Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	18	18
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	43	43
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 19 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 119 sockpuppet investigations
• 24 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 39 requests for RD1 redaction
• 142 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 24 requested closures
• 102 requests for unblock
• 2 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 21 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7631 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Cliff Cash 2024-04-29 15:24 2024-06-04 12:22 move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending Ohnoitsjamie Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Anachronist Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IRP ToBeFree Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives) 2024-04-28 17:30 2024-04-30 15:20 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: increase requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jimfbleak Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to WP:AFC for review Liz Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Connecting Humanity 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Mirna El Helbawi 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C User:Samory Loukakou/Erin Meyer 2024-04-26 18:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD 24 Oras 2024-04-26 18:25 2024-06-26 18:25 move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Nasimi Aghayev 2024-04-26 17:17 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: sorry, WP:GS/AA, that is (so many AAs!) El C Atrocity propaganda 2024-04-26 17:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:PIA and others, I'm sure El C Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 April 2024 – present) 2024-04-26 16:49 indefinite edit,move and it continues... Robertsky Beit Hanoun 2024-04-26 14:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AELOG/2024#PIA Malinaccier Rangiya Municipal Board 2024-04-26 13:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sock of Rang HD Dennis Brown Siege of Chernihiv 2024-04-26 12:40 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Filelakeshoe Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) 2024-04-26 03:31 indefinite move Repeated article moves despite recent RM discussion Liz Carlos Handy 2024-04-26 00:14 2025-04-26 00:14 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States 2024-04-25 22:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Israa University (Palestine) 2024-04-25 17:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Blu del Barrio 2024-04-25 17:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Daniel Case Gaza Strip mass graves 2024-04-25 17:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Red Phoenix

Another Appeal: Topic ban from closing AfDs

I made an appeal last week. I didn't expect the discussion to go beyond the topic and it eventually was closed a couple of days later. I'll try again and answer the allegations on my previous appeal.

I already removed this reminder a couple of years ago after I was told that it and I realized I was too harsh with that. I have moved on from that long time ago. When some editors convinced me to participate in the ANI, it took me some time to think of what to say there. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to do so by the time a consensus was made.

I really have moved on from my past troubles and learned from them. Believe me or not, I'm very honest with what I said, especially in my previous appeal.

I'm appealing (again) for my topic ban from closing AfDs to be lifted. From hereon, I'll be careful in closing deletion discussions. Whenever anyone challenges any of my closures, I'll revert it immediately and leave it for other editors to relist or close it. I really promise to be careful in closing them. That way, I won't get myself into trouble like before.

Proposal: Lifting Superastig's topic-ban from closing AfDs

ASTIG😎🙃 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• A new appeal only a week after the last one was declined (unanimously) shows a complete lack of clue. So that's an obvious Oppose from me. I'll make a proposal of my own below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose And this is getting dangerously into WP:IDHT territory. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The last appeal closed unanimously against this just a week ago. How could you think this appeal was a good idea today? Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is really starting to sound like you want this a little "too" much. Which is making me uncomfortable with wondering "why". - jc37 15:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Besides this appeal being too early and indicative of WP:IDHT, it is also inadequate and unclear. Inadequate because it gives no indication, besides mere assertion that the editor has "moved on", for the topic-ban not being needed any more; at a minimum, I would have expected to see substantial and substantive participation at AFDs as an discussant (I see the editor !voting at only 4 AFDs in the 5 months after the ban was enacted). And unclear because I for one cannot decipher whether Superastig is pointing at this response as something they should have posted earlier at the topic-ban discussion or something they regret posting at all; and why is this being called a reminder?! All this suggests that Superastig should not be closing AFDs anytime soon. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose All I see here is pure WP:IDHT and nothing else. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 18:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no evidence that Superastig understands what led to the original topic ban. And as Abecedare notes, participating in all of four AfDs since the topic ban was imposed does not indicate an attempt to get more experience in AfD or learn the process better. Plus, a second appeal one week after the first was unanimously opposed is seriously concerning. WJ94 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose tone deaf. Wikipedia is not a game. There are plenty of areas in which you can help, but if your disruption just moves there - further sanctions will follow. Star Mississippi 01:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose lot of snow falling here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WJ94. This inability to get it shows how necessary the tban is, frankly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Why do you (Superastig) want to close AfDs so much anyway? It's not as if they won't get closed by someone else, and if they are closed with the wrong result you can always go to deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support It's been six months since they were banned and times have changed. I see Astig's sincerity that they have moved on from his past mistakes, especially in their previous appeal. Along with the proof in their previous appeal that they're eligible enough to close AfDs, I believe their topic ban from closing AfDs should be lifted. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The tone deafness is enough on its own, but coupled with the blatant tag-team/canvassing with SBKSPP and the bizarre IDHT tantrum he threw at being called out on it, it's obvious Superastig should not go anywhere near closing discussions in the foreseeable future. JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: User:Superastig topic banned from appealing their topic ban on closing AFDs for six months

