issued for me and Licks-rocks because of the conduct Licks-rocks and I had with each other, but I don't think there needs to be anything further for Licks-rocks. During the 7 hours so far Licks-rocks has been either asleep or busy, I discovered a diff (listed below in one of my comments) where they seemed open to discussion. It appears the false accusations were from good faith misunderstanding, not from malice, with the misunderstanding and frustration going both ways between both of us. It's annoying that the two of us had to go through this, and I apologize; arguing with two editors simultaneously frazzled me, and I had initially missed the diff that solved many of my civility concerns for Licks-rocks, even if we still disagree on the content. I think the Licks-rocks conflict can easily be reduced from a civility concern to a content dispute, which, while not ideal, is no longer serious enough for ANI. If something new comes up with Licks-rocks, I may reinstate my report against them, but so far I believe I can come to an understanding with Licks-rocks. As I said though, my report against YFNS remains due to the severity of her personal attack. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Just in case anybody is wondering what context UA is neglecting to mention, that comment was in response to the fact they removed That accepting transgender youth is a slippery slope toward putting litter boxes in schools or other strange beliefs about identity. from a list of queerphobic beliefs in an essay - stating that Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here (emphasis mine). [103] . Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

A content dispute is not a good reason to call me a troll, bad faith, or incompetent. You're also neglecting to mention how you started the whole argument with a sarcastic Non-Endorsement, which was extremely disruptive. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, this goes beyond "content dispute", which I assume is why you took it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It goes into user conduct dispute once YFNS made the very blatant personal attack, and I was also sick of you saying that I said things I did not do, and yours' and YNFS's latest comments on the essay talk page were the last straw. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think it went into user conduct dispute when I told you to stop repeatedly trying to delete content from that essay. The rest happened because ANI cases are a hassle and I was hoping you'd have stopped by now. If you have, I can't tell, because you're too busy arguing back and filing ANI cases against me --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you remember how several editors retracted their !delete votes to get rid of the essay because I was deleting content that was found to be problematic, and they cited the deletions as overall improvements? I figured it would be fine to keep trying to improve the essay, but then you accused me of disruptive editing because according to you, I shouldn't edit a page I voted to delete on. I also didn't want it to come to an ANI case, but once you said I was questioning YFNS's competence because of her identity rather than her behavior, as well as her name-calling me, those were the last straws. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a diff on questioning YFNS's competence because of her identity rather than her behavior? You can't just say someone said that without diffs. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the diff where I felt Licks-Rocks was accusing me, and here is the diff where YFNS made a very blatant personal attack. I'd also like to mention that I just discovered a diff showing that Licks-rocks is able to discuss civilly, finally realizing that I had merged a point instead of deleting it, although it came after these two diffs of false accusations. I apologize to Licks-rocks for not finding that first diff before making this ANI. My conflict with Licks-rocks hasn't disappeared fully, but my trust has been partially renewed after reading the diff where they said "fair point", as it seems like a lot of our dispute was founded over miscommunication. However, the issue with YFNS remains fully intact, and I can not in any way trust a user who will blatantly call another user a "queerphobic troll", cast aspersions of incompetence and dogwhistling, threaten to take me to AE over a content dispute, or in general say something as hostile as cry as much as you want, or make it extremely clear she's not open to discussion by saying the essay isn't going to change for you. Saying "I would call you a troll" is essentially the exact same thing as "I am calling you a troll right now". am aware that YFNS has had a GENSEX TBAN before; should her TBAN be reinstated if she will behave with such hostility towards a conflict dispute? In fact, for good measure, here's her sarcastic Non-Endorsement that I found to be disruptive, and the additional comment that made it confusing if she was being serious or satirical, furthering her disruption. I don't think there's any specific policy against sarcastic/satirical comments in talk pages, but they're not helpful and only make things confusing. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

?

YFNS had a GENSEX TBAN because admins refused to close the discussion when the filer was revealed to be a sock. It was illegitimate to begin with. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This time, it isn't a sock filing. Also, even during that prior discussion, many legitimate editors came forth with actual problems against YFNS. As the closer stated, It might make or break in a close discussion, but this was not close… Even though the filing was in bad faith, once the issue was up, it became apparent that there was indeed problem's with TheTranarchists editing. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Really LilianaUwU? You think I'm a sockpuppet because of beef with one user?. I just checked the supposed sock master's edits, and I don't have any other edits in common with the supposed sock master, especially not any of the pages tied to locations I have no familiarity with nor have I ever been to. Go ahead and check our IPs, unless the sock master is by some chance in the same area as me they'll be different. I would, however, like to report LilianaUwU for the unfounded aspersion that I could be a sock. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Yeah, and I withdrew it when I realized I'm horribly wrong. Apologies for the aspersion casting. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC) I apologize for blowing up at you. I'm glad you understand that I was frustrated at a false accusation. I'll strike my above comment. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Nah, it's fair to be mad at me for such a big mistake. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Also, since we're here... might as well put this up here. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Casting of ass Persians

I am open for a two-way interaction ban between me and both of these users, though I would still like for their behavior to be examined, as the name-calling and assumption of bad faith are both very uncivil in my opinion. I am also open to examination of my own behavior. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• See also the conversation I had with anon at his talk page. Also, take a look at the conversation mentioned above, and anon's general editing history since that MfD. Something something doth protest too much. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your most recent edit to my talk page still falls under my civility concern. You accused me, again, of obviously disagreeing with the premise of the essay, when I had literally just explained that I do think queerphobia is hate, and that the disagreement was what the essay considered queerphobia. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what the words "the premise" mean is very narrow here, to me. All in all, you've been pretty vocal about disliking what amounts to the vast majority of that essay, so I don't think what I'm saying is an unfair characterisation. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that this reply was made to the initial post(diff), the OP wrote the text this is currently a reply to 5 mins after the reply was made(diff). – 2804:F1...1D:E8C2 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Crazy thought. Stop arguing with each other here before anyone else has a chance to chime in. You both look bad. --Onorem (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I have been watching discussions about this essay for a while. Things are getting nasty and it must stop. All editors involved with this essay pro and con should be advised that false accusations, snide remarks, personal attacks and slow motion edit warring are unacceptable. Be on your best behavior, or be prepared to accept the consequences. Cullen328 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

yeah, uh, what he said jp×g🗯️ 07:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed anon's contributions in this area have been disruptive and it is far past time that he dropped the WP:STICK. His comments in the essay's MFD consisted mainly of soapboxing about his own personal views of what is and is not queerphobic instead of making policy-based arguments, he edited an archived deletion review after it was headed for a unanimous endorsement to suggest yet more discussion should be held, and now he bring this dispute to ANI after he chose to escalate it at seemingly every turn (ex. suggesting YFNS remove the "friendly" from her username). It's just an essay! Hatman31 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see your point about my comments on the MfD being soapboxing and not policy-based, but I can explain the edit to the archived deletion review. YFNS sarcastically wrote a Non-Endorsement and this additional comment made it confusing if she was being serious or satirical. My thought process was that she wouldn't reply to her original endorsement if she wasn't at least somewhat serious. It turned out to be sarcasm, but it was legitimately hard to tell until she replied later, so I requested to reopen the Deletion Review now that new info had supposedly come to light. Did I write it in the wrong place? Yes. I had no idea where to write it, and because I didn't know if it was sarcasm I didn't want to waste a page on new info if I didn't know it was serious or not. As for saying YFNS should remove the word "Friendly" from her username, I'll admit I did step too far and my comment could be interpreted as a personal attack, but I had felt she made a personal attack towards me first by misinterpreting my replies on the talk page and by saying that my agreement with her disruptive sarcasm was a stupid bar, before of course she made a more blatant personal attack. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If the people who write an essay want to avoid arguing about it with others who want it to say something else, why not just put it in userspace to begin with? That's what userspace is for, after all. This kind of thing is why I said it ought to have been userfied in the first place... jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, uh, what is this -- "In any case, cry as much as you want" -- it's great that you have good opinions and etc etc, but I do distinctly recall a person being indeffed some years ago after repeated ad-hominems about other editors "crying"/having "cried" -- so maybe less of that. jp×g🗯️ 08:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the next diff was the one that proved that Licks-rocks (who I also initially reported but have mostly dropped the stick towards by now) can actually be reasonable, with a statement like Fair point on the first removal. However, because YFNS blatantly called me a troll at the exact same time, I was more focused on that, and didn't discover that Licks-rocks even made that comment until a few hours after filing this ANI, and ended up wasting Lick-rocks' time. While I can only speculate, I do think the conflict between me and Licks-rocks would have reached a more natural conclusion if I wasn't also dealing with YFNS's disruption and general incivility at the same time. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate, if unsurprising, to see UA at AN/I. But the signs were there from the start. It is worth noting that they registered this account for the sole reason of continuing an edit war which they had waged as an IP, intent on restoring unsourced cruft material to an already-swamped fanboy page, even when advised against doing so (e.g. by Drmies, and Ad Orientam). This led them to forum shop in excelsis, and saw them file in rapid order at WP:AE, the Teahouse (!!!) and WP:ANI. They accuse others of lying (noted GorillaWarfare). I note that little seems to have changed. While it might look as transphobia is their latest POV to push, they have had similar gender-based problems previously (Claiming someone is gay because of a Twitter post, or advice from Tamzin in which she notes a degree of offensiveness in his treatment of transgender people); before which their previous behavior pales. But the side issues brought up—here and on UA's talk page—demonstrate that the lessons of a few years ago have not been learned. Edit warring (and the continuing misunderstanding of what constitutes it), bludgeoning, aspersions of trolling and edit warring (result: No violation: and the closing admin told UA they were basically throwing anything to see what stuck), and a basic IDHT unwillingness to be counselled are all old behaviors not yet unlearned. To quote Eggishorn to UA:

  You will, of course, dispute every characterization of your edits I've made above and defend yourself from these "accusations". Your statements at the Teahouse and DRN and AE all demonstrate that, no matter how many editors have told you this approach is mal-adapted for this website, you are going to insist on your righteousness. Please: you really, really need to slow down and read instructions and the feedback you've already received before you keep going. You are treating the entire project as your personal WP:BATTLEGROUND.

  That warning was from nearly four years ago. plus ça change, and four years later, we are having almost exactly the same conversation. Such recidivism suggests that they are a net negative and continually soaking up editors' time and energy requires a preventative block. ——Serial Number 54129 12:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: While I hate to bring up an entirely separate discussion into the mix, if you're going to bring up that one from 4 years ago, I can't see how you reverting to your preferred version of a page every month or two could be considered anything but slow motion edit warring, especially since three of the people who reverted you were not me (the first was an entirely different user and the other two were separate IPs who were not me). Only these two IPs editing that page were me, with a third one briefly rotated to here (and the first one was a temporary one as I was editing while not in my hometown), before I made my account in August, as I wanted to avoid the aspersion you cast that any IP reverting your edits to that page was me. In addition to the aspersion that every IP editing that page was me, and another aspersion of "bullshitting innocent admins", you publicly stated my location at the time, something I really do not appreciate, as it comes very close to doxxing. Calling me a "crufter" in that same edit where you stated my location at the time also comes close to being a personal attack since it's immature name-calling, but I'll let that slide for now because doxxing me was so much worse. Even after reverting your edit I had tried to find a compromise by removing said cruft without entirely removing the article's substance and tried to add sources (examples of both). I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless in that situation for a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that I admit I still have, and forumshopping that I have mostly stopped doing since that discussion with you, but it seems like you still believe you were entirely in the right even four years later, when what you were doing 4 years ago couldn't be described as anything but the exact type of slow motion edit warring that I'm (probably correctly) at stake for right now, and you're completely blowing off my attempt at cooperation. I hope anybody else reading can understand that I was frustrated at clear slow-motion edit warring from SN54129 being called "not warring" and especially towards being doxxed, even if my response to edit war back or forumshop wasn't appropriate. As I was a new editor back then, I did not know how to describe slow motion edit warring, and as I said I have not continued forumshopping. You're also claiming that Ad Orientem had told me to not edit the page; he never did that at all, and specifically said that In this case I am now satisfied that there is nothing malicious going on here when I raised my concerns. You linked GorillaWarfare, who said you were discussing on the talk page; while you were doing so properly in January, when the discussion resurfaced in August, your only substantial edit to the talk page was the aforementioned doxxing. You are also leaving out GorillaWarfare's next comment suggesting what I should do, and me properly following her advice. While I appreciate constructive criticism (Hatman31's criticism was constructive, for example), Serial Number 54129's criticism is not constructive at all, as it appears that you still believe you are blameless, when that clearly is not the case, and are completely ignoring instances where I showed that I was able to properly come to a compromise and consensus. I also can't trust how the discussion below started by Kcmastrpc was initially collapsed by you, when another user is bringing up issues with Licks-rocks. I hate to WP:BOOMERANG to a user that was initially uninvolved, but I feel I have to when said editor is misconstruing facts of a prior debate to get me blocked, whether intentionally or misguided. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Did I mention walls of text, anyone? That's another favored technique, and comparable to the AN3 report where an admin said they are basically throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the report.

But while it's true I was involved in that case, I deliberately didn't personalise it by adding my opinion. I did not even mention the causes of the dispute or the original page it revolved around. That's because it's irrelevant. What's relevant is you are showing the same behavior here as you did four years ago—as indicated by your immediate attempts at diverting the discussion into rehashing and relitigating an argument from four years ago. Anyone clicking those links will see my involvement and judge as necessary. But the important thing in these discussions is not to personalise them, as that generates more heat than light. Unfortunately, you have proved Eggishorn's point for them: you immediately personalize the discussion, go on a battlefield attack, while accepting no responsibility. You should remember, now, that it's not about me, and more to the point, it's not about defending yourself to me—you must defend yourself to the community. I imagine a little self-reflection and consideration for others might go a long way towards helping your case; I hope it's not too late.

Feel free to cry boomerang all you like; I do not feel such chill on the back of my head to necessitate wearing a helmet.

PS I've re-hatted that extraneous section, as it clearly would have been undone by admin if it was out of place. It was not. That essay has enough discussions on it already if you want to join one of them.

I expect there will be further walls of text to enjoy; I doubt I will avail myself of the opportunity to do so. ——Serial Number 54129 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hatting the below discussion is still not appropriate if another user is bringing up concerns about Licks-rocks, whose user conduct is also being judged. And I feel I do need a wall of text if you're going to be casting aspersions by saying I have a misunderstanding of what constitutes [edit warring] or blatantly misrepresenting admin statements. You're also either lying or not reading carefully that I am accepting no responsibility, when I had literally just said I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless in that situation for a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that I admit I still have. I have no desire to sanction you for a discussion that ended long ago, but aside from the BATTLEGROUND problem I realize I have, your argument to block me is misconstruing the facts. Also seriously, another user saying Feel free to cry? Didn't JPxG literally just say that was a uncivil? Unnamed anon (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: What does a random BNHA argument from 2020 have to do with an AN/I now, other than strongly imply that everyone here has a tumblr? Is the idea to just get us to start arguing about whether BakuDeku is a bad ship?? Be still my dash... jp×g🗯️ 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Re. What does a random BNHA argument from 2020 have to do with an AN/I now: Nothing, as I said JPxG; but the similarity of the behaviors demonstrated then, with those demonstrated over this essay, are clear. This recidivism—a long-term failure to abide by community norms and expectations—has resulted in this thread. You agree, of course, that a pattern of behavior needs to be proved. I give you UA's own history. Anyway, please focus on UA's current transphobia and consider my input as background to the current complaint.

  Re. the rest of your message, I have no idea it relates to or what answer is required, apologies. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  As I stated, most of the diffs you linked were things that were either before I came to a proper consensus and abided by community norms and expectation, or things I haven't done since I was new. Only the BATTLEGROUND complaint was valid. It appears you believe I don't abide by the community norms because you didn't participate in the discussion to resolve the edit war you were a part of. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm just some guy online, but if I were trying to get someone to stop posting huge walls of text, I would try to find some way to criticize their behavior without making repeated vague accusations of bigotry, something which necessarily requires them to type out gigantic reams of text to respond to and deny et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 20:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: Thank you. Both SN54129 and YFNS have shown why I write these walls of text in the first place. I'd like to mention that, while I was editing as an IP, SN publicly stated my location at the time with a whatismyipaddress link and used immature name-calling, the former of which comes dangerously close to doxxing. Frankly, now that this is the first time me and SN have interacted in years, I'm open for a two-way interaction ban between the two of us as well, because he can't respond to me civilly, or criticize me without outdated information (seriously, why bring up forumshopping if I haven't done that since I was new?), and I can't WP:DROPTHESTICK towards his incivility. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: SN54129's argument was to prove that I have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, which I'll concede he is correct about. Unless somebody else beings up a new issue with me, I think only BATTLEGROUND issue remains though; the rest are pretty egregious aspersions. The edit warring he's accusing me of was primarily from him, several admin statements were misrepresented as those statements were before I came to agreements with them, and the rest of the diffs represent things I haven't done since 2020. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG aside, that doesn't really negate the WP:BATTLEGROUND that is emerging on the recently created essay. There's no easy solution to that, honestly, and the controversy surrounding it's creation, deletion proposal, and subject matter in general is indicative of the broader culture war that naturally coexists on Wikipedia. I see general incivility around, and I was accused of WP:ASPERSIONS by Licks-rocks regarding the MfD when I explicitly avoided alleging canvassing was deliberate.[104] Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  The easy solution would have been to delete the essay but the community missed that opportunity and now nobody is surprised it's a battleground. Levivich (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know I haven't been involved much in this discussion, but maybe a rewrite of the essay might do something.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also explained my reasoning for that on your talk page. I'm glad that you're making the distinction between accidental canvassing and intentional canvassing now, but I'm sure you'll forgive me for not divining that from your initial comments, where you referred to the extremely standard issue notice placed at WP:LGBT as seeming, quote, "quite partisan as it didn't even attempt to include any potentially dissenting voices.". --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• WP:PG allows essays in project namespace that are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. It follows that editors who fundamentally disagree with an essay should just leave it be (short of taking it to MfD, which we have been through). There is no reason to continue this escalating conflict. Trying to achieve consensus on something that by definition expresses a view that does not have widespread consensus is impossible. Now if you will excuse me, I am off to rewrite WP:MANDY to match the infinitely wiser WP:NOTMANDY.--Trystan (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Licks-rocks has given me new info that I was legitimately unaware of, to which I replied that I'm open for compromises. If other editors have problems with Licks-rocks, go ahead, but I no longer have problems with them outside of a minor, easily solveable content dispute. YFNS struck her "cry about it" comment, which I'm glad for, but she did not strike the dogwhistling/compotency/bad faith aspersions nor calling me a troll, which is still a concern since those were more blatant personal attacks.

Additionally, SN54129's faulty and outdated evidence against me makes me distrust him further, he's also given the uncivil "Feel free to cry" statement that, unlike YFNS, he has not struck, and I still haven't forgiven him for doxxing my location four years ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that he's acting in bad faith. Dishonest use of "diffs". Making a claim, then providing a link in a form of a diff which supposedly supports the claim when the diff actually shows nothing of the sort, and if you go the the next diff in his "unwillingness to be counseled" aspersion, you can see very well my willingness to be counseled. I'd like for two-way interaction bans between me and both SN54129 and YFNS. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrt WP:CIR, you admit just above that you were editing an article and removing mentions of trans kids because you didn't realize genital surgery isn't done on elementary schoolers. The text you removed and are saying this about didn't even mention medical transition.

If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll - this is me saying that I was interpreting your behavior, that came off as queerphobic, as genuine concern, as opposed to trolling. Stop trying to twist that into you are a queerphobic troll because that's not what I said. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll trust that you think I had genuine concern, but saying "I'd call you a troll" is pretty easily read as "I am calling you a troll right now". Unnamed anon (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I issued a warning nearly a day ago, and Unnamed anon thanked me for my warning and then proceeded to disregard my warning. Unnamed anon continued with battleground behavior, which, strikingly, the editor themself acknowledges as battleground behavior, and yet continues even after being warned at this very noticeboard. On to the repeated mentions of "doxxing" based on another editor saying that certain IP edits were made from California, which any competent person could confirm with a handful of keystrokes. California has 39 million residents and who knows how many visitors at any point in time, and is by far the most populous state. California is the third largest US state by area, stretching 950 miles from Crescent City to Calexico. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have lived in California for 52 years which simply informs my analysis. So, this ongoing "doxxing" complaint is entirely without merit and should be dropped completely . WP:TLDR is another aspect of my block. The unpaid volunteer competent labor of productive editors is by far our most valuable resource. Disruptive editors who repeatedly waste that precious time have two choices: Stop it or get blocked. Accordingly, I have blocked the editor for a week. Cullen328 (talk)

I don't have enough energy to compile diffs and detailed timelines, but one pattern of behavior from Unnamed anon is that they often make changes that are disputed but fail to engage on discussions that follow. For example this section was opened after UA had made 10+ consecutive edits removing a portion of the essay content. A part of those removals saw some discussion before UA made those edits, with no apparent consensus. Despite that, UA went ahead and implemented those, along with some additional content they thought warranted removal, which I disputed in another section. This time UA only engaged after someone suggested CBAN. At the history page of the essay, you can see how UA has on multiple occasions did this:

1. makes a change that was disputed/considered problematic
2. when others bring the issue to talk, refuse to engage or minimally engage with the consensus building process, with other editors having to make reverts.
3. after discussion for that dies down, UA goes ahead and makes another edit that is problematic/disputed, perpetuating this pattern of behavior.

This is disruptive editing with the time wasting, combined with some WP:TEND as well. WP:GENSEX is already a contentious topic, and UA's behavior is subpar. Combined with SN54129's background above, my preference would be a CBAN. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I know he's magnanimously decided to let me off the hook if I don't do anything further to offend him, but sadly, I have to agree with this assessment. Something else I've noticed is that UA also frequently uses individual comments by users on talk pages as a cue, where someone will say something negative about a part of the essay as an aside, and two minutes later I'll see a "per the talk page" removal of the entire thing from UA. See here and here. Neither of these were preceded by actual discussion, just off-the-cuff comments by single editors. I should note that since the ANI discussion, he's started adding stuff instead, using the exact same "one talk page comment as a cue" MO, see here. I'm accepting the new additions under AGF, but they do leave me scratching my head. The quality issue should be obvious, but even when done in good faith, interrupting talk page discussions like this makes carrying out those discussions properly more difficult, and is tiresome to deal with. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

After Cullen328 made the temp block and explained in the comment above, there is a response at UA's talk page. The part that specifically addressed this ANI thread is copied here.

As for the discussion at ANI, I have no more interest in editing the No Queerphobia essay, as I fully realize that, regardless of my intent, it is clear I do have a disruptive editing pattern there. I fully understand 0xDeadbeef and Licks-rocks' points that I added content way too fast after seeing it on the talk page. It would be better for everybody's mental health, including mine, for me to outright ignore the essay. I would prefer not having an official page ban, at least not an indefinite one, as the block notice on my contributions list will remind me of the page's existence and defeat the whole purpose of me ignoring its existence. This talk page section serves as a good reminder for me without being the reminder being constantly everywhere, but I will promise to never touch that essay again. If I do edit that essay again, especially in the way the users are concerned about that adds talk page input immediately after hearing it, then an official page ban can be in order. As you can see with my edits since the MfD ended, I can make constructive changes to other pages, mostly small changes that fix things like grammar.
— User:Unnamed anon

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. It may sound surprising, especially as I'm usually the first to support an extension of WP:ROPE, but in this particular case, I think that ship has sailed. Whereas usually attitudes soften and people become more comfortable in their surroundings, here it seems the opposite: that confrontation and a general refusal to take advice—and with a curious focus on settling old scores—shows that if anything, they have become less collegiate over the years and less likely to fit in with the community for the future. Perhaps if they could demonstrate a year or two of productive, anger- and confrontation-free editing at other projects, the WP:SO would probably become available. ——Serial Number 54129 17:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: t-ban for Unnamed anon

• Notwithstanding Unnamed anon's request that their current short-duration block be the end of the remedy against them I think the most productive method of resolving this issue would be an indefinite topic ban from Gender and sexuality topics, broadly construed. This is not a new problem with Unnamed anon as some of their editing relating to Bridget (Guilty Gear) and The Simpsons demonstrates: [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] this one in which the user insists on misgendering a video game character is particularly alarming also a whole bunch of tendentious commentary on the gender of Hikaru Utada. What it comes down to is that Unnamed anon has a long history of not handling discussions regarding trans people well and it seems to generally end in tendentious editing. They shouldn't be editing articles with regard to gender and sexuality. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Gender and Sexuality topics, broadly construed (and I would support this being inclusive of content in non-article pages, like essays, as the disruptive behavior at WP:No Queerphobia warrants). Simonm223's diffs are persuasive for establishing a broader pattern of disruptive behavior in this topic area (a 'highlight' including an edit summary accusing editors of having an obsession with history revisionism when they write prose that doesn't misgender), and Serial Number 54129 describes a long term pattern of Unnamed anon becoming less collegial over time. A topic ban here would be preventative, sparing editors from further disruption. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Unnamed anon on their talk page expressed disavowal of the "sexual deviancy" comment (diff in comment from Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist below) which is to some extent good—but then followed that up with I do not have a history at homosexual-related disputes, which is both eliding disputes like the removal of marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted from WP:NQP (which was about same-sex couples) as well as, while not as egregious as "deviancy", phrased with what rings in context as brow-raising language (and makes me a bit concerned about Unnamed anon's copyediting; might they end up introducing less-than-neutral language like this in the name of copyediting in other articles?). This is also why as much as Unnamed anon's less confrontational tone at present is welcome it doesn't persuade me to stop supporting the topic ban proposal or to support exceptions to it. Unnamed anon continues to not recognize some of their disruptive behavior as disruptive, and the long duration of this behavior—and the extremities it has reached—together leave me persuaded that Unnamed anon spending time away from this topic area would be to the project's benefit. Other editors will be capable of copyediting and of doing so without disruptive editing accompanying their contributions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• think I can support this, if it means keeping an otherwise productive editir onsite. I hope that Simonm223's suggestion does turn out to be sufficient; otherwise Unnamed anon has a long history of not handling discussions regarding trans people well would have to be addressed. Still, one step at a time, all right yet be well. ——Serial Number 54129 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN; neutral leaning support on CBAN (involved): After UA opened this original thread, I filed a case at AE regarding their long-term GENSEX misbehavior. @Seraphimblade: closed the thread, referring the matter back here. Highlights include:

• UA made comments stereotyping LGBT editors as having a POV in 2021, when Tamzin kindly called them on this[112], they doubled down [113], and when Tamzin left a more detailed message UA explained they resort to stereotyping when in a bad mood.[114]
• UA made comments grouping editors by LGBT identity again in 2022, then described being LGB as a sexual deviancy[115] in the same month.
• During the WP:NQP discussion, they make an oversighed massive BLP violation[116] and they continued to make comments about editors based on identity (having repeatedly argued that LGBT editors can have a COI due to their identity)[117]. They in fact said that it "definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest" that I objected to people saying all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists[118]...
• As mentioned earlier, they removed marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples from a list of queerphobic beliefs in the essay.[119]
• The examples I listed here and at AE are only a selection of worse offenses, there are other instances of tendentious editing regarding LGBT topics. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  i have been quietly watching this ordeal over the last week or so, and wowie i had not seen those diffs you present here. the "sexual deviancy" comments are especially egregious and offensive, and the fact that seemingly no one addressed that blows my mind. i acknowledge my apparent "conflict of interest" as an LGBT editor, but i think TBAN is the bare minimum here, given that this behavior has not changed in the slightest since they joined nearly 4 years ago. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  and to be clear: YFNS' conduct hasn't been perfect here, but that can be addressed separately and that's no excuse for UA to be tendentious themself. at the AE request, UA said I don't group editors over their sexuality anymore unless there's a clear pattern where one side is mostly openly LGBT and the other side isn't. UA, you shouldn't be grouping editors by their sexuality at all.
  UA has just replied to me on their talk page and i appreciate that they are concerned about not being able to fix typos and the like - in that case, i think carving out a minor copyediting exception to the TBAN would be fine, if that's an option (struck per Hydrangeans) - i just do not want the community or the lovely admins at AE to have to spend any more time on this disruption ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN to prevent further disruption in this topic area. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 23:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Keep in mind that WP:GENSEX is a contentious topic where the threshold for tolerating disruption is already low. No one, not even Unnamed anon himself, has denied that he has disrupted under this topic area.

  I think we as a community is spending way too much time on this than necessary, with UA's talk page section starting to be filled with walls of text.

  The community should move on and implement a topic ban. UA should move on and accept a topic ban, and I hope he can remain here and contribute to other areas that interest him. And if someone thinks a page ban from WP:NQP is sufficient, we can add the history on Talk:Hikaru Utada, the comment about sexual deviancy, and many more detailed above and in the arbitration request. Being able to edit constructively in other LGBT articles is not an excuse for the disruption already caused, and TBAN is just what happens when you continuously disrupt a contentious topic. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• pencilled in Oppose, per Serial, but also because this measure is being suggested at a point of time where the subject of the suggested sanction is not able to explain themself. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC) ... added later: When I wrote "per Serial" I meant what Serial Number 54129 had written at the time before removing it here. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  You can see UA's talk page, he has responded there. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban to stop further disruption in the area. As was already shown above by others, UA has a long-standing history of problematic edits in the space, not just limited to the WP:NQP MfD where they caused hours of tendentious arguing, or then jumping and trying to immediately resurrect the DRV (and editing an archived page at that) after YFNS made a sarcastic non-endorsement. Them now arguing they will leave the essay alone after a tban was proposed appears very reactionary and ignores the rest of their disruptive history in the area. A topic ban also won't stop them from editing movie or TV articles as they asked about, just that they stay away from any explicit LGBT articles, or on movie or TV show articles, just specific sections or sentences that are part of the topic ban, as is explained in WP:TBAN. So I think a topic ban will help prevent any further disruption here. Raladic (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I have read UA's response on their user talk page and my personal opinion is that grammar fixes to articles about LGBT BLPs are not sufficiently beneficial to offset the risk of permitting UA to continue editing in the gender and sexuality topic area. I would be willing to extend WP:ROPE regarding edits to TV shows and movies with queer characters provided they understand that editing in relation to topics of gender and sexuality within those articles was still off-limits. But, saying this as a cisgender bisexual, I find both UA's recent comments about sexuality and conflict of interest generally alarming and also don't think we should, at Wikipedia, be countenancing LGB without the T as being a coherent idea that we should permit. The rhetoric used on trans people now is the same rhetoric that we bisexuals and other members of the queer community faced in decades past and an inability to edit appropriately on trans topics should be interpreted as an inability to edit appropriately on queer topics generally. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN per YFNS, as well as 0xDEADBEEFs note about CTOP. I read through all of UA’s responses through this whole mess, and while it looks like they've realized that they did something wrong, CIR remains an issue. UA has shown an inability to judge their own ability to contribute to conversations productively (the fact that they still thought 7 year olds are getting genital surgery [120] over two weeks into arguing against the essay was particularly concerning to me). They've shown a tendency to only become receptive to feedback from others after things hit a boiling point (particularly when discussions of sanctions pop up). I do think that they’ll be able to appeal this in the future, but until they show an ability to contribute productively (I'd suggest checking out the advice on WP:COMPLICATEDTALK), they need to stay away from GENSEX topics. CambrianCrab (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  _{Huh, never heard about WP:COMPLICATEDTALK before, but that's a really good essay, and I will certainly incorporate it in my editing practices going forward. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)}

• Support WP:GENSEX topic ban - I've had a number of off-wiki conversations lately with friends who identify as queer (I identify as straight with asterisks) where we discuss the concept of an "unsafe person" (my words; the off-wiki tone is not so collegial), in the context of local events. An unsafe person is not a bad person necessarily, but they are a person whose behaviour around queer spaces and topics raises doubts as to whether that person can be trusted not to do harm, most commonly through well-meaning ignorance as I think was exemplified by UA's editing at WP:No Queerphobia, but also occasionally through malice which we have seen some examples of from UA as well. Unsafe persons have a chilling effect on queer persons and queer spaces, and we must avoid that on Wikipedia; see WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I'm not saying this to attack Unnamed anon and I trust they won't take it that way since they've already acknowledged they've behaved badly in this space, but I agree with Simonm223 on this: the minor benefit of one editor gnoming and copyediting BLPs in this space is very greatly outweighed by the potential for a known unsafe person to drive marginalized editors away from a sensitive topic. I don't think there can be any limiting in topic scope of the ban, gender and sexuality are too closely intertwined to craft a workable sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  this is a really excellent way to put it ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban These are the types of AN/I I typically try to avoid weighing in on, but after reading Simonm223's diffs and YFNS' highlights I realized how much I, as someone not even directly interacting with UA, felt a deep discomfort at their attitudes and editing patterns regarding queer topics. Luckily for me, Ivanvector already wrote essentially everything I wanted to convey, nearly exactly. From what I've seen UA very much seems well-meaning, but how they conduct themselves and word their stances imparts a notable chilling effect. I hope no matter the result, UA sticks around and continues to help improve Wikipedia in a way they find fulfilling. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban_(Involved) I was thinking about not weighing in on this topic ban proposal because I felt I'd already said plenty elsewhere, but I've decided to weigh in one final time. I want to highlight that this "disruption" we talk about is not something theoretical. Honestly, this whole situation has been very tiresome to me. The energy I ended up spending to keep the constant deletions, comments and unhelpful changes in check is energy I could have spent improving the essay. In fact, I would've much preferred spending that time working my way through the essay and doing copyedits, or making sure the list of transphobic beliefs section explained why those beliefs are listed, or adding proper sourcing to back up the factual claims. We have no deadline, but editors do run tired, and then they stop, and then the next editor to come along might be years away. As CambrianCrab pointed out above, sometimes, an ill-informed contribution is worse than no contribution at all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Since it looks to me like this discussion could use a formal close to determine consensus, I've unarchived this thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:17, 25 May 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.

Trolling and harassment by 50.88.229.139

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.

---

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

Please can we yank this guy's User Talk page access and extend his block by a few weeks? Since being blocked he is making personal attacks against multiple people (including myself) on his User Talk page. The attacks include homophobia and allegations of paedophilia (1), (2). Before being blocked from article space he was trolling on multiple subjects dishing out both transphobia and islamophobia (3), (4). The IP seems to be fairly stable and has not been used to make any constructive edits recently. It might be worth revdelling some of the edits although, insofar as they refer to me, I don't really care that much. DanielRigal (talk) 19:57, 22 May 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:Kautilya3

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § User:Kautilya3

 – Geardona (talk to me?) 00:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Wikipedia. Today I've been on my toes all day from the user in question who keeps reverting my edits pertaining to Sikkim, ostensibly due to my source, the book "Sons of Sikkim" by Jigme N. Kazi, being self-published.

When i took to Talk:Sikkimese monarchy referendum to explain that the source used fell within Wikipedia's guidelines on self-published sources, being written from an established Sikkimese writer, as well as give the sources that the author himself used in the book, one of which is already cited in the article on its own long before I ever made any edits to it, I have yet been met with zero response to this section on the talk page, despite said user being active in that time and continually removing my edits, which I keep going back and undoing, which is very frustrating for me, and frankly my patience is wearing thin to having to keep an eye on these pages while my requests for dialogue are continually ignored.

Furthermore, I have reason to believe this user is not acting in good faith with these edits and is instead trying to push a viewpoint in favor of the Indian nationalist interpretation of the events in Sikkim in the first half of the 1970s.

• Only edits I made with this source concerning these events have been challenged, I used the same book to add information to articles of Sikkimese monarchs going back to the mid-17th century. I find it suspicious that only information pertaining to these 1970s events was removed, while nothing else that I wrote using this book as a source were removed.

• On the Sikkimese monarchy referendum page, information not posted by me and not sourced from the book I used was also removed at the same time as my edits, primarily China and Pakistan's statements of opposition to the 1975 annexation of Sikkim. If the issue was me or my source, why would these passages that I didn't write and that are not sourced from the book I used be an issue?