• Due to the cluelessness shown above, support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. As I said above, this is getting close to WP:IDHT. To be blunt, find other areas to work on Wikipedia for now. Come back next year to see if the community would be more open. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support 6 months may be too short a wait given the substantial conduct and communication issues but better than nothing. Abecedare (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Now, here's an interesting thing. As I read our rules and the precedents behind them, I don't think there's anything to stop Superastig from appealing this ban on appealing the first ban. We could get very deep in a recursive loop of banning appealing the previous ban banning appealing the ban before that. Nevertheless, I support this appealing ban. — Trey Maturin™ 18:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  At that point, we would be far into WP:IDHT territory. ~UN6892 ^t_c 18:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Don't give 'em ideas, Trey! :) Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm, yes, I missed off "recursively construed" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  If he appeals the appeal ban then I for one will certainly be re-cursing. Many of you are familiar with my special talents along those lines. EEng 00:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with enforcement mechanism. Appealing a second time within a week is disruptive, but Trey Maturin has a point that these restrictions have in recent times become meaningless. As such, I support with the addition of an enforcement mechanism: Should Superastig appeal early then said appeal is to be immediately closed and Superastig blocked for at least one week, with the block length to escalate should additional early appeals be made. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - this should be self-evident even without a formal ban. Any discussion result should never be appealed in a shorter amount of time unless it can be shown either that the discussion was extremely unfair or closed improperly; or that some new fact, which either occured or was discovered after the discussion was essentially over, is provably relevant to the point that several users likely would have voted differently as a result. Animal lover |666| 08:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support and lets make it a year. The users comments above dont appear to have any of the required maturity to seek a removal of the ban, but doing it anyhow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support while I still think further sanctions are needed, commenting here to endorse some action. This user is more interested in wasting our time then changing their behavior. Since it appears a broader AfD ban won't pass, this will give the user sufficient time to show productive editing that could merit lifting of ban. Star Mississippi 13:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Girth Summit told Astig in their talk page that "The restriction is indefinite, but may be appealed at AN no sooner than six months from today." I guess Astig was given the time frame of six months from the day they were Tbanned. Since their deadline is sometime within this month, I don't think they will be able to appeal anymore (not even after another six months) after this one. Correct me if I'm wrong. SBKSPP (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @SBKSPP: I think you're misreading "no sooner" as "no later". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh shoot. I thought they're the same. Meaning "at least six months"? Then that means Astig is wrong here since they appealed sometime after five months. Changing my vote. SBKSPP (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support a ban of no longer than six months with whatever enforcement tools are available. Superastig’s continued poor conduct shows no signs of changing so no point in continued appeals of his original ban at this time. Frank Anchor 17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support I don't see their behavior changing in any meaningful way, given their immediate leap to appealing again. I can't legitimately see anyone being too eager to accept an appeal for at least a few months, and certainly not before Superastig can demonstrate that they understand WP:NAC. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support After several WP:BADNAC. I don't have faith that he can do it properly. scope_creep^Talk 16:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: User:Superastig topic banned from AfD in general