• As something of a smoking gun, on Talk:Sikkim, this user makes the statement "This kind of royalist nonsense can be found through the journalistic writings on Sikkim.", showing a very clear bias against the Sikkimese monarchy, and by extension in favor of their deposition by India, and then implying that the Sikkimese king could not have had support as he was from an ethnic minority in the country, which not only goes against what the multiple sources cited by my own have said, but also has an undercurrent of ethnic prejudice, ended by giving a single line from a paper on JSTOR to back up this idea (despite just a few sentences before implying journalistic writings were "royalist nonsense").

I think that it is abundantly clear that this user is not interested in critiquing my writing or my source and is instead only interested in removing anything critical of the actions of the government of Indira Gandhi towards Sikkim or implying there may have been any misconduct in the Indian annexation of the kingdom.

Edit: (as a final note, I apologize if this is not the right place to open this discussion. I've never really had to do something like this before and have never looked into doing this sort of thing so in a way I'm flying blind.)

Crazy Boris (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems excessive to bring this to ANI over this dispute and to allege a lack of good faith, especially since you don't seem to have established consensus for either the reliability of your source or the changes you want to make. Unless I'm missing something, you're the only contributor to Talk:1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum#On "Sons of Sikkim" as a source. In other words, treat this like a content dispute and use some form of WP:dispute resolution. Which frankly could be just waiting, you posted this 3 hours after your comment on the talk page. Also as a reminder, a source of limited reliability, like a SPS might be could be acceptable for something relatively uncontentious but not for something more contentious. Likewise someone could be a subject matter expert on 17th century monarchs but not some political controversy in the 1970s even if it relates to monarchs. Finally it's perfectly ordinary to notice some changes, and when deciding whether they are good or bad, to notice the article has other problems and so correct both these. Remember also that an SPS cannot be used for anything relating to living persons. This is unlikely to come up for 17th century monarchs, but could be an issue for some 1970s controversy. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Three hours? Probably not even three days. Maybe three weeks... Wikipedia is not a chatroom, so waiting a few days for a response is expected. Where is the proof that this represents urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems? This is also a topic falling under WP:ARBIND, which makes this premature submission even more problematic. El_C 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it is my first time ever in a situation like this (or even seeing such a situation), so I admittedly don't really know how this works. I just think it's very obvious (particularly illustrated by my second and third bullet points) this person is going after my edits purely to wipe any information disagreeing with their own perspective off the issue, and it should be dealt with, I'm not sure what the proper channel for that is, and this is just the closest thing I could think of. Crazy Boris (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Given your comment that "only interested in removing anything critical of the actions of the government of Indira Gandhi towards Sikkim or implying there may have been any misconduct in the Indian annexation of the kingdom", it clearly seems to me that you are the one being problematic here. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I may have worded that poorly (I hate to pull the autism card, but I can be pretty awful at speaking), what I mean is that this person is removing information pertaining to the events in question that do not follow the Indian nationalist narrative that the annexation was totally willing and peaceful, which, as far as I'm aware, according to primary sources cited by the author of the book I used as my own source, is untrue, it's not unlike when Chinese nationalists argue that Tibet willingly joined China without any objections. Edits downplaying or denying aggressive Chinese actions in that situation would not be tolerated, very rightly so, and so the same logic should apply here. This person is very clearly and openly biased on this topic, and as illustrated by my second bullet point, is not interested so much in the validity of my source as in enforcing the Indian government's narrative, that is in itself infinitely more "problematic" than anything I have done. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a problem for the article. Crazy Boris (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  You do not have to explain why diverging viewpoints might be a problem, this is a WP:CTOP area, so the problem is relatively well known. Nonetheless, assertions of edits that overtly promote a particular POV should come with a lot of diffs as evidence, which was not done here. However instead of finding diffs and trying to figure out something on AN/I, it would be advisable to continue discussion (in good faith) and then follow further WP:DR where needed. CMD (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• My comment on "journalistic nonsense" was directed at an article published in The New York Times in 1981, regarding the former queen of Sikkim who happened to be American. I countered it using a peer-reviewed journal article published by the University of California Press, who says that India, rather than being "bent on annexation", was in fact protecting the king from 1950 to 1973. So, this gives you an idea of the level of divergence found in what we normally regard as reliable sources.

If we bring into this mix a non-reliable WP:SPS, and start claiming that it should trump everything else, it is not going to fly. I have had a brief look at the book. It is certainly pro-royal, polemical book, throwing around conspiracy theories everywhere. But the high level of understanding as in the journal article I mentioned is nowhere to be found. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Still, The NYT is the most prestigious of the 4 American papers of record listed in Newspaper of record#Examples of existing newspapers, so journalistic nonsense seems a bit much. El_C 10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should consider the possiblity that you may be incorrect, instead of parroting whatever apologetics you've been fed by the anti-Chogyal disinformation campaign. It's laughable you'd call Sons of Sikkim "polemical" and "conspiratorial", when it is very well-sourced itself as previously established (which makes the claim of it "throwing around" conspiracies downright insulting, conspiracy theories don't exactly tend to be backed up by much of anything), and your counter is an article that is so blatantly one-sided it may as well have been written by Indira Gandhi herself as Indian soldiers had their guns raised at the palace guards in Gangtok. I'd wager the ex-Gyalmo interviewed by the NYT probably knew more about the situation in Sikkim than the pseudointellectual propagandist you're toting as if he were Moses bringing down the ten commandments, seeing as she, you know, was there for everything and saw it happen. (and very convenient you don't aknowledge my second point where you removed text that wasn't even put there by me or cited in Sons of Sikkim that showed other countries expressing negative reactions to the annexation, I can't see that as anything other than an intentional obfuscation) You have a single article from a university journal, which, let's be frank isn't necessarily authoritative, any bozo with a degree can get published in one of those by packing an essay with jargon that reaffirms the journal's own biases, it's hardly much better than self-publishing, I have a whole book that backs itself up with dozens of primary and secondary sources. Self-published or not, it's more rigorous and objective than anything I have seen otherwise in my 12 years learning everything I can about Sikkim. You yourself said that journals are supposedly full of quote "royalist nonsense", if it's so widespread, is it not worth at least considering you may be in the wrong and approaching it with an open mind? When everyone agrees Copernicus was right, the man who still believes in geocentrism may want to reconsider his position instead of stubbornly refusing to listen to any opposing viewpoint.

You show a clear bias on this topic as I outlined in my three bullet points (to which I would like to add the fact you removed "disputed" from "disputed referendum" on the main Sikkim page, when the very fact we're having this conversation shows it is in dispute, and frankly, I could have been a lot more forward and called it a "rigged referendum" but I wanted to be charitable and fair), that, in my opinion, make it glaringly obvious that you don't care about the truth at all, and just want to promote the official narrative in a nationalist fervor. There is no place for that sort of thing frankly anywhere, let alone on what is ostensibly supposed to be an educational website. Truth is apolitical, and this blatant attempt to stifle anything that doesn't fall in line with a certain perspective is no better than if I were to ransack articles pertaining to the annexations of Tibet or Hawaii to try and whitewash those events to support my own biases (for the record, this is just an example, I'm not really interested in opening up those cans of worms). I stay away from certain articles that I feel I may have too much of a personal bias on specifically to avoid causing trouble and letting my own feelings override objective fact, I suggest you learn to do the same. I'm just here to share things I learn with the world, not to try and reshape reality to fit what I want it to be instead of what it is.

I really don't want to deal with this, I hate that I've ended up causing a problem, and I hate having to argue, especially when it feels like people are not willing to listen, I'm under a lot of stress as it is, so I won't be making any changes to any articles to reinstate my edits or debate further, I want to be done with this, and I will leave it up to the Wikipedia community and leadership to decide how to end this situation once and for all. Whether they take your side, mine, neither, or a little of both, I won't protest, but I will close by asking people to really think and consider everything that's been discussed before coming to a conclusion. I've made my case, it's up to people higher up than me to decide now, and I will accept their judgment. I really do feel terrible for having caused this, and I will be leaving Wikipedia after this so as to not cause any trouble in the future, I don't want to be responsible for any more stress or conflict for myself or others. Crazy Boris (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The length of this comment is excessive. Please condense. We're all volunteers here. You are asking a lot of others when being so un-concise. El_C 15:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

condensed comment: I believe you're being stubborn and unwilling to engage due to your own biases, which I believe there is good evidence for, when really we're both probably near the same level when it comes to how authoritative our chosen sources may appear to the other. You should be more open to the possibility you may be mistaken instead of being so dismissive of everything I say. I will no longer take part in this debate and leave it up to whoever decides these things to make the call, I want to wash my hands of this whole sorry situation. I feel ashamed for having caused this, and will take my leave from editing Wikipedia because I don't want to risk being the cause of anything similar in the future, I'm a very conflict-averse person and the last 24 hours have been incredibly stressful for me.

Noted, I've added a shortened version to the end of the previous comment Crazy Boris (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

RE: which I believe there is good evidence for — yet not a single piece of evidence in either the full or condensed comment! Also, please don't adjust the order of comments. El_C 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don't modify or remove comments that have been replied to! El_C 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that Crazy Boris has chosen to vanish themself. – robertsky (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable reference work, not engaging with concerns by CoptEgypt136

CoptEgypt136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned that CoptEgypt136 is repeatedly inserting content that is either supported by unreliable sources or else entirely original research. I encountered their editing while reviewing the new pages Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage of Noveleta and Our Lady of Maulawin; in both cases, after I identified serious reliability issues with their cited sources, they responded only by removing tags (Special:Diff/1224816435, Special:Diff/1224816381) and otherwise declining to engage. Upon looking to start a discussion on their user talk page, I saw that they have previously deleted but otherwise ignored multiple warnings from Veverve and Pbritti (Special:Diff/1165819612, Special:Diff/1179393452, and additional warnings from Pbritti before then), and that they have yet to actually make a single communicative edit to a Talk page (other than deleting comments or adding WikiProject flags). At this point, unless they decide to finally engage with the community, I think that a CIR block may be needed. It's debatable as to whether I am WP:INVOLVED here, as my only interaction has been to tag articles for AfD as part of NPP, which is an admin-adjacent task, but I figured it would be best to err on the side of caution and request independent review rather than proceeding to a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't want to make a snap judgement regarding this most recent set of concerns regarding CoptEgypt136, but I have spent a long time reverting/correcting errors and OR inserted by them. If they have been continuing to do this, I am inclined to support a CIR block that forces them to engage with these issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been pretty sure that CoptEgypt136 is the latest sock incarnation of Mark Imanuel Granados. I had gotten tired of playing whack-a-mole with his socks both here and over on wikicommons. I had also hoped that maybe he could focus on editing according to policy as opposed to creating socks to keep pushing his edits that had been reverted. I would support a block, but I also do not anticipate this to solve the problem as he will likely just create another sock. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

172.59.210.96 disruptive editing

Stumbled across this IP at WP:RSP, where they pointlessly added and removed the word "vandalism." Per their talk page, they've been involved in multiple edit wars and generally questionable behavior for a number of days, since they started editing on May 16 - most recently, they were in an edit war at Abby Lee Miller (the page history of which indicates they may be the same editor as this blocked IP, who was also edit warring). Said talk page displays numerous warnings for this behavior.

In the last several hours, they started to disruptively edit Operation Enduring Freedom, once again adding and removing their own vandalism. With such edit summaries as "Sleepy joe," "THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH MY EDIT, PLEASE STOP," "what do you think? Idiot," "FIX IT YOURSELF," and... whatever this is, I think there's a pretty clear case that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a month. —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the quick response. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I also did an old-fashioned selective deletion to clear out the one edit summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Is that why one IPv6's recent revision now claims it added +62,626 bytes, which is the size of the page? Perhaps a not-so-old-fashioned revdel'ing of the summaries would have been easier. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ordinarily yes, but in this case it wouldn't have entirely fixed what was making that edit summary so disruptive. Though now that you mention it I'll apply revdel to a few of the revisions there now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User: NKing1313

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.

---

Can something please be done with this editor?[121] He keeps making changes to actress Allison McAtee article without any sources to back up his changes. Twice now he's reverted info I've added which is sourced[122][123] claiming it to be misinformation. I don't want to end up violating the three-revert rule.

He's been doing this for sometime now. I've warned him and another editor warned him a couple months ago. But he's obviously ignoring them. I've looked at his editing history and the account was made in 2018 and the only edits he's ever made were changing or removing dates on that article. So this may be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Kcj5062 (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest a partial block from the article (or all of mainspace - it would be equivalent in this case) until the editor (who, as far as I can tell, is at least as likely to be a "she" as a "he") explains things on the article talk page. I'll start a section for them to do so in a moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (partial): User talk:NKing1313#Indefinite partial block. El_C 13:16, 22 May 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.

Socks - Millat Ahmad

Here you can see socks. Can admin here take action based on Meta's CU? AntanO 06:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look, and will block the accounts, based on their talk page admission that they are connected to the film they're writing about, and their creation of a second account to evade scrutiny. Noting that MillatAhmad15 has not logged in here, and so is not registered - we can't take action against that account. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886: WP:NOTHERE edit warring

Tommygunn7886 has been doing some edit warring over at eye color that I would like to bring to your attention.

• 20:27 May 22 2024: TommyGunn7886 removes content, restored by Adakiko at 20:29.

• 23:32 May 22 2024: Tommygunn7886 removes content a second time, partially restored by myself at 23:39.

• Tommygunn7886 then deleted this content from the article two more times.

Attempts to explain to this individual that they are wrong have lead me to suspect that they may have WP:COMPETENCE issues. They do not seem to be capable of understanding that they are wrong when another editor attempts to explain this to them, and this has been my experience as well. At the article's talk page, they refuse to engage in discussion about the references and instead make outlandush allegations of transphobia and personal attack.

Tommygunn7886's edit summaries are also nonsensical. They accuse me and the references of using transphobic language, yet there is nothing transphobic or trans-related in either. All references added are peer reviewed and published in high quality journals, and have nothing whatever to do with trans people. - A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The other administrator ruled in my favor and also removed the content from the thread. This user, A Rainbow Footing It is harassing me over edits they are making which are transphobic. The edits in question are purporting that there are physical differences between gender identities, which as stated before is transphobic.

This user is not an administrator but has made numerous threats on my talk page threatening to ban my account if I keep up the "edit war"(that the same user is also partaking in, even after an admin ruled in my favor).

This user also has a history of problematic white supremacist posts on other pages, claiming such things as white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desirable. Clearly a 4chan troll. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886, when you make an extremely grave accusation like This user also has a history of problematic white supremacist posts on other pages, claiming such things as white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desirable. Clearly a 4chan troll, you are required to provide convincing evidence, which you have not done. So, provide the persuasive evidence now, or you at very high risk of being blocked for unsubstantiated personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I will do so, but I will not be fast as I am still new to this platform. I apologize for making such a claim, this user has been harassing me so I looked at their profile. Please allow me a little time to find out how to link it properly. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tommygunn7886: Make sure you have [ subscribe ]ed to the thread for further notifications as not everyone will ping you. "Harassing" is also something that you need to provide evidence for. You may wish to read WP:HARASS. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is a link to the talk page where the user created a talk section sith my personal name, rather than about the content. I find this to be harassment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eye_color

Here is a link to my personal talk page where the user posted two separate threats to have me banned for edit warring(despite also taking part in it themselves), I deleted the initial one but kept the one they sent later. It is notice 3rr.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tommygunn7886 Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid Talk:Eye color#Tommygunn7886's removal of content looks pretty bad for you from what I can see. A lot of unsupported accusations of singling out, harassment, transphobia because of reference to biological sex, etc. I was going to point out the 3RR issue as well. I don't think a legitimate (if one sided) 3RR notice is harassment by the definition at WP:HARASS. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It was not one sided it was back and forth. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

legitimate (if one sided) 3RR notice means the notice was possibly one-sided. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222675967&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222677541&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1

First link they edited but kept information stating African Americans were the least desirable, second link they explictly wrote that white males and Asian females are the most desireable. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you saying is improperly cited about that material? A Rainbow Footing It is presumably not the source of the information. It's a lot of information about dating preferences that all seems to be from legitimate studies and analyses. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow. I won't say more, but wow. I thought wikipedia was more enlightened than this. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tommygunn7886: You removed cited material about differences in eye color between men and women. I don't think a scientific study referring to biological sexes is transphobic. We report the sources, not interpret them. Again, Wikipedia is based on sources, not our opinions. If you were to remove every reference to physical differences between men and women on Wikipedia you'd be making many thousands of edits to remove properly sourced material. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The idea that there are biolgical differences between men and women is itself transphobic and false. Gender and sexual identity are not biological. Maybe if the article stated something like "those who identify as female and those who identify as male", but even this is tricky as the study itself was presumably done with those who were simply assigned male and female at birth. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You have a ton of articles on biology you'd need to strip of any reference to differences between sexes. Don't think it is going to work out well for you. We can fine tune wording to align with what the sources actually say, if necessary. This notice board is not for content disputes though, only behavioral issues. This is a non-starter in my view. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no differences between sexes. A man can have a vagina and a woman can have a penis. Men can get pregnant. Men can have very high estrogen and low testosterone, women can have ver low estrogen and very high testosterone. Gender and sexual identity are social constructs that have no basis in biology, they are simply an identity. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, you'd better start with Man and Woman if you want to pursue this. Wouldn't be the first person to make this assertion. This noticeboard is not for content disputes. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@A Rainbow Footing It: Could you provide convenience links to everything (e.g. the edit summaries) you are referring to? I'll do this:

• Tommygunn7886 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A Rainbow Footing It (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—DIYeditor (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• 03:54, 23 May 2024: Gender and sexual identity do not determine physical traits. This transphobia does not belong on a wikipedia article. I hope admins will agree against transphobic language.
• 01:02, 23 May 2024: Study is based on outdated notions of gender and identity and does not belong on a wikipedia page. This is offensive to those who are transgender.
• 01:02, 23 May 2024:Again, it is problematic to try to tie eye color to gender or sexual identity, as the terminology presented is based on western heteronomative ideas of identity that do not correlate to one's individual identity
• 01:02, 23 May 2024: Using control F, there are no mentions of any populations other than Spanish populations in this particular study. It is also highly probelmatic to try to tie eye color to gender or sexual identity
• 23:39 22 May 2024:Partially restored content without Spanish data points. Contrary to what was claimed by TommyGunn, Martinez-Cadenas et al. 2013 and 2016 both use previously published studies from across Europe, which show the same effect. Added quote to Martinez-Cadenas citation and secondary source (Pilli-Berti 2021), which mentions studies published afterwards which observed a similar effect.
• 03:27, 23 May 2024‎: Restored reliably sourced content. As explained at talk page, both Martinez-Cadenas 2013 and 2016 describe multiple studies from across Europe and Auatralia, which corroborate their findings. Additional studies performed afterwards also replicated an eye color gender asymmetry. Tommygunn needs to give a sensible explanation at the talk page for these edits, and stop edit warring."