• I brought this up at the previous failed appeal and it got some traction, but the thread was closed before I could make a formal proposal. Superastig's history with AfD convinces me that they are not a net positive in this area and should be fully topic banned from deletion discussions. I'll repost my comments from the previous thread:

Another discussion involving Superastig showed up on my watchlist a few weeks ago. In this conversation (which occurred after they had been topic banned from closing AfDs) another editor said to Superastig: There are a few stations and TV channels that are up for deletion here. [...] I hope you could spare some time to save any of them from deletion. Superastig proceeded to vote keep on several of these articles. After being informed that this was canvassing, Superastig replied as follows:

In other words, you're telling me that it's a mortal sin for me to participate in deletion discussions after getting pulled out from my "break". I've stayed away from deletion discussions for a few months and never cared about a single article listed for deletion until @SBKSPP pinged me. I only picked a handful that I believe are worth being kept. It shouldn't be a big deal at all. It is never a mortal sin to be concerned about the articles listed for deletion, for God's sake.

You can hate, whine, cry, complain, throw hissy fits, say this, say that. But, my votes in the recent deletion discussions have (will have and still have) merit no matter what.

This behaviour speaks for itself IMO. Later, Girth Summit explained to them at length that this is in fact canvassing, and they still refused to get the message, stating Therefore, I believe what they did is not canvassing. I'll still stand by my views no matter what. Between the canvassing issues, the PA mentioned above, their past conduct at AfD and this unconvincing request, I believe that this editor is unable or unwilling to conduct themselves appropriately in this area and should be topic banned from AfD as a whole.

• Making another unconvincing appeal just a week after their previous one was unanimously opposed is additional evidence that they lack the judgment necessary to participate in this area. Spicy (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support exhausting time sink. Would even support broader sanctions after this incredibly tone deaf appeal. Star Mississippi 01:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: This is honestly too much. Half a month has passed and yet, you seem to question my past actions instead of moving forward. I already admitted my mistakes. I have moved on from those. Sheesh. ASTIG😎🙃 01:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is, if you'd actually moved on, you wouldn't have started the thread above, and we wouldn't be here. - jc37 02:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  User:Superastig, can I make a suggestion? When your behaviour and your interaction with others is under scrutiny, I think you would be best to omit words like "Sheesh" and other similar exclamatory expressions from your vocabulary. How you handle critical feedback can be a key part of how any future appeals you make will be judged. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well then, I'll try my best to do so next time. ASTIG😎🙃 10:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, some of the attitude from members of the WP administrative community can be a little overbearing, and at times frustrating. GeneralHamster (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  If you really have changed, then you should've waited at least six months or rather more. Your previous appeal seemed too soon IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. A topic ban appeal immediately after one was just declined shows a very concerning lack of WP:CLUE, which is effectively a prerequisite for participating in charged areas like AfD. The Night Watch (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per my support in the previous discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support AfD TBAN broadly construed; Superastig's behavior regarding their AfD closure TBAN appeals shows a lack of WP:CLUE as they tried to appeal their TBAN right after it was immediately unanimously declined. Allowing this to continue will simply be a WP:TIMESINK, plain and simple. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 04:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Retaliatory proposal. This user should be free to speak his mind; it's only his actions that should be constrained.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unless it can be shown that his behavior in AFD is problematic (neither the OP nor any of the voters even attempt to do this), there is no justification for such a ban. Bans are not a punishment, they are to protect Wikipedia against misbehavior. Animal lover |666| 08:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm going to Oppose this one, as I've seen no evidence of any ongoing disruption at AfD in general that needs to be prevented. The problems were, as far as I can see, all centred on closing deletion discussions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - One of the reasons I opposed the initial proposal to lift the topic ban is that Superastig has only participated in four AfD discussions since February. This is also a reason to oppose a broader topic ban - there is no evidence that Superastig is causing any serious disruption at AfD. WJ94 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• What is the point of banning someone from an area they are not contributing too but if they return and are disruptive the tolerance level might well be different. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal is totally BS, given that they barely participated in AfDs after they were Tbanned. If an article they created gets contested in AfD and they cannot defend it because of the full AfD ban, that will be unfair for them. SBKSPP (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose these proposals are getting out of hand. There is zero evidence that Superastig has been disruptive at AFDs over the past six months. Frank Anchor 03:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't comprehend why one would propose that someone who has not participated in AFD much would be banned for it. Nfitz (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem at issue isn't one of AFD as a whole. It's specifically about the editor's closures. I echo multiple others in this thread in saying that this measure is unnecessary. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose He has enough of the metal horsepower to make excellent contributions at Afd, if he wants to. I don't why he can't make a contribution. scope_creep^Talk 16:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose reeks of retribution. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Just noting, my oppose redundant having now read the subsequent discussion below. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Further battleground problems