A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A Rainbow Footing It

This user has been harassing me for changing an article they added to that contained transphobic language(an admin ruled in my favor and kept my deletion of their post). This user has threatened to ban me over this despite this user not being an admin themselve.

This user also has a history of promoting white supremacy on various pages such as the online dating page, claiming white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desireable. I feel afraid and threatened as a trans man myself, as this user will not leave me alone. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes so I do not know what you are talking about. Where is your evidence? Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

an admin ruled in my favor

This is a lie. An admin partially restored one of your edits after having been misled by your edit summary, but did not make the blanket removal of content that you have been doing, which Adakiko and I have tried to restore in full. Earlier you accused that admin of "following you around" for calling out your dishonest behavior.

As usual, this editor is failing WP:GOODFAITH with their endless stream of outrageous allegations. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Adakiko did not try to restore your edit later on, first they just stated that I needed to provide an edit summary. After I provided an edit summary, the other admin ruled in my favor and undid the deletion by Adakiko. Adakiko has not changed the page since, only you have. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the blanking of seemingly properly cited scientific material. If you wish to check whether the first source used the term "gender" or "sex" we can look into that. You should not remove material that refers to biological sexes on the ground that it is transphobic. We go by sources, not our own interpretations. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is a thread about behavior and not content moderation, why did you perform content moderation? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I restored cited material which had been blanked because I noticed it. This board is for behavioral issues not content, so what we discuss here should focus on behaviors and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as relate to behavior. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886, I have asked you twice for evidence to back up your extraordinary accusations, and instead of providing evidence, you say silly things like the other admin ruled in my favor even though you have already been informed that adminststrators do not adjudicate content disputes. If any adminstrator expressed an opinion about a content dispute, they are speaking as an ordinary editor, with no more power than any other editor in that context. So again, I must insist that you provide the evidence in your very next edit, or I will block you for grave and unsubstantiated personal attacks. That is a power that I actually do have as an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I am simply in too many chats to keep track of this. I provided evidence of the claim to the other user who I assumed was the admin. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222675967&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222677541&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1

First link they edited but kept information stating African Americans were the least desirable, second link they explictly wrote that white males and Asian females are the most desireable Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If A Rainbow Footing It is misrepresenting what the sources say, that is a behavior problem. If the sources are not WP:RS that is a content dispute. If the sources are not WP:DUE that is a content dispute. If the article is not WP:NPOV that is a content dispute. You can bring all that up on the relevant talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886 I almost have to call this trolling or WP:CIR. You are making it say the opposite of what you seem to want it to say. And again, beware of 3RR. I believe you have already violated 3RR perhaps multiple times. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This has gone on far too long. Tommygunn7886 has failed to provide convincing evidence for their extremely grave accusations, and has provided an exceptionally flimsy explanation. Accordingly, I have blocked the editor for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment, and failure to assume good faith. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not looked much at the editor's editing but from what they're saying here, it seems fair to give them a ctop alert for gensex. Perhaps if they come back and get into edit wars over these issues without properly discussing on the talk page or are otherwise disruptive in the area, a gensex topic ban is one option if it's felt an indef is too harsh. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree. I'm certainly not heartened by Tommygunn's repeated waving of "An admin agreed with me once so that means I'm right with everything" as a free hall pass for every one of their flights of fancy going forth. Ravenswing 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Harassment

I have been the subject of reversions and harassing comments from Bloom6132. He has reverted two of my articles because he objects to the use of the title "Biography" in my articles. I asked him to show me in the MOS anything that prohibits that usage and he has failed to do so. In his latest response to me, he has threatened to revert any other articles I edit if I continue to use "Biography". I have no objection to him changing that in any articles, but I object to him reverting entire edits because of it. I don't know why Wikipedia allows editors the power to do this, but that is another story. I want Bloom6132 to stop reverting me.

This is part of the communication from my user talk page

I've never edited an article called "John Carroll" (I'm assuming you're referring to this one). Frankly, I'm not surprised to see there are others who want to revert your problematic edits (which you mistakenly believe to be "improvements"). I'm certainly not going to be lectured about "taking the lazy route" or how I should spend my time usefully by someone who (1) can't give me the correct article title of the page I was editing; or (2) thinks that copyedits like "The Redemptorists then sent as a missionary to Vieux Fort …" are an improvement – they're evidently not. And so what if it is just my opinion that we shouldn't be using "Biography" as a section heading? I've brought 34 articles to good article status (18 of which are biographies, with 4 of them on Catholic bishops). None of those biographies use the heading "Biography". What quality content contributions have you been making lately that use "Biography" as a heading? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not going to waste my time debating you. If you having nothing in Wikipedia policies that says what I am doing it wrong, I am going to continue doing it. I don't appreciate your condescending remarks either. I also don't care what awards you have gotten. I love Wikipedia, but editors like you make it less pleasant sometimes. Rogermx (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "I am going to continue doing it" – and I'll continue reverting you. Regarding "condescending remarks", don't throw stones when you're living in a glass house. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) And I will file a harassment complaint against you. Suggest you review Wikipedia:Harassment Rogermx (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermx (talk • contribs) 18:30 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• You really should take the content dispute to the article TALK in question. I would also recommend linking to the correct article and proofing your comments. Nemov (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Rogermx, your signature is not functional. Clicking it does not lead either to your user page or your user talk page. Please fix it. On to other matters. You are not being harassed. When another editor disagrees with your edits, that does not constitute harassment. As to the dispute, a Wikipedia article about a person is a biography. Every aspect of such an article is part of the biography. When you create a section header called "Biography", that implies that the content in other sections is not part of the biography. In my opinion, that is incorrect and misleading. When you write If you having nothing in Wikipedia policies that says what I am doing it wrong, I am going to continue doing it, I am telling you that is a very bad attitude. Policies and guidelines are not all-inclusive and cannot specifically forbid every single bad practice. Look at Good articles and Featured articles that are biographies, and model your section headers on what is commonplace in those articles. Adopt a collaborative attitude and do not edit disruptively. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Cullen summed it up perfectly. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't need your lecture about attitude. I have been working on Wikipedia since 2007 and have over 50,000 edits. What gives this guy a veto over what i do in multiple articles? What gives him the right to threaten to revert my articles in the future because he disagrees about the use of a single word?

I use the biography heading because it is an article, first and foremost. There are sections for bibliography, see also, references that have no biographical information. Secondly, by creating a biography title, it gives a reader a cleaner view of the article contents when they look at it immediately. If this makes the Wikipedia bureaucrats happy, I will stop use the biography title in future articles.

As for editing disruptively, I am not the one who reverting all the edits in article instead of simply changing the one that he does not like. If you bother to read my statement, I told him that he is free to change anything in the article that he does not like. I do not revert articles over typos, spelling mistakes and edits that I don't agree with. I read this stuff on Wikipedia about being bold, but it is just nonsense.

It also very difficult to be collaborative with someone who doesn't treat you with respect. I thought that was another requirement of Wikipedia policy, but maybe that is bullshit too. Rogermx (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References are the resources that are about the person and their biographical details (otherwise, why would they be listed?) SeeAlso are other WP articles related to this person. Cullen328 is right...the whole article is their biography, otherwise it is content that does not belong on that page. The alernative is that all body-sections are subsections of Biography. So why is that container section needed rather than making the secions of the biography more prominent? But again again, this is all a content issue not an administrative or behavior issue except to the extent that editors are expected to discuss with each other and get input from others as relevant on the various talkpages, remembering that reasonable people can disagree reasonably. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rogermx Your edit count doesn't exempt you from requirements of civility and/or collaborative editing; and, respectfully, I suggest a focus on quality of contributions over quantity could be helpful. Your proposed structure is well out of step from the standard structure of biographies on virtually every other biographical page. Local Variable (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I mention the edit count in response to a previous comment about my supposed bad attitude. The reason I put in this complaint was because of the incivility of Bloom6132 and his threats to revert my articles. I have already acceded to the request about using not biography. Suggest you look at any of my edited articles before you lecture me about quantity over quality.

The point is that I want to be treated with respect by this editor and not have to listen to him threaten to revert articles that he could easily edit himself to his own satisfaction. Obviously, it was a waste of time to make this complaint. Rogermx (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly was. Next time, listen to people instead of accusing them of harassment and incivility. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User: A.Viki Wiki7

A.Viki Wiki7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is disruptively editing numerous pages, inserting unsourced, often nonsensical or unencyclopedic content, excessive Wikilinks (e.g., to numbers in pages), and what appears to be the unsourced addition of LLM-generated content. Their focus appears to be on islands, mainly the islands of Greenland. User's disruptive behavior has been brought up on their talk page numerous times, including with warning templates, since 12 May by three different editors (myself included). User has acknowledged the warnings, but continues to edit disruptively. The repeated acknowledgement then ignoring of warnings leads me to believe this user is not editing in good faith.

Disruptive edits include:

• Uummannaarsuk here
• Clavering Island here and here
• Disko Island here and here
• Lynn Island here
• Queen Louise Island here
• Chagatai Khanate here
• Tasiusaq Island here
• Sermitsiaq Island here
• United States Virgin Islands here

nf utvol (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this might be a WP:CIR issue.CycoMa1 (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I initially thought it was just that (and haven't ruled it out entirely). However, the continued editing following rather clear warnings, as well as acknowledgement of those warnings, leads me to believe that this individual simply isn't interested in constructive editing for whatever reason. nf utvol (talk) nf utvol (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Then this might be a Wikipedia:NOTHERE and/or a troll.

I think they might be a troll because on there userpage, they claim they a #1 of the list of Wikipedians by articles created. Even though they are not even on that list.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User continues to make unsourced, nonsense edits to uninhabited islands off Greenland. The continued behavior after all the friendly advice, warnings, and now an ANI leads me to believe this is just strangely targeted vandalism. nf utvol (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm A.Wiki Wiki 7. I wish all Wikipedians a good and lucky day. I'm afraid of vandalizing Wikipedia. My edits present the knowledge and skills I have acquired. Thank you. Happy editing! A.Viki Wiki7 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Above comment by A.Viki Wiki7 moved from new section they started at bottom of page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

p-blocked from article space. Not sure it shouldn't have been full, but as long as they don't become disruptive elsewhere, maybe that's sufficient. Valereee (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Given their own userpage nonsense and their sealioning at various usertalk, I would have full-blocked. But no harm in waiting a bit to see what they do next. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Looks like this user has created a sockpuppet account User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08. This user thanked me for an edit where I removed a number of A.Viki Wiki7's comments from my own talk page, account was created immediately after A.Viki Wiki7 was banned, and has a language pattern on strangely similar to the banned user, and is making the same kind of nonsense edits. nf utvol (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm, there are many accounts starting with those 2 words followed by a number, multiple blocked: Special:ListUsers. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, good catch. That's extremely strange. nf utvol (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's an xwiki sockfest dating back at least to December. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this is a little out of control. User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08 is now pinging admin talk pages asking why they got blocked...pretty cut and dry admission of sockpuppetry if you ask me. nf utvol (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure there are more, there's overlap through UZ Wiki history (first article the 08 sock edited there) for names like A.Sherzod _ and multiple combinations of A. (short for Abduvaitov?), Sherzod, Wiki, Viki (short for Vikipediya, Uzbek for Wikipedia) and some number or other.

There's also this account which is globally locked and was blocked along with some related accounts at UZ Wiki: Vikipediya foydalanuvchisi (unless Sherzod is some sort of meme, it seems like there's a connection: diff).

Hopefully a checkuser finds most of the relevant ones. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:A1A9:5E67:39D:C985 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If anyone has any additional accounts with evidence of being part of this sock set, please add to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7. CUs will be looking there in due time and that's also the place anyone else will be looking in the future to help keep track of this set. DMacks (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hate speech / personal attack by Yyg850c

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.

---

Just noticed this comment by Yyg850c (talk) at Talk:History of the chair: "Here's a quote from the Wiki page to enrich your underdeveloped black supremacist prefrontal cortex" (bold emphasis mine). How this escaped attention, I have no idea, but that can't be okay. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. We don't tolerate that sort of garbage here. --Yamla (talk) 19:02, 23 May 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:Siya johnson3

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.

---

• Siya johnson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated addition of spam links to online shop:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

WP:NOTHERE. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Siya johnson3 as a spam only account. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 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.

Chilufya Tayali

A few issues at Chilufya Tayali, among them the addition of unsourced and promotional content, likely conflict of interest, and an editor who claims to be corresponding with the subject, who as of last month was reported to be missing and wanted by Interpol. See the discussion here [124]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

From the comments made by ClementSyuulu (talk · contribs) on their talk page, this seems to me more like WP:OR rather than WP:COI. FYI, there are noticeboards for both original research and conflicts of interest. It might be more appropriate taking this to one of those noticeboards. Adam Black ^{t • c} 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This report is fine for this noticeboard, so I wouldn't worry about it. El_C 06:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure. Adam Black ^{t • c} 06:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Mass AfDs despite warnings to gain experience

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

Since creating this account on November 30, 2023, 54% of their edits have been to Wikispace[125]. These edits have consisted of mass-nominating articles to AfD at a rate that would make TenPoundHammer jealous. They appear specifically to want to delete articles about sports broadcasting. Of their edits to mainspace, most of those are either AfD notices or merges.

On their usertalk, the user has been repeatedly told, either directly or implicitly, to gain more editing experience by established users such as @Legoktm:,[126] @Vossanova:,[127] @John B123:,[128] and @Liz:.[129] Additionally they appear, based on the comment by John B123 linked above, to not understand that Wikipedia is based on consensus and collaboration.

This issue is compounded by several factors which all combine to make this actionable, in my opinion.

Firstly, copy/paste rationales. The user started the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndyCar Series on NBC discussion with a rationale saying "Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans"; however the article in question is not a list, nor is it even a NASCAR article! How can we trust that this user is doing WP:BEFORE checks when they are making it so painfully obvious that they don't even bother to read articles they nominate? We also have a strikingly similar rationales for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Orleans Bowl broadcasters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on CBC commentators that similarly show a lack of source checking when looked at side-by-side.

Secondly, on that same IndyCar on NBC AfD, they refactored their rationale after I called them on the NASCAR error, without striking that part of their comment, and ignored my request to do so.

Thirdly, they appear to have found a WP:TAGTEAM partner in Conyo14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). editor interaction history shows several recent instances where Conyo replies within hours, if not minutes of SF starting a new AfD, and indeed AfD Stats shows these being delete !votes overwhelmingly so[130][131].and then we have this this talk page comment. "It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them: User:SpacedFarmer/AFD list.".

Lastly, SF was warned for incivility by Liz on their talk page on May 13 and has been brought to ANI late last month[132] for similar incivility. Since the warning by Liz was more recent than the diffs I have, I won't post them unless asked so as not to risk double jeopardy.

In one rare instance where Conyo !voted keep in an SF AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of athletes who came out of retirement, SF shows a lack of knowledge or desire to fix articles rather than go for the deletion option, "But I think that list needs fixing....Do one-offs really count? (Tony Hawk, Dale Jr) - this was part of that reason for that AfD.".[133] For an editor spending the vast majority of their time at AfD, this is a huge problem that needs addressing. That the majority of their AfDs result in deletion should not distract from these core issues that lead me to conclude that SpacedFarmer is not fit to edit in deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• My main concern about all of these nominations is the overall incivility and bludgeoning attitude of Spaced; I've voted on one nom only specifically because of Spaced's overall harassment and that all of their noms do not have unique rationales or just misabuse drops of WP: links. I'd like to hear what they say, but they really need to improve their overall attitude in editing, because as-is, they are refusing to compromise, much less apologize for the personal attacks they have been giving out towards those who disagree with them. Nate • (chatter) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If I may absolve myself of some of the accusations, I tend to lurk around AfD like everyday. One of the AfD's I decided to nominate this year was in my primary scope of editing: List of NHL Western Conference finals broadcasters. So, my interest in deleting articles that this user nominates is similar to mine. However, the premise that I notice his articles for deletion are a WP:TAGTEAM is inherently false. I'll admit I did indeed copy-paste some of my rationale within his hour of nominating. That being said, I performed a WP:BEFORE search on all of these articles. I would not just !vote into the void knowing my rationale is not backed without due diligence. Hence, I wanted to tell him to slow down as users like him tend to get placed into ANI and told formally to slow down or else. Also, in case it wasn't noticed, I do have the ability to change my !vote if proper sourcing is given.

I will also accept any formal warning from any admins if they deem my conduct to be misbehaving. Conyo14 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Before this gets any more lost in the shuffle, I'll say that I'm satisfied by this explanation that there's nothing nefarious going on as far as this aspect is concerned and have struck that part of my post. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

While I agree this editor may need some patience (I think it is good practice to not make mass deletions your sole contribution to Wikipedia), I dislike the onesidedness of these accusations. Mass nominations at a rate no one can keep up with are of course a problem, but so is dumping piles and piles of listcruft into article space.

Their current record is around 91% deletion success rate - https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=SpacedFarmer. That puts them above average for nominations.

Honestly, if people want these articles to be not deleted, they should consider looking for encyclopaedic coverage to meet WP:NLIST. I agree with the vast majority of this user's nominations. There's a huge backlog of terrible articles that ought to be banished, especially those relating to sports. Lugnuts created over 93000 articles in their lifetime before someone put a stop to it. There's no limit to the rate at which people can vomit terrible articles into mainspace, and so reporting someone to ANI for nominating quickly (unless accuracy is exceptionally poor) is also not against the rules. On the question of copypaste rationales, while this can indicate bad behaviour, it can also indicate that a very persistent fan has blasted (and even, shocked gasp, copy pasted) dozens of very similar articles into existence.BrigadierG (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Their success rate can be partially attributed to their style of mass nominations BLUDGEONING the process. It's much easier to copy/paste the same lazy rationale into articles about motorsports, college sports and the Olympics than it is to search and post the differing references for all. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok but like I also voted on many of their nominations and the articles in question were just terrible and had nothing except one or two press releases for to verify one or two entries. Can you be more specific about the kinds of articles you think were wrongly deleted? BrigadierG (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Press releases are not automatic disqualifiers for a source and Spaced has been told this and refused the advice on what a reliable source is. They're expecting to paint a wide brush like Dan said to get these articles deleted by obfuscating their rationales or bludgeoning with so many WPs an average voter wouldn't question them, when most who do read the sources do. Nate • (chatter) 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A source being reliable is not the same thing as indicating notability. Press releases do not contribute to an indication of notability because by and large they are primary sources that are published without editorial oversight, although they may be suitable to verify basic facts that are unlikely to be contested. WP:ANTECEDENT - being verifiable and notable are both necessary conditions for an article to exist, but on their own are not sufficient. A notable subject that can't be verified doesn't get an article, and neither does a verifiable one that isn't notable. The standard for notability requires being noted by a secondary source - hence the existence of WP:NLIST and WP:SYNTH.BrigadierG (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

While this guy could use a little work, he seems to be correct much more often than not. Wikipedia is filled to the brim with useless lists. I'd say all he needs to do is take a little more time to make sure he is AFDing stuff with a correct reason and to remember to not get into pissing matches in AfD. This, in my opinion, doesn't rise to the level of sanctions being needed. Jtrainor (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I take back the nice things I said about this guy. I gave him a little friendly advice and for some reason he decided to revert my post (fine, it's his talk page), and then caution me for a personal attack (what?) on my own talk page and then revert it. This guy needs an attitude adjustment. Jtrainor (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah! This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do. He is totally wrong when he accuse me of showing "a lack of source checking when looked at side-by-side" as they have been checked through before making the nominations.

Anything Conyo14 involve in my nomination is unexpected and incidental.

I don't see what is wrong with copy/paste rationale as they all have everything in common, low quality garbage that plaque Wikipedia which needs to be put out of its misery, I checked through them before via WP:BEFORE and nothing, so I just put on my black hoodie, get out my big sickle and execute the decision. Nothing wrong with that, it keeps those YouTube parasites at bay but then they won't touch those lists with a 10ft bargepole.

I have done my attempt of "a little work" but after discussion, they got pissed down the wall. Also, there is nothing to write about anymore.

As he had pointed out, one or so was done in error as I have just being back from work, unaware I was tired. I only had just woken up when I got that message and logged off soon, so I couldn't get back to him. I nominated these are I cannot see them passing notability guidelines.

This guy now can relax as I am going to slow this AfD down for the summer given most of the easy nominations have been done and many others is less likely for this time being, as time is needed to look the sources through. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone a "fanboy", saying they are "[spiting]" you and that they have a "hateboner" is not the way I'd reply to an ANI report about myself if I had just been warned twice in the last month over incivility. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your standard of discourse here is a bit troubling. There are reasonable standards of behaviour expected of all editors everywhere on Wikipedia, as you have already been made aware. Phrases like "hatebonering" and "pissed down the wall" don't seem appropriate to me, neither does describing another editor as a "fanboy" and I'm not sure whether "YouTube parasites" is meant to refer to something on that site or YouTubers/viewers editing on Wikipedia. It is not difficult to be civil in online discourse, and failing to do so here could result in your editing privileges being withdrawn.

On the subject of your AfDs, I have no strong opinion either way. They do seem broadly correct, if a little too frequent. But your interactions with other editors leave a lot to be desired. Adam Black ^{t • c} 23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

> This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do

This is disappointingly dismissive behaviour. BrigadierG (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

So rather than improving the quality of list articles which always appreciate new sources, you decide to denigrate editors as "fanboy...YouTube parasites", cast yourself as the Wikipedian version of the Grim Reaper who has no designs on improving anything and only removing through bludgeoning, make a blanket statement that these list articles are 'low quality garbage' and dismiss everything you've done as 'work' and 'easy nominations'?

I can't assume any further good faith with you, Spaced, and I am highly doubtful that you performed most BEFORE as intended. You are to assume good faith of all editors, not just select ones. I know working with others can be frustrating, but you need to talk out things rather than dismissing them out of hand because they were part of the YTTP or whatever Roblox/Discord friend group you think is an affront to your deletion spree. Your attacks on others are uncalled for, and your civility needs some serious work. I do see a point to some of the deletions (which long needed to be prose rather than long lists), but the way you're going about it is not in the normal manner of the AfD process. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You also need to put down the WP:STICK and walk away - a WP:BOOMERANG can fly both ways. BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm allowed to state my views properly and from experience and have understood how AfD works at its best for years, along with these mass noms. They are poorly done and Spaced's continued insistence on being rude and brusque will not lead to a long editing career if they continue as-is, nor taking my comment as an immediate PA. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Dismissing everything you've nominated, which include some articles such as List of MLS Cup broadcasters that are well-written, extensively researched ~300 reference articles – as low quality garbage, and that you're the grim reaper who needs to execute such articles, while describing any who don't support such actions as "parasites" – because there's nothing to write about??? Wow... BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think for Spaced, it is important to realize that while some nominations have been clearly flawed, the use of how sources are analyzed can get exhausting (and frustrating when editors confuse reliable and notable) when doing mass nominations as he's been doing. So, I think at this time, perhaps they should stop commenting or nominating for now. Let the current AfD's run their course. Conyo14 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer, while I have agreed with most of your nominations (if not the entire rationale), a few have made me question how much of a WP:BEFORE you have been doing on them. It only took me a couple of minutes to find numerous sources showing that List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports was notable, and several others I found to have sufficient sources present fairly quickly. I am wondering what exactly does your BEFORE entail?

Part of the issue for some editors here is the lack of bundling (as seen with the recent nominations of the Monday Night Football results articles and a handful of other nominations), leading to more spread out and lesser attended discussions for articles that are similar to each other. Perhaps bundling 3-4 similar articles (but no more) in each discussion would help with determining a broader consensus on some of these articles, along with slowing down of the overall number of nominations. Copy and pasting rationales which don't make any sense (such as the NASCAR mention in unrelated articles) doesn't help the project. Let'srun (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It entails a check through each one of the source first then a search via Google. Having done the first, I don't see it surprising that they would be nominated. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not surprised to see this here though I had hoped it would never come to this. I agree that the behavior of User:SpacedFarmer at AFD has not been good. The copy and paste rationale on his requests shows that a BEFORE is not being done, but the replies are far worse as evidenced by the users own comments above. I think a very short ban could be useful here, but I would hope that this thread alone would be enough to change some of the behavior. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe a rate limit of 1–2 AfD noms every day? Although I expect that's much more difficult to enforce than a technical partial block from creating pages with prefix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*. Agree that the response by the reported user above in this thread is distinctly unimpressive. Folly Mox (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I had planned to slow my AfD noms to 1–2 every day. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

How about not doing AfD nominations at all. Anyone who accuses people of being "fanboys" and "parasites" (which are personal attacks and you still haven't struck them/apologized for them btw) clearly doesn't have the temperament to work at AfD. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 16:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A 91% success rate at AFD says a LOT. Looking at the list, most of those articles/lists look like (compound criteria) list articles that are so overspecialized that nobody is going to be looking for such a list. But their wording that they used in this thread (and apparently elsewhere) particularly when referring to other editors and their motives is pretty terrible. Looks like a newish editor who got very active in "hot areas" pretty quickly. Maybe has yet to learn that what's considered normal discourse on most on-line forums is far over-the-top at Wikipedia. Suggest realizing and learning the latter more quickly and maybe slowing down on AFD work until they learn that. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A 91% success rate at AfD says nothing (or even NOTHING). It easy to achieve a far better rate than that without performing any WP:BEFORE. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious how to do so, but there seem to be some people who don't realise it, so, in the spirit of WP:BEANS, I won't reveal anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There seem to be 3 separate issues with SpacedFarmer's editing. As a relatively new user their understanding of WP policies and guidelines is limited. Whilst this is to be expected with newer users, the problem here is they take no notice when things are explained to them. For example they were warned that copying within WP requires attribution[134], yet still continued to copy and paste between articles without attribution. Secondly, their attitude towards other editors who disagree, as witnessed in this thread, is unacceptable. Lastly, given the sheer number of articles sent to AfD of which, as mentioned above, some are clearly notable, it would seem a diligent WP:BEFORE is not being carried out and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability.

I'm sure SpacedFarmer could be a useful editor if they take note of what's been said in this thread and modify their behaviour appropriately. Perhaps a warning would be appropriate at this time with the understanding that should this behaviour continue more severe action is likely. --John B123 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"...and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability." I think this is the key takeaway from your post, John. Based on their behaviour in here, I am unfortunately suspicious now that SpacedFarmer's primary motivation for editing is to delete this certain type of article, other opinions be damned. This apparent refusal to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project with editors having many different opinions will only see them taken here more if they do decide to do other things.

I'd like to see them at least address the civility concerns that have been brought up since their initial response. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Consistent vandalism by User:UsernameTalk

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.

---

UsernameTalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE. They have been observed vandalizing multiple pages on WP Pakistan. For instance, it is unreasonable for someone with constructive intentions to change the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) from Nawaz Sharif to Abid Sher Ali. Are they here just to have fun and waste others' time? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, SPI filed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:55, 22 May 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:Dmytrootamanenko

I alerted Dmytrootamanenko (talk · contribs) on their talk page about WP:RUSUKR on 7 May as they are not extended confirmed and I gave them a final warning on 12 May as they continued to make edits about the Ukraine war. Despite this, they continued to make edits about the war. For example on 19 May they made a series of edits on Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas such as this. As another example, they created the article Volodymyrivka (Subottsi rural hromada) which references the war. They have not responded on their talk page. Mellk (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a requirement to use the GS/ALERT template to make a user formally aware of such general sanctions? My understanding is mostly from Arbcom sanctions where the appropriate templates are generally required. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, neither Olenivka prison massacre nor Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas appear on the WP:RUSUKR list of page level sanctions from what I could see. I guess my question would be whether this user is doing anything disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Because, I'm going to be honest, if the worst they've done is put the line, During the Russo-Ukrainian War a local volunteer Viktor Yarmoshevych died, a memorial plaque was opened in his honor. into a page then I'm not particularly inclined to do much of anything. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, the template looks to be a relatively recent addition. It was sufficient to simply notify without any sort of template, but I am not sure if this has changed. Perhaps an admin who is familiar with this area can say for sure. I do not think there is any exception for non-extended confirmed editors to edit such pages since it is broadly construed. Regarding disruptive edits, they made this edit which is disruptive. Mellk (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they have still not acknowledged anything or even responded while continuing to make edits is not a good sign that they will stop making edits in the topic area. If we do not want to enforce GS, then why have it in the first place? Mellk (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

PicturePerfect666

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 would like to ask for a topicblock on PicturePerfect666, both on all Eurovision articles and on any other topic that relates to either Israel or Palestine. They are being a disruptive editor in the Eurovision 2024 article, through bludgeoning multiple talk topics, disruptive editing, unnecessarily policing the talk page, ignoring consensus, breaching NPOV, deleting sections they personally disagree with, refusing to lose an argument, and malicious editing of the article in order to leave hidden instructions to warn editors to not make particular changes that they disapprove of.

Bludgeoning the talk page

Warnings - [135] [136]

Example: The Israel Campaign for Votes talk section

Here there are 44 comments, and PP666 made 16 of them, over 35% of the comments in this section, double the amount of comments of anyone else involved. They continually changed what they thought was deemed wrong with this proposal, from "speculation and cruft", to "unreliable source", to "what is the relevance", to "the Eurovision rules weren't even broken", to "lets wait for further discussion", in order, when each of the previous reasonings were found to be incorrect. When examining that talk topic for consensus, there are 7 votes for inclusion, and only 1 against (PP666). When this was addressed, PP666 said "This is not counting votes", and immediately opened a request for comment about this exact discussion, presumably in the effort to delay anyone acting on the newly-established consensus. This disruption has been working, because despite consensus and the fact this was suggested a week ago, it is still not included in the article.

They have now seem to be not gaining the intended response in their newly opened RFC either, and have started bludgeoning the people replying to them there [137] [138] [139]

In PicturePerfects666's two RFCs (one which they asked an admin to open, and the other they opened themselves), so far every person who has replied to either of them has disagreed with PicturePerfect666's position, again. Multiple people replied to the RFC acknowledging that this was just a repeat of a recent already-settled discussion and not necessary [140] [141] [142].

Doing a rough count (doing some ctrl+f tallying), currently on the talk page there are 276 comments, and PicturePerfect666 has made 78 of them. Over a quarter of ALL talk page comments are made by them. They are dominating every single topic they are involved with and they refuse to back down on anything, even when there is a large consensus against them.

Disruptive editing and incivility

Warnings: [143][144] [145] [146]. Individual problems below often included their own pushback and warnings specific to the issue.

In the last few days, PP666 has:

• Incited an edit war by repeatedly removing a section that describes the multiple Palestinian symbols displayed on stage at Eurovision [147], despite multiple editors asking them not to [148] [149].
• When told they were edit warring, they started personally attacking the user that pointed it out to them [150] - see edit description ("Reply to bad arguments, point scoring and attempted gotcha moments by a user with unclean hands.")
• Got 48 hour site blocked for further personal attacks made during the edit war AN/I brought against them [151], as well as edit warring.
• Attempted to escape that block via wikilawyering [152]
• Opened a dispute resolution request that included 24 people, including a probable sock-puppet account listed as the first person involved. The sock has 3 edits in total - the first was to request someone restart PP666's edit war [153] (the edit war that happened 2 days before they signed up), the second was to "retire" the account exactly 1 minute later (5 minutes after signing up)[154], but they came out of "retirement" to post their third edit: literally posting "I agree with PicturePerfect666" on PP666's dispute resolution request. They have no other edits. Also note the similar username motifs.
• PP666 added wikicomments in the article source, demanding that adding anything critical of Israel to the lead was against consensus and not allowed (despite knowing that was not true). They did not remove this message when this was pointed out to them. [155]
• Moved the section that outlines the Israeli participation controversy further down the page to "alphabetise" [156]
• Moved large sections of the Israeli participation controversy into a lower traffic article without consulting the talk page [157]
• Removed large amount of detail about the Israeli inclusion protests without consulting the talk page [158]
• Repeatedly removed an image of protest against Israel's inclusion happening in Barcelona because, as per the edit summary "we all know what a protest looks like" [159]. Also justifying removing this image again later using the reasoning "no other section has images and this section doesn't need one either" [160] (despite other sections having images at the time), immediately followed by deleting the existing other images in other sections less than a minute later [161] [162]
• Removing a one-sentence reference to the controversy surrounding Israel's inclusion from the lead, despite being part of an active talkpage discussion about it, knowing that multiple editors were supporting it remaining (see [163]). Asked to revert, [164], but didn't.
• When an admin removed some comments (full disclosure: my comments[165]) from the talk page because of the extended-confirmed protection, PP666 took it upon themselves to use this as justification to police everyone else in the talk page [166]
• This led to PP666 opening a spurious AN/I, which was promptly shut down[167]. One admin said "No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them". During that AN/I, admins asked them to revert the policing comments, something PP666 pretended to comply with, but instead just wikicommented out instead[168]. The policing comments are still in the talk page code without any clarification that they are inaccurate and unwarranted. They refused to actually delete them when I pointed this out to them[169], quoting WP:TPO as the reasoning, which is completely unrelated to the situation at hand, and does not suggest wikicommenting at all.

Since my comments got deleted and I had the contentious topic explainer posted on my page, I have stopped interacting on this article's talk page (apart from one extended-protected change request), but I have still been observing what's been happening from the side-lines, and I think that PicturePerfect666's behaviour is massively disruptive and unhelpful, and they show no sign of self reflection or acknowledging a behavioural problem. This list was initially even longer but I decided to trim it down. There's no way of having a meaningful discussion or improving the article while they are involved. BugGhost🎤 11:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

[170] might be an interesting diff regarding bludgeoning. _Dial^mayo 11:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This largely factual incorrect. For example I only started one RfC and only did so after dispute resolution was declined after being advised to try routes that are different.

the matters complained about are already administratively dealt with as a block on me and another were rendered and have passed.

I’d like the reported to be boomeranged for this waste of time as this is already dealt with previously. They are also in my opinion on a campaign targeting me as they dislike the position I take compared to them.

if they have content disputes fine but this is targeting and bullying through gaming the system. An example was when an admin asked they and everyone else to not comment on my talk page and they carried on regardless.

this is the most nothing burger feet stamping laundry list complaint I’ve ever seen from someone doing so here because they dislike the processes of Wikipedia and can’t stand that contentious topics are going to need more input and have more people with different views than they like.

yes this reply is personal but I’m sick to death of the attitude of this user that they get to try and push an opposing voice on a contentious topic off because they can’t get their own way they should be trouted and warned they can’t go forum shopping on things already dealt with. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Lines like this “one which they asked an admin to open”

Show how absurd and bad faith assuming this complaint is. I never asked any administrator to open anything I would therefor like that to be taken as prima facia evidence of bad faith and this nonsense closed with appropriate action taken against the filer. Accusations like that cannot be allowed as they damage the whole process and nature of Wikipedia.

I am pinging the admin being accused of being my patsy @Ivanvector: PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone of "being your patsy", that is a ridiculous claim to make. The RFC was made after you and Ivanvector discussed dispute resolution, and when that fell through, and Ivanvector opened the RFC - I fully understand why Ivanvector created it, and it was done in good faith to try and reach a resolution on the talk page in order to have your concerns directly discussed. There is nothing wrong with that, and I have no complaints about Ivanvector or their actions at all. My chief complaints are with you opening the second RFC in order to disrupt a separate discussion, and your badgering of people trying to contribute to those RFCs. BugGhost🎤 14:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You are. You are claiming an admin on my behalf through collusion, as my patsy opened an RfC. Which is complete nonsense. Quoting you directly “one which they asked an admin to open”. That is a clear accusation they opened the RfC at my behest. Trying to explain that away doesn’t cut it compared to the accusation you made and how much of a laundry list personalised load of rubbish this waste of time is. Which additionally has already had admin action taken related to it. Give it a rest and stop trying to game the system. I cannot take seriously any of your whingeing, it is just a bad faith attempt to remove a user from discussions because you dislike that they present opposing views on a contentious topic. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, for the sake of stopping a derailment - if you insist, the phrase "asked for" could be improved. You may not have directly asked for it, but it was made to placate your concerns about the article, because your dispute resolution request didn't go ahead. Again: I have no concern about them whatsoever. I have no problems with the first RFC being open, this has nothing to do with this AN/I, and whether you "asked" for it or not makes no difference. I am making no claims about Ivanvector's behaviour and everything I have seen from them has been neutral, fair and in good-faith. The fact that you are trying to redirect this AN/I away from yourself and imply that I am actually attacking a third party is astonishing. This is a complete derailment, and I am surprised that this detail, out of everything in the original post, is the one you are fighting. BugGhost🎤 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am bad at Wikipeding
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Uh, your diff is broken, Dialmayo, it doesn't have the revision IDs and is just going to the main page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Looking at the reply in the edit history, I think Dialmayo intended to link to this diff - please correct me if I'm mistaken though BugGhost🎤 11:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) I fixed the diff seconds before you wrote that after you wrote that haha, yeah that's what I meant to link to, I forgot how the diff template worked Dialmayo 11:55, 24 May 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.

Bot control

Why is a bot allowed to control what is posted to drv [171] . duffbeerforme (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme, because the report was malformed. You have to add it outside of and after the hidden comment syntax (<!-- -->). You placed it inside of the hidden comment. Schazjmd (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The bot is not trying to prevent discussion. You filed the report incorrectly, but it was fixed by @Whpq. Please AGF and don't edit war with software. Star Mississippi 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and original research from Itisme3248

Itisme3248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Itisme3248 has been making personal attacks at the meat talk-page. The user was blocked for personal attacks WP:PA and repeatedly inserting WP:OR] in August 2023 [172], [173], so since their last block they have not taken on any advice they were given.

Examples of personal attacks [174] "Vegan editors like Psychologist Guy, who promote a vegan perspective, accuse anyone providing scientific proof against weak evidence of being biased and hide behind Wikipedia rule-breaking accusations to bully new editors. By ignoring studies that demonstrate no increase in mortality rate and promoting a vegan agenda, he is inherently biased while accusing others of the same" and this edit accusing another editor of adding lies [175] which the user was warned about [176].

If you read over my posts on the talk-page I have not accused anyone of being biased nor I am bullying new editors. I said this user was not acting in good-faith because it's obvious they were not. They have repeatedly argued on the talk-page that the systematic reviews cited on the meat Wikipedia article do not account for BMI or smoking. I cited several of these reviews (they all account for these) and this user doesn't reply to that, then they went on a rant about something else. All I see from this user on the talk-page is a long list of spam, personal attacks and WP:OR.

There is a repeated pattern of disruption here involving original research and personal attacks. They disrupted the Ancient Greek cuisine article. They disrupted the Race (human categorization) article and now this type of behaviour has spilled out onto the meat article and talk-page.

I do not see how this user is improving the project. If you read their talk-page they have already been given plenty of warnings about adding original research and making personal attacks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You've accused multiple people of bias simply for citing better and more relevant studies. Not only do you first personally attack them that they are biased, but you also accuse them of rule-breaking when they point out your bias and dishonesty after you personally attacked them first. To hide this, you even deleted my comment that exposed the truth about your behavior. You were the first to accuse me and others of bias. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Itisme3248, please provide evidence that uninvolved editors and adminstrators can evaluate. This is not an argument between you and the OP. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the attack text from the Talk:Meat comment but otherwise left the comment in place. That whole subsections almost needs closed because more time is spent talking about the editors than the material. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

An example from the meat talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itisme3248 (talk • contribs) 20:41 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

"Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of cohort studies adjust for confounders like BMI and smoking, if they didn't they wouldn't be any good, adjusting for these would be crucial. As stated, epidemiologists are not stupid. When cohorts are done, baseline characteristics like BMI, smoking, physical activity, race are logged. Unprocessed red meat has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer. High unprocessed red meat increases cancer risk, CVD and stroke risk. There is a strong consensus on this from dietetic and cancer organizations and we have 4 reviews on this on the Wikipedia article. Here is the World Health Organization "the existing evidence is clear that high consumption of red meat, and processed meat even more so, can have detrimental impacts on the health of populations and the planet" [2]. You are making bold claims here without any evidence, "most editors have almost no understanding of scientific research methodologies". You are claiming that the systematic reviews on the Wikipedia article do not take into account BMI or smoking but you have not cited these sources. If you had actually read these reviews, you would see that is not the case. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] [3], again this is bad-faith editing. There are good reviews found on the article in the health effects section [4], [5], [6]. You have not explained why these sources are not "proper sources". Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] If you accuse me of bad-faith editing then i accuse you of being the one doing bad-faithing editing by cherry picking and ignoring the fact that the proper studies say that unprocessed meat is not linked with a higher mortality rate. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)"

Itisme3248, you realize everything on Wikipedia is logged right? Anyone can go to the meat talk-page and see I have not accused any users of bias [177]. The word "bias" does not occur in any of my posts. You are the only user I replied to on the talk-page, so the claims that I have accused "multiple people" of bias are incorrect. You are making false claims, any admin can verify this by looking at the edit history of the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, accusing someone of bad faith editing is essentially the same as accusing them of bias. When you claim that I am editing in bad faith, you are implying that my contributions are intentionally misleading or dishonest, which is a direct accusation of bias. While you may not have used the word 'bias' explicitly, the intent and meaning behind your accusation are clear. Any admin reviewing the talk page can see that your remarks about my supposed bad faith editing are indeed an accusation of bias. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is bad faith editing. I linked to several reviews found on the meat Wikipedia article that adjusted for BMI but you keep claiming they did not adjust for BMI. You obviously havn't read these studies but this is off-topic here. You are disrupting this discussion by copying entire comments from myself. Just link to a diff. You are disrupting this discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You even have accused people of being conspiracy theorists, further demonstrating your tendency to discredit others by questioning their motives. ::::::::::Itisme3248 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended content
"Medical organizations are not reliable sources? Ok sure, next you will be telling us the earth is flat. This talk-page is not a forum to promote your conspiracy theories. If you have any reliable sources to improve the article suggest them, otherwise cut this nonsense out. You do not need to keep creating new accounts either. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]"

That comment was left a month ago on a completely different article. The drive-by IP was claiming that the entire medical community is wrong and that all medical organizations are unreliable. That is a conspiracy theory. No, it's not a personal attack to call someone's nonsense a conspiracy theory. We have established here that you are disruptive, you have not provided any evidence I have personally attacked you, so now you are going through my editing history a month ago to try and dig up anything unrelated to this that you think looks bad for me. Can an admin just block Itisme3248 before their disruption goes any further? I am tired of this now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring and misinterpreting what I said? I stated that the systematic reviews cited in the meat Wikipedia article repeatedly fail to account for BMI or smoking on the talk page. However, I also mentioned many other important confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status, race, country, exercise, macronutrients, and more. Additionally, I emphasized that the total mortality rate is the most important factor, which is being ignored on this Wikipedia page. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You are making false claims without any evidence [178]. If you check my comments on the meat talk-page I have not attacked "multiple editors". It should be noted that Itisme3248 is disrupting this discussion by copying comments I left a month ago on another talk-page completely unrelated to this discussion. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Itisme3248's personal attack was removed but now they have just re-added it to their talk-page [179]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• I am probably WP:INVOLVED in the 'discussion' (for want of a better word) at Talk:Meat, but in my opinion Itisme3248 is creating a lot of noise, and behaving in an uncollegiate manner, and their wall-of-text-bludgeoning is making productive discussion very difficult. Looking a bit more closely at their editing history makes me more concerned - they seem to make a habit of wading into potentially contentious areas and demanding that their additions, which are often based on their own interpretation of primary sources, be allowed to stand. See, for example, this discussion at Pederasty in ancient Greece. Or this one at Race (human categorization). I don't doubt that they are sincerely trying to improve articles, but by 'improve' I mean 'make them reflect what they know to be The Truth', and they do not seem willing to adapt to our way of doing things. I personally believe that we're in time-sink territory here. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • A timesink with a dash of WP:RGW, methinks. This comment is fairly indicative of their apparent mindset. You cannot form a consensus with someone who above all actively wants to believe that you are wrong. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, this sounds like either a pblock from the article, or tban from dietary articles in general, will be necessary to avoid it being a complete timesink. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal Attack by User:Kashmiri

User:Kashmiri has alleged without any proof that my account is a sock-puppet and is concerned about my lack of efforts (where I am uninvolved) in an ongoing edit war over at Talk:Tamil genocide.

For full disclosure, I did have another account a few years back, but I stopped using that account years ago since it had identifying information on it. I have also emailed checkusers at [email protected] to bring my old unused account to their notice. This is all completely allowed as per WP:Clean Start.

At the bottom of the discussion at [180], User:kashmiri has been implying that I am engaging in sock-puppetry and has complained that I am displaying no collaborative efforts (even though I am completely uninvolved in the discussion). I was patrolling the pages (as part of my watchlist) and decided to warn both the editors involved in edit-warring ([181], [182]) and requested temporary protection for the concerned page at [183].

I was a Wikipedia editor for a long time before retiring and starting a new account. As such, I was very much involved in recent changes patrol and decided to continue doing so when I started this new account.

I am deeply baffled by the allegations being levied against me here (without any iota of proof) and believe this is completely against Wikipedia policies. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Goldenarrow9, you registered this account 8 days ago and immediately went on to issue warnings to various editors[184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191] and many more – including warnings to long-standing editors like Ravensfire, Espenthordsen or myself; proposing an article for deletion[192], and closing a discussion[193] (even though your account is not in good standing as it's not even extended confirmed). All in just 300 edits. It doesn't look like a very clean start to me, and my advice to you is to slow down and stop challenging everyone here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I was a wikipedia editor for a long time before changing my account to hide my identity. All the warnings issued by me are completely valid and almost all reports filed by me so far have been actioned on (including the most recent page protection request on the page you are edit-warring on). I have also shared details of my previous account with the checkusers. However, I don't like your personal attacks against me when I simply warned you about a Wikipedia policy you were violating. You straight up jumped to implying I am a sock-puppet (especially with your veiled comments like "Let's see...").

You also chose to report my current account as a sock-puppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leed110 after I shared with you about my previous account and opened this complaint against you (where I even mentioned that I have shared details about my past account with checkusers). (You have not even notified me about that report, and I just found it from your edit history).

I can't figure out why you are acting in such bad faith against me. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Goldenarrow9 There's no obligation to notify accounts about SPI, and I don't routinely do it. As I wrote: your start here is quite concerning, it's as far from collaborative editing as possible. You just go around and drop warnings on various users' pages (it's secondary here whether they are justified or not). At Talk:Tamil genocide, you made zero effort to engage in the discussion, present arguments in support or against the proposal. You just played a cop – much like in other articles. Now, being so unhelpful, and with such a suspicious editing pattern (see my SPI, which I reaffirm), do you really expect hugs and love here?

WP:CLEANSTART says: It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. I'm not at all sure that's the case here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your claim that Tamil genocide was "on your watchlist", I wonder how it got there when you never edited in this area – and at the same time when several new accounts became active on that article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I highlight my concern with your veiled personal attacks again: "do you really expect hugs and love here?". Is this seriously the kind of tone that "experienced editors" use these days? I have replied to the SPI report as well. My previous account was in good standing and this new account was only started to disassociate my real-life identity. I didn't realize patrolling recent changes and countering vandalism is now frowned upon at Wikipedia.

Also, I don't really have to explain myself, but it got on my watchlist because I participated in a Requested Move discussion just a few sections above at Talk:Tamil genocide#Requested move 12 May 2024. I was only warning you as I noticed you were on your 3rd revert and that the topic was considered a contentious topic. Didn't realize issuing a simple warning to you would waste so much of my time here or I would have never done so. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing you're using any RCP tols, and Recent changes patrol doesn't include Talk pages anyway, even as you were coming to talk pages. It all gets muddier. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have used WP:Twinkle to rollback changes, issue warnings and request page protections. For RC, the Special:RecentChanges page has been enough for me. I still don't get why you decided to target me like this personally. Anyone could have warned you about your edit-war. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I also want to clear up the issue of issuing warnings to long standing editors. For Ravensfire, if you look just below the warning, you'll see a friendly discussion of the issue at hand where both of us agreed it was just to avoid any future issues.

In the case of Espenthordsen, it was due to a file they uploaded which missed a copyright tag altogether.

Both warnings are advisory in nature and my warning to you was similar in nature (hoping to stop you from violating policies and getting yourself blocked).

You simply decided that qualifies me as a sockpuppet? All my edits so far have been in good standing and I've not acted hostile to you in anyway. Yet, you have only been hostile to me so far and didn't bother to assume good faith, going so far as mocking me and challenging everything I've said.

Honestly, all this makes me rethink my decision to even start my Wikipedia account. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Look, people come here to build an encyclopaedia; develop content, sometimes argue about it in order to work out a consensus version. Yes sometimes formal warnings are necessary. However, you did not try to build anything: you just waded into a lengthy discussion with an the Template:uw-3rr usertalk (!) warning followed by two[194][195] warnings to discussion participants. This was not only unnecessary but outright rude. At the same time, given that yours is not the first newly created account that went straight to discussing Tamil genocide in the last few days, a CU request (not: decision!) was a perfectly valid move. My concerns were also shared by another editor[196].

With your every 15th or so edit to-date being a formal notice or warning, your demand of assuming good faith seems somewhat misplaced.

I'll repeat myself: you're welcome to build an encyclopaedia (providing your CU check comes out clean). But if you as a new, non-admin account only intend to police others, close discussions and, generally, go to contentious places, don't be surprised about a backlash. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Further, I'll repeat what I just posted on the talk page:

just to be clear. I've not made any comments for or against any content. Neither have I made any edits to the actual page. My request for protection was filed with kashmiri's changes intact at that point and some other editor reverted the changes before the page protection request was granted. I'm not taking any sides here except highlighting the obvious edit war and personal attacks going on here. I haven't even gone through the changes to have an opinion of it. My participation in the move request is also unrelated (saw it at a wiki project dashboard).

You seem to think I'm rooting against your page change but honestly I've no opinion of it (and will now stay far away from it since it's clear there is something way bigger than normal Wikipedia going out here).

I've also decided that I'll just quit Wikipedia and you can all be happy and maybe even throw a party over it? Sick of all of this nonsense. I don't have time for this. And I don't appreciate anyone who has time to scrutinize every single one of my edits. Maybe if you spent that time actually building Wikipedia (like you just said). Goldenarrow9 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

also the attacks have started against the user who reported them for edit warring. Hope everyone who comes in contact with kashmiri is not driven out of Wikipedia simply because Kashmiri is an "experienced editor". Further, your username itself is a contentious topic, hope admins are aware of that. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Goldenarrow9 Glad that yours is not. (Link to some company profile removed) — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Uhh, isn't this Outing? Nobody (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Do we need to wait for an admin to delete it or can a regular editor do so? BoldGnome (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, my username was simply chosen by a random username generator. But this behaviour scares me greatly. It seems like kashmiri is now actively trying to find out my real identity. I am now genuinely worried about this, and hope admins take notice. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Note I've closed a complaint concerning Kashmiri at AN3 (not from Goldenarrow9) to keep the discussion in one place. There is no prejudice to any outcome from this discussion here. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to activate a 'clean start', it is really unwise in my opinion to go straight into a contentious topic like Tamil genocide. This is actually clearly covered in the clean start policy, Wikipedia:Clean_start#Contentious_and_scrutinized_topics. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not been involved in the actual edit war (or the discussion thereof). My only participation was in a move discussion where I wrote 1 single line opposing the move. Here, my only participation was issuing warnings to both the editors and requesting a temp page protection (which was granted) in view of the edit war. My issue here is strictly related to the personal attacks being made against me which have somehow continued unchecked even on this noticeboard.

Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here. In any case, I have mostly been spending my time here patrolling recent changes and didn't really participate much in any heated discussions. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here.

That is incorrect. The entire point of CLEANSTART is to break away from the previous editing areas, which is important if protecting your identity matters. Otherwise, people are easily going to put 2+2 together and you're right back where you started. I strongly suggest you drop the stick and move away from those areas. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will consider that. I have mostly spent time doing RCP (and yes, this was something I was previously involved in as well). I don't target specific pages or projects but occasionally participate in some random discussions. Until this issue started, there was no indication on my account that I even had a previous account. Now, I will have to re-consider if I even should spend time on Wikipedia at all. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Acroterion they are unrelated this report is about personal attack while the that report is about edit warring.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. My only relation to that edit-war is issuing a warning and requesting page protection as an uninvolved editor. Replies to my warning started this altogether separate issue here. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to have this scattered at two noticeboards, you can present it here, or you can reference the AN3 report that can be inspected there and discussed here..Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Can we also move the sockpuppet report opened against me here? It concerns the exact same points being discussed here and was opened after this report was filed. Or can that not be moved since it requires checkusers? Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No, SPI doesn't work that way, and like the AN3 report, it's there for anyone to see who looks. Acroterion (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Note to Closing admin.Please take a look at this 3RR report 3RR Report here as admin did not want it to be at two noticeboards.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• On a unrelated note, Goldenarrow9, how did you come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. N. Srinivasa Rao? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  On some wikiproject dashboard/list. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• I am much more concerned with the behavior of Dowrylauds (talk · contribs) at that article, who is the editor who is most clearly edit-warring here. They have made 3 "large" reverts and 3 comments on the talk page excoriating other editors for making similar reverts, with no constructive participation. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

CLIQUE-like behavior at Elephant article

Certain users (User:Wolverine XI, User:LittleJerry, others) are behaving like a CLIQUE at the Elephant article. Making false edit summary/talk page claims of unsourced changes, barereflinks, and, certainly subjectively, unhelpfulness. Refusing to even look at or address the issues/errors raised by outsiders (myself) -- from minor grammar issues to incomprehensible arcane jargon that need clarifying to incorrect adverbs. Then, they tell me to get lost. (See [197],[198], [199]). Notifications to follow this posting. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zenon.Lach: Your edits to the article have introduced a number of grammar and spelling errors that had to be fixed, as well as replacing sourced content with unsourced statements. While I think you have the right to be irritated that another editor told you to try your hand at articles not listed as featured (I'd say that's the mildest sort of biting), I really have to echo their sentiments. The editors replying to you have been fairly patient in explaining the issues with your edits and proposals and your use of bolded text comes across as aggressive. You may have better luck working on articles that are more clearly in need of improvement. If you need suggestions, feel free to ask. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Untrue. I removed an incorrect adverb ("possibly"), fixed basic grammar ("rhinoceroses" not rhinoceros) and removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. There was no painstaking fixing of errors just wholesale reverts and a refusal to even address points which I raised. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to carry on with this conversation if this many people concur that your revisions were unhelpful. Your refusal to accept your mistakes, as well as your need to win this argument, are counterproductive. Wikipedia isn't a combat zone. Though you have my patience, this is starting to irritate me. Why you go to such extreme measures to demonstrate that you are "right" and everyone else is wrong is beyond me. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) incomprehensible arcane jargon that needed clarifying, removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. No, you removed the clear and interesting explanation why elephants have so many parasites, an explanation that this non-zoologist wouldn't have thought of but is pleased to have learnt. And you just deleted it. NebY (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

And on such things as basic grammar we go by what reference works say (which are nearly all in agreement that the plural of "rhinoceros" can be either "rhinoceros" or "rhinoceroses") rather than what one Wikipedia contributor says. You are not always right, and a failure to realise that will lead to your Wikipedia career being very short. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I acknowledge not knowing that rhinoceros is a zero plural noun. But that's the point. Why did it take going to this point to get an answer? Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?

Far more important, however, are the following:

• "Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads." -- my bachelor's degree notwithstanding, this clunkily arcane claim (likely copied and pasted from the reference source) makes no sense as written. I doubt I am the only one who would feel that way after reading it. I do not see why requesting a rewording is beyond the pale.
• "the population in Sri Lanka appears to have risen" -- this is false. It is rebutted in the very reflink to which it is attributed ([200]) as well as [201].

However, since I am blackballed from the Elephant article, and would get no satisfaction or response there, anyway, I will raise these issues here. Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The reflink states exactly "In Sri Lanka, the population has increased." So you're wrong. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Although efforts to map the current range-wide distribution of the species are afoot, evaluations of elephant presence in some range countries suggest a declining trend: elephant distribution is estimated to have reduced by ca. 20% in Sri Lanka between 1960 and now (Fernando et al. 2019);..." Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Sri Lankan elephant population has fallen almost 65% since the turn of the 19th century.

(https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/sri-lankan-elephant). Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"The government estimates the population of Sri Lankan elephants, a subspecies of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), at about 7,000. But wildlife conservationists suggest the real number may be far lower, given the rapid loss of the animal’s habitat and the rising death toll from conflict with humans." ([202]). Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(likely copied and pasted from the reference source) No it wasn't, stop making false claims. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" -- then what was the original wording? Whoever reworded it rendered it unintelligible. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You can continue at the talk page. But the book is available here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It still makes no sense. It needs rewording or just copy as one quote without cutting anything because something is being lost in translation. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It's clear what it means and you're the only person who doesn't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it's relatively hard to understand. I've made it easier (I have the book). See Special:Diff/1224543588 —Alalch E. 00:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is okay too: Special:Diff/1224530808/1224547147. —Alalch E. 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for bringing this up, but you should have done this yourself by simply reading the source, understanding what it says, and coming up with a better way to present what it says in the article. You were right that the sentence was not so good, but there was no need for this much contention, and no need for this ANI thread. —Alalch E. 01:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Untrue. Check the article edit history and other links/diffs above. They kept wholesale reverting my edits, accusing me of unsourced edits, barereflinks and unhelpful editing all while refusing to even discuss the individual points I had gone to the trouble of separating and explaining my position on, one by one. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to take a step back, and learn from the more experienced editors, then there's no reason I should be talking to you. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and see discussion from the editors you're saying refused to discuss which predates this thread. So it's quite difficult to accept the claim about people "refusing to even discuss". Also as I said below, you stated that the predator thing was confusing but did not propose any alternative wording or even explain why it was confusing. If other editors felt it was understandable and clearly they did, ultimately it's quite difficult to actually deal with your concerns if you're not willing to articulate further. Definitely removing it wholesale was not acceptable. So if anyone "refusing to even discuss" it seems to be you since you tried to remove text wholesale then just said it was confusing but did not explain further and then came to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As someone not involved in this dispute, the sentence appears perfectly understandable to me. Elephants are too big for predators, so even the (weaker) elephants with parasites don't get killed by predators, so we end up with elephants that have lots of parasites. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I had the same thoughts. Maybe it's because I have a biological sciences background or something I don't know, but it seemed understandable. I mean personally I wouldn't use the word immune, but it was still understandable. If the OP felt it was confusing, it was fine to try and re-word if, but not to remove it outright. And once there was dispute, the solution was to discuss on the talk page rather than just push ahead. From what I see at Talk:Elephant#My edits, the OP said they found it confusing but I do not see any proposed replacement or suggested rewording. If they'd done that, maybe they would have been able to come up with a better wording which dealt with their concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The OP rightfully felt it was hard to understand and we should be extremely receptive to such complaints, especially in a featured article. Yes, it was understandable, but it wasn't easily understandable, as it was extremly terse while dealing with multiple concepts at the same time, such as predator pressure and parasite load, and hinting at natural selection, positing a relationship between these concepts that isn't obvious without an adequate, sufficiently explicit, explanation. (Presented as an unqualified statement of fact, the claim was also not carried over from the source faithfully, as it needed either attribution or a construction such as the currently used "may be due to"; in the source, the claim is a hypothesis/conjecture.) The OP was correct to seek for this sentence to be changed, but they should have been able to do it themselves, based on the source, and the source is, in fact, very understandable (also showing how the sentence wasn't very good, because why should an academically written monography on a biological topic be easier to follow than an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia). It was changed subsequently and is better now.

Hopefully, Zenon.Lach you can finally agree now that, yes, you identified a problem, but you didn't address it completely constructively. In the future, you are very welcome to identify problems, but then you must also do a reasonably good job at addressing them. If you can't agree to this, and intend to keep making such edits, that remove legitimate information from an article, where the correct solution is simply to rewrite a sentence based on the provided source, it could be the case that you can't function that well as an editor. —Alalch E. 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Alalch E.: I don't object to your re-wording but mostly I don't find any wording particularly clearer or easier to understand. I mean I do agree with you that the original wording was too definitive but that could have been fixed without needing a wholesale rewording and that doesn't seem to have been the OP's concerns. The only other thing I dislike in the original wording was the word "immune". While it's fairly obvious it doesn't refer to any form of biological immunity, personally I'm a stickler to avoiding words which have a distinct in the subfield of concern when possible. But I understand many may not agree so it's not a big deal to me. If you or the OP feel the original wording was a problem, it was up to you to come up with a better wording, or at least better articulate why you felt the wording was a problem. You've done both things, and I congratulate you from that and hope it's a lesson to the OP. However I don't think you can fault others for not seeing the problem when the OP failed to explain their concerns, and at least I (so I expect others too) still don't share your view even after you explained and re-worded. Since putting aside fixing the definitive issue, the generally wording is no worse, and you feel it's clearer, it's clearly better to use your wording. Likewise if the OP has come up with a wording that they felt was better and I felt was no worse, I would have supported the OPs wording. But again, I don't think you can fault others for not seeing fault when in their eyes their is none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, if something works for some people, but doesn't work for others through the collaborative process we can improve it so it works for more people. But this requires people who see a problem to either fix it or at least better articulate the problem when others don't see it. I mean it's possible some might see it the same way, as you did, and some problems are so obvious that anyone should see them. But we have to be very wary of blaming others just because they do not see things the same way, when they're very likely perfectly willing to accept changes if others are able to explain why they feel they're needed even if they don't share that view. If an editor fails to do anything other than just say it's a problem and other editors don't see it the same way, it doesn't mean they're not taking the concerns seriously. It may just mean they do not share the concerns and cannot do anything when the editor just randomly says it's a problem, tries to remove it wholesale, the comes to ANI because people aren't wiling to discuss. Other times of course, other editors may not see a problem when the editor says it's a problem but then when they articulate why it's a problem or come up with a different wording, they may agree actually you're right, there was a problem. Again I don't think you can say editors weren't taking the concerns seriously. I mean perhaps if they'd spend 10-20 minutes thinking about it and reading, they would have noticed the problem. But this seems excessive when the editor who saw it was a problem could just have said more than it's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

What I don't get is that no one's mentioned that the predators are a red herring (if you will excuse the odd metaphor): Just write Because of their longevity, elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. EEng 08:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. It says (or speculates) that the high number of parasites is due to lack of predation, not simply longevity. "Elephants had among the highest parasite loads of any of the mammalian species we investigated. This could be attributed to the low predation pressure on elephants (in other herbivores, such as axis deer, which show much lower parasite loads, the high rate of predation would presumably have weeded out individuals with crippling parasite loads)." (page 121). CodeTalker (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I have to agree that the article's text was slightly wonky, because it omitted out the detail that parasites made smaller mammals more susceptible to predation (the "crippling" detail -- at least I think that's what that's meant to imply), which is the essential link to elephants' comparative longevity. EEng 21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing even faintly "unintelligible" about the material regarding parasite load and predation. I have no degree in zoology, but I have no trouble of any kind understanding all of it. If someone thinks the wording can be improved anyway, then go improve it. But do not delete properly sourced material just because you personally don't like exactly how it was worded. Our "job" is improving content not suppressing it. If any editor has comprehension problems either because this is not their first language or because they lack any background in subjects to which such a sentence pertains, then they should go work on other content that is more within their language-skills sphere, not engage in protracted fights with other editors who actually know the subject well. There sometimes can be an issue of the inverse of the Dunning–Kruger effect, with persons highly steeped in a subject assuming that their understanding of complex material relating to the topic will automatically be understood by people who lack their educational/professional background, but this does not appear to be such a case, since the material is not complicated at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

While the digression above is interesting in an academic way, I'm very disturbed that OP earlier stated (emphasis mine):

Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?

What in the world prompts such an accusation here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Urgent clarification on advertorial/PR puffery sources on suspected undisclosed paid editing

I am at a loss whether this is the right venue for this, but if not please pardon and help take this to the right venue. My question is that is it right to remove unreliable sources before nominating articles for deletion or remove them after being nominated? I recently nominated three articles Gbenga Adigun, Tony Edeh, and Jom Charity Award for deletion due to their clear lack of notability. The articles are clearly standing on advertorial/PR sponsored articles masquerading as reliable sources. Now some editors are commenting keep with the sole reason that those articles have enough sources to pass notability guideline. If I remove those unreliable sources I may be guilty of edit warring which I do not want be involved in. Please review sources in those articles as uninvolved editors LocomotiveEngine (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Once a deletion discussion has been started, there should be no need to remove sources from the article while it is ongoing. Indeed, it is usually a good idea to keep them in full view so that commenters can easily access and evaluate them. Any keep or delete conclusions made in the discussion should be reached on the basis of the quality of these sources, and presence of plenty but bad sources should thus not unduly enable a Keep outcome, if things go as intended. Time enough to cull the list (or the entire article) based on the eventual outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

All three deletion discussions have now been closed as delete. (Full disclosure: two of them by me.) Thank you for nominating those articles, LocomotiveEngine. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC).

@LocomotiveEngine: A bit of further advice: When nominating such claptrap for deletion, address each of the sources in the order in which they appear in the article and outline why they are either insufficient to support notability (typically for lacking independence from the subject, or for being passing mentions not in-depth coverage), or not good enough to be used as sources at all. This will help AfD participants evaluate the material as it stands and evaluate the article as a whole as to whether it it does (or might) pass notability, e.g. because some of the sources cited don't have such failures, or because other and better sources in the interim have been found (or, conversely, none are findable and the article should not be retained). It fairly often turns out that a total-crap article is on a subject that is actually (perhaps marginally) notable and the page simply needs to be rewritten and re-cited, not deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User: Hopefull Innformer

• Hopefull Innformer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yasuke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There have been numerous instances of User:Hopefull Innformer seemingly violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks onTalk: Yasuke. Specifically, User:Hopefull Innformer has made multiple disparging comments about others who disagree with them on the talk page, with multiple instances of them accusing other Wikipedians of being "From twitter", inferring other editors aren't sincere, and inferring that other editors are obsessed and/or pushing an agenda.

I approached them here User_talk:Hopefull_Innformer#Talk:_Yasuke to post a reminder not to engage in Personal Attacks, User:Hopefull Innformer accused me instead of violating WP:GF, and stating that "If a moderator thinks "Okay you clearly come from twitter" believes that is in any way a "personal attack" by any means I'll edit that part out and apologize", which I can only assume means to bring it here, as Wikipedia does not have moderators. X0n10ox (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As you were the last person to reply on their talk page, saying The point of bringing the point to your Talk Page is to attempt a resolution without having to bring the Admins in on it, I believe it would've been wiser to wait for a reply of theirs before directly bringing the topic here. (Yes, the talk page got in my watchlist automatically as I was technically the one to create it...) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I had considered waiting to see if they replied, but my understanding of their initial response was to get higher powers involved and so I made my reply and then came over here to pop off the request for an admin. I apologize if it's deemed too hasty of me to do so. X0n10ox (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not that big of a deal, it's more of a question of etiquette but you're right that it would probably have had to be discussed here sooner or later. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Higher powers"? I guess I know what you mean but I've had a long day and that made me laugh. Time to get back to my mop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to close this out in some way? They said they had wanted the opinion of "moderators", but they've since continued to contribute on Talk: Yasuke while not even responding to any of this, or responding on their own talk page. Plus they've stopped accusing people on Talk: Yasuke of deception, so I don't even see that there's a point to this any longer. X0n10ox (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, I think "you clearly come from twitter" is a big stretch of the definition of a personal attack. It's rude, and it's assuming bad faith, but I don't think it's sanctionable. There has been a lot of sub-par editing at that article over a recently-announced video game, related to controversy on Twitter. I've been warning and blocking editors on both sides calling each other "racist" and worse; I think admin action over this comment is taking civility patrol just a little too far, and I'm usually one of the ones leading the charge. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  For clarification, my initial complaint is not just saying "you clearly come from twitter" is the problem. It's a pattern of behavior, and the intention which they have listed behind their accusations. As per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". Using "People from twitter" as a dog-whistle for claiming people are "SJWs" or "Leftists" isn't exactly uncommon, moreso, the issue isn't so much the user in question just going "you clearly come from twitter" so much as it is the aspersions which they have attached to it in their repeated usage of the term.

  "is people from twitter, it already has happened to some articles in Wikipedia on the Anime sections, and also with the Cleopatra page when that Netflix show came out, is just people who don't care for integrity or accuracy"

  "I understand is upsetting to you when people are not just accepting whatever inaccurate narrative you want to push"

  "I don't think Theozilla is being sincere here let's focus"

  The user has made it apparent in their own comments that they view "people from twitter" as people "who don't care for integrity or accuracy". The user in quesiton has made repeated inferences that editors that disagree with him are pushing a narrative/lying/are being insincere. Secondly, I didn't want admin action or anything of the sort over this. They're the one who requested clarification from a "moderator" when I had told them that their constant dismissal of other editors by claiming they are "from twitter" is a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. X0n10ox (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't buy this as actionable at all. First off, the notion that "[came here] from Twitter" is a dogwhistle for "leftist" is absurd when Twitter/X has been completely overrun by right-wingers in the wake of Musk's takeover in October 2022, his explicit promotion of ring-wing notions, and his undoing of virtually all content moderation against false news, conspiracy theories, violent rhetoric, bigotry, anti-democratic actvism, and other noise (a change which overwhelmingly disprotionately boosts the ability of right- not left-wing voices to promote their viewpoints via that platform). Second, there is no policy against raising concerns that incoming participants in a hot topic may have arrived there via social-media attention/promotion; we would not have WP:MEAT if we were not permitted to do so, though one generally expects there to be some evidence, short of WP:OUTING, that something like this is actually happening. In this case, we already know for a fact that there was a bunch of related controversy on X/Twitter. Next, being a Twitter/X user (supposed or known) is not a political or other even-vaguely-possibly-relevant "affiliation", under any sensible interpretation of that word. I also use Facebook, and YouTube, and OpenOffice, and Notepad++, and PDF24, and Duolingo, and FamilySearch.org, and drive a Mazda, and use a zillion other services and products, but that does not make me "affiliated" with them, much less consititute a socio-political affiliation of any kind within the meaning of our policy. Even if a political affiliation were at issue, it is only problematic to bring one up in an ad hominem manner; we do in fact have actual and demonstrable problems with right- and left-wing activists trying to abuse WP as a viewpoint-promotional platform at a large number of articles, and it is not forbidden to try to address this. But there's no evidence here of this even being an issue in this case in the first place. Moving on, questioning another editor's accuracy is something we do routinely; it's downright necessary to the work we're doing here. Questioning "integrity" is much more a grey area, since that term has multiple indistinct meanings, from academic integrity (i.e. properly interpreting, representing, and citing the source material) to personal integrity more along the lines of meaning 'honorableness', and it's easy for someone to walk away with the most negative possible interetation of what was meant (but that's still largely on the interpreter not the writer; cf. the distinction between inference and implication, a frequent confusion but an actual confusion nontheless). "I understand it is upsetting to you when ..." is inappropriate faux-mindreading, but not a transgression someone would be sanctioned strongly for, unless there were proof of it being a habitually uncivil approach of trying to put thoughts in people's heads and words in their mouths. Wondering whether someone's prior comment was "sincere" or something else (sarcasm, a joke, a PoV-pushing attempt, etc.) is also not some kind of actionable fault. Poorly phrased, perhaps. Furthermore, X0n10ox is drawing improper connections between disconnected statements, and engaging in a consenquent correlation vs. causation error; to wit, Hopefull_Innformer was critical of those who allegedly "don't care for integrity or accuracy" at a variety of articles on topics that attract new-editor attention from offsite, and likened this to similar attention at this specific article, which H_I believes has been driven by Twitter/X in this particular case. That does not equate to a claim that all Twitter/X users lack integrity or accuracy. (As a side matter, "don't care for" has multiple colloquial meanings, and here might mean "don't like/want", "don't seem to care enough about", or "are not interested in caretaking", and the second and third of these are reasonable concerns while only the first is bogus "mindreading".) In closing: "being critical and snarky" (what's happened here), "assuming bad faith" (it's not actually clear that happened here at all), and "engaging in a personal attack" (which didn't happen here) are not synonymous. "Someone offended me or made me unhappy" does not equal "I was personally attacked". As I said in another thread on this page, WP is not TonePolicingPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

180.75.233.40

Please notice this user kept removing Chinese language in articles, adding Arabic ones. I'm not sure whether this behaviour complied with the rules. -Lemonaka‎ 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Malaysia is not a Chinese country, the official language is Malay written in both Latin and Jawi script. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then you should have a try for edit summary. Removing something not obvious without edit-summary are likely to be suspected as vandalism. -Lemonaka‎ 11:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok next time I will put the summary, btw I already put the statement in the caption. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

And you should have tried discussing with this person first rather than giving them an inane template and one minute later running to ANI. 108.35.216.149 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The IP statement at the start is wrong, Malaysia's official language is Malay written in the Rumi (Latin) script, not Jawi. At any rate, the presence of absence of official sanction is not the sole determinant of alternative languages on our articles. The mass addition and removal of various languages to Malaysia-related articles is not a new conduct issue, but remains a disruptive one. CMD (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

My statement is based on the constitution of Malaysia which recognizes both Rumi and Jawi as co-scripts used to write the Malay language. Chinese and Tamil are not regional languages of Malaysia and should not be treated as such, putting Chinese names on every towns and cities in Malaysia is not just removing the rich cultural legacy of those towns but also disrespecting the national and indigenous languages of Malaysia. Chinese and Tamil transliterations should only be limited to Chinese and Indian related cultural practices or places of worship. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia under the National Language Acts 1963/67 which states that “the script of the national language shall be the Rumi script: provided that this shall not prohibit the use of the Malay script, more commonly known as the Jawi Script, of the national language”.

Hence only Latin and Jawi are recognized nationwide, Chinese and Tamil are not recognized under Malaysian constitution and law. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@180.75.233.40: Are you the same person as the IP discussed in #Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address 180.75.238.55 in multiple Penang-related articles ~2 months ago? – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Same language indeed. FYI ping Ponyo. CMD (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That quote explicitly states that the script is Rumi, not Jawi. Chinese and Tamil are also, for the record, mentioned in legislation. Please stop changing the languages on Malaysia-related articles without consensus. CMD (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@180.75.233.40@Chipmunkdavis I've learned about previous discussion, so previous consensus is not removing Chinese unless necessity and legitimacy is proved. No further discussion and this IP got blocked once for such disruptive behaviours. Waiting for sysops' action. -Lemonaka 14:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Deb and @El_C, who may want to deal with this case? -Lemonaka 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This would appear to be disruptive editing on the part of User:180.75.233.40, but at present I think a final warning would be adequate. Deb (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

They were blocked once, but now returned with same behaviour -Lemonaka 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Chinese and Tamil are not official in Malaysia, give me proof of statement from any official law from both federal and state government which states otherwise.

Brunei also have many Chinese but there are not Chinese transliteration for every Brunei towns. Jawi is the only script mentioned besides Jawi in the constitution. Do not block me just because I said the truth, if you block then you're racist. Malay have used Jawi (Arabic script) for centuries and still in use today. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Enough of that. I've re-blocked the IP for continued edit warring and incivility.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Behavior-related block aside, the anon seems to have a valid underlying point. Malay in Latin-based Rumi script is the official language, and Malay in Arabic-derived Jawi-script has at least official recognition as an aspect "of the national language", while we don't seem to have reliable sources for Chinese and Tamil having any such status. Someone mentioned "legislation" without citing any, and if such legislation doesn't confer at least a Jawi-level quasi-officialness on them, then they shouldn't be used in WP articles about this country (per MOS:FOREIGN, MOS:LEADLANG, etc.), except where specially contextually pertinent for some reason, e.g. a subject pertaining particularly to the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Countscarter

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

Persistent addition of unsourced information in movie articles, such as: [203][204][205], etc. User was blocked earlier in April for the same issue following an ANI discussion, yet continued with 0 communication. Communication is required, and I hope they will respond here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (partial, article space): User talk:Countscarter#Indefinite partial block from the main article space. El_C 05:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

AFD

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.

---

Am I allowed to modify an opening statement in an AFD discussion that I opened? I have been reverted twice by an editor who insists that I make a new comment who then tags me as a commenter in what may be a bad-faith assumption of me trying to rig a consensus. Borgenland (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Presumably here. No, you are not allowed, since that wasn't what was replied to. Any additions or modifications need to be accounted for, with a diff or a new comment. HTH. El_C 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland Please notify the involved user on their talk page as required under the ANI policies set out at the top of this page. I tend to agree you shouldn't have edited it, but I also don't think it involved exceptional circumstances that justified a user editing another's comment (which is effectively what happened here). The better approach would have been to ask you to revert your own changes. Local Variable (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd probably just ask the editor to revert and definitely make sure to personally notify them (i.e. via their talk page) if I ever did anything like that. But I also don't think reverting an editor's change to their own comment counts the same when it comes to editing another editor's comment. Especially if the change was made a significant time after the comment was made, had already been replied to, and the change wasn't fixing a simple typo or some other clearcut error. The point of not modifying someone's comment is IMO primarily because we don't want to modify someone's signed comments. But reverting a change isn't really modifying someone's signed comment, it's reverting someone's modification to the older version. The editor had already decided to post it. It's similar to the way removing someone's comment wholesale or hatting it isn't generally as big a deal than modifying it. And a closer example, if an editor wholesale removes a comment of their which had received replies rather than just striking it, it's hardly uncommon to just revert this removal and ask the editor to strike it instead. And for archived discussions even that might be controversial. It's not putting words into an editor's mouth to revert to something they willingly said at one time even if they later changed their mind. (If the editor's account was compromised that might be a different matter.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 24 May 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.

Mishu24a

Mishu24a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New editor who immediately started closing AfDs as "no consensus", such as: [206][207][208][209]. Has to be a sock. (didn't notify per WP:DENY, as they have also disrupted Lynch44's talk page) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi and Lynch44:

closing AFDs isn’t vandalism, you know. Wikipedia is a free site anyone can edit . Mishu24a (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi and Lynch44:

closing AFDs isn’t vandalism, you know. Wikipedia is a free site anyone can edit . Meshu24a (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnight could you block this one too? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mishu24a and Meshu24a: While that might be true, adding false block notices to a user's talk page is a bit harder to believe to have been done in good faith. In addition, is Meshu24a meant to be an alternate account of Misha24a and vice versa? If so, that might be an inappropriate use of multiple accounts, which may well be held against you in this report. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious sock. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

A range block is needed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Mesho24a

Mesho24a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)-

Thier talk pages admit they are block evading. And all they seem to be doing is closing AFD's. As well as their talk page is a violation of NPA. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked as I was posting this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This relates to the LTA above. As such I have made it a subsection. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Kvwiki1234

Kvwiki1234 (talk · contribs) WP:CIV problems on a CT.

Talk page edits:[210] [211]

Warnings between the edits: [212] [213]

Not suggesting a block. It’s a difficulty area. But perhaps someone above my paygrade could suggest the editor take it down a few octaves. And perhaps avoid such articles for a while. Particularly since those of us who are danglers cringe at the word eunuch. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if my use of the word eunuch was misconstrued. I meant it purely to describe the cowardly notion that a 19 year old girl who was a peace activist and rape victim who only held a ceremonial non-combatant position in the IDF to complete some university credits is even being considered an IDF soldier and a legitimate captured enemy soldier of war.

Yes, I am appalled the discussion is even being had. It angers and triggers me.

I accept your suggestion that I take it down a few octaves in good faith. Thank you. I will avoid such articles in the future.

I am otherwise a productive and contributing extended confirmed editor to wikipedia with over 7000 constructive edits with a particular focus on the tennis wikiproject.

I accept your feedback and will avoid politically charged commentary here.

Thank you,

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to step back, Kvwiki1234. Just to be very clear, though: any more comments like those, and you will be blocked without further warnings. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that Kvwiki1234 should be banned or blocked, but I'd encourage you to reflect some of your reasoning for why your uncivil behavior was justified, as well as reconsider the insults you use in the future.

Your language is pretty problematic for people of all genders, not just the danglers. It has some pretty sexist and ableist undertones implying that only able-bodied men with sex organs can be brave. I'd also encourage you to reflect on your argument that you have 7000 edits. Does that mean because I have 500000+ edits, I can say even more ableist, sexist things out of frustration because I've made a lot of edits? (Personally, I don't think it does). Mason (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It was in no way meant as a gender based slur. I meant it as something approximating extreme cowardice. However I accept your point and see how my language was problematic. I was overcome by anger when I made those edits. Therefore I was temporarily not of sound mind. I apologize, it won't happen again.

Regarding 7000 edits, I only pointed that to show that I am not some random vandalism troll and I value contributing positively to wikipedia. I take pride in being an experienced extended confirmed editor and my past contributions have been constructive and well received and open for all to examine. It does not excuse what I said in anger, it was simply to show that I am not a random vandalism troll.

My language in anger may have been problematic, I accept, and I fully understand and respect wikipedia's policies around gender based bigotry and our commitment to inclusivity. Yet there is an open discussion on wikipedia whether a 19 year old non-combatant girl rape victim was a legitimate enemy soldier captured in war? Not getting into a political debate regarding this, but it is food for thought for wikipedia going forward.

Thank you all for your constructive criticism. I mean that sincerely and in good faith.

Thank you,

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning. I will avoid topics that anger and trigger me in my personal life here on wikipedia in the future. As I mentioned before, my main areas of interest in wikipedia are tennis, other sports and sometimes Asian history, not politically sensitive current events.

Just for my own understanding, what does 'block' mean in this context? I will be blocked fom editing that particular page, or blocked from contributing to wikipedia entirely? I hope it never gets to that point, I am simply asking for my own knowledge. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKDISRUPT Mason (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Kvwiki1234, I understand that you let your emotions get the best of you and also appreciate that you have promised to never say anything like that again. Good. You ask for clarification about a block. My view as an administrator is that if you say anything that obnoxious and disgusting again, you will almost certainly be blocked indefinitely from the entire project. All intelligent people know the sad fact that horrific things are happening all the time on Planet Earth. The role of Wikipedia editors is to neutrally document notable topics, not to blow off steam or vent our emotions. There are plenty of other places to do that, both online and offline. Not here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Kvwiki1234 you did not place your !vote in chronological order. Can you please correct that? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained changes to Eritrea articles

The IP 2A02:FE1:C187:BE00:7D27:BED1:E278:548A and the user Professor Timothy D. Snyder, an obvious sockpuppet that was registered in 2022, have repeatedly been deleting content from articles relating to Eritrea while also adding unsourced, poorly styled content: example diffs [214], [215], [216]. They have targeted the articles Italian Eritrea and Provinces of Eritrea. They have provided only brief explanation in edit summaries while repeatedly reverting instead of taking the content disputes to the appropriate talk pages. I believe that this user's edits have been disruptive and that administrators should consider taking action if despite this discussion they refuse to stop their disruptive behavior. I originally reported reported this case to AIV, but was told to take it here (page version).

An additional issue is their account's username; Timothy Snyder is a notable historian with his own article, but their edits have shown improper use of capitalization and punctuation, making it unlikely that they are a professor. Per the username policy, this username may be blockable for being misleading (pretending to be a professor) at best and for being impersonation at worst. Air on White (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked the account indefinitely, as it is almost certainly impersonating the real Professor Timothy Snyder. If it really is him, I have provided instructions on how to prove it so that he can be unblocked. I have blocked the IP range 2a02:fe1:c187:be00::/64 for a month for disruptive editing. (The IP address ‎2a02:fe1:c187:be00:1980:93d9:ac21:57e6 has been used as well as the one given above by Air on White.) JBW (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

A total mess of PA

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.

---

Users:

Chetvorno

Joy

Doug Weller

Bilseric

Complete disregard of NO WP:PA by all 4 involved editors.

B was blocked, but a number of PA happened long before he made his. I'm reporting J, C and D. I won't deal too much in detail with B as he is already blocked.

I'm listing ONLY PAs from 2024. I don't intend to deal with who deserved what, who did what before 2024 or (7 years ago!) and who was pushing which POV. None of this is an excuse for what I'm reporting here. If you want to deal with that , you are free to dig through this yourself.

Sequence of PA and other relevant info.

1. B posting this comment [217]

2. D misinterpreting B's comment as PA against him and immediately starting a campaign of retribution by baiting a personal discussion on talk page. [218].

3. B answering to D talk page.

4. Despite this discussion on D's talk page, D continuing with PA on Tesla talk page, calling B "SPA with only 263 edits since 2017", digging history of past problematic posts, mentioning "WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:CHERRYPICKING". [219].

5. D is obviously preparing ground and baiting B into personal discussions on talk page. To avoid stronger words, this by itself is very troublesome behavior by such an experienced user who knows what he is doing.

6. B didn't take the bait, answers on D's talk page and D apologizes for mistake [220] , but continuing with campaign of retribution by sending mails to other admins prompting them to reopen SPI that dates years back. [221], [222], [223]

7. Yes, I'm aware of internal discussions!

8. J is not reacting to this PA by D, instead J is criticizing B's edits as forum-like behavior [224]. Not PA, but troublesome, especially since J was adamant to remove all "pointless flaming".

9. B noticing D continued with the "campaign" and asking about this [225]. He claims history of edits was rewritten and D changed his tone after apologizing.

9. Now C is making PA [226]. The dispute continues for a few posts.

10. J making PA. Accusing B of "anti-advocacy provisions of WP:ARBMAC" [227], issuing a "final warning".

11. This obviously triggered B as later on he repeatedly claimed there was no such thing. The whole discussion [228]. B wrote to J's talk page asking for apology, which he didn't get [229].

12. B making a lengthy report to ANI and getting warned [230]. Continuing to argue on talk page. D asking B to take a year long pause. B agrees

13. Despite agreeing B continuing to post on talk page and even PAing J at ANI report another user opened. D warning B. B agrees again to take a pause 12. J making that B reverts [231]. D blocks B. B appeals. B makes personal attacks against D. B gets blocked. B makes more PA against D. B's talk page access revoked.

14. C continuing with PA on talk page [232]. J again not reacting to PA

15. I will even list my own PA, 3 comments total starting with this one [233]

16. Now J is openly PAing B [234] and of course retributing to me for my PAs

This is a clear pattern of troublesome behavior of all 4 editors.

95.168.118.16 (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

A previous version of this report was reverted by Bbb23[235] as it was made by a proxy.[236]

Bilseric raised many of the same issues here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#I feel unwelcomed and worried, and having been found to be without merit the where warned.[237] The issue continued and Bilseric was blocked by El C after discussion here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#User:Bilseric Contentious Behavior Continuing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The above IP has been spamming random admin talk pages (see its contrib history). IP is obviously WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, in addition to possibly being BE by Bilseric. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, all that is true about me. Sock, spaming, disruptive. But you will provide no explanation why point number 4 is without merit. Pure example of "protecting your own". That's why I'm writng as an IP so attack all you want. Probematic behavior I pointed out is not tied to me 95.168.118.16 (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no excuse for behavior I listed above, expecially not mine disruptive behavior. I wasn't even present on Wiki back then unless I'm B's sock, but even then D,C and J problematic behavior started long time before B's as listed above. So yes, say it's without merit , but provide no explanation! 95.168.118.16 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

D started with PA on talk page in point 4. J ignored it despite he is acting that he is there to prevent that behavior. C continued and only then B started with PA

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.

Vandal is back yet again with disruption, stalking and harassment

Following on from several previous visits from some little vandal, they are back again under a new user name DiddyOwnsYa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Again, this vandal has left some weak-arsed insults in the edit summaries. If these could be rev-deled and the account blocked, that would be great. Funny to think this lead to my rollback being removed because I called them a vandal and they turned out to be such a constructive editor... - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely and everything revedl'd. Incredible user name, wow. El_C 12:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, already sorted. GiantSnowman 13:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's great: thanks very much. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk troll

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.

---

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

Faze flint has made many edits to articles relating to Elon Musk which have been reverted. For example, [238] which removes info in the lead with support in the body. Why? If you include it, you're a "brainwashed anti-Elon person." Likewise, [239] does the same, but with the misleading edit summary "changed the grammar." This user has been editing since January 2024; he is a troll and a vandal, and possibly a COI. His recently created userpage is trollish as well: "I do not harass Wikipedia users. I love fact-checking false information spread here by delusional people." I request that this user be blocked. Air on White (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Also an unsourced edit to one of Twitter's competitors noting that their user base has "plummeted". I indef blocked per WP:NOTHERE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 25 May 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.