I just noticed something disturbing at User talk:Superastig#Edit warring on Ang Syota Kong Balikbayan. In response to a content-related disagreement (and I've no idea who's right over the content as I haven't looked), Superastig ended with "Even if we argue about this 'til the day we die, my edit in the article stands. So, it's either you leave my edits as is or this issue you started will get worse. The choice is yours." That's the exact same Don't you dare challenge me attitude that earned them the ban from closing AFDs. And it happened when their behaviour is under close scrutiny here at AN. Their user page says "I have really moved on from my past troubles and learned from them." That would not appear to be true. So, do we need some sort of final warning about dropping that aggressive and threatening attitude? It can't be allowed to go on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I also read that as a threat. I'm seriously thinking a preventative WP:BLOCK is likely in order here. I'm open to other interpretations though. - jc37 12:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, this was more or less my point in the roving disruption, although it was before this discussion. They are a problem, nut just a problem in AfDs. last time it was canvassing, now it's edit warring. I have no idea why they haven't been more broadly blocked in their career. Star Mississippi 12:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not great [1]. Whether or not the actress playing the girlfriend in a film called "My Girlfriend, The Returnee" can be named as being in "the title role" (who cares?), this bit of the edit war is over a completely unsourced cast list that Superastig insists is correct because it's in IMDB (whether it's "verified" is irrelevant - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#IMDb). Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I am really surprised that their conduct hasn't received more scrutiny before since this is really obvious violation of both content and conduct policies. And their AFD stats show that Superastig !voted in 28 AFDs (with a result match stat of <75%) and apparently closed almost 1900 AFDs. With the poor understanding of wikipedia policies they have displayed here, I cringe to think of the potential damage. Abecedare (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Now THATS a reason to ban them from closing! The 75% isn't that troubling in itself. But there's a clear lack of understanding here - and that's a huge number of closes. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: - they voted in 28 AFDs out of the last 200 AFD pages they edited, not out of 1891. Simply explotating that figure would lead to an estimate of 265 total votes. Anyway, here is another link showing more votes from the older AFD pages they edited, showing 66 votes out of 200 AFDs. starship.paint (exalt) 14:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Thank you for the correction in my methodology! Scrolling through all the pages of their AFD stats, I now see that they !voted in roughly 1350 AFDs (with a result match stat of about 88%) and so apparently closed about 550 AFDs. Nothing "wrong" with any of those stats per se and so that shouldn't IMO play a role in any further sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

No need to give them a final warning about that IMV. Their attitude varies, differ when it comes to participating in AfDs, closing them or contribution. It can be better discussed in a separate thread and not here.

Based on their contribution, they barely go berserk and the recent one is an instance. So, it's pointless to give them a final warning. SBKSPP (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So, SBKSPP, do you think their comment that I showed above is in any way acceptable? Don't you think we need some assurance that they will change their aggressive attitude towards other editors? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: TBH it's unacceptable. But it can be toned down and said in a more civil way.

Just warn and note them about WP:OWN and I'm sure they'll change. SBKSPP (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do hope they can change. But they haven't been taking the feedback they've had so far, and have just doubled down on the ownership - in this very discussion, below. Superastig does finally seem to be listening, but it took a block to do it, so let's hope for a good unblock request - I've left some advice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: Nice bit of advice you left there yourself, SBKSPP - that should help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed that Superastig has not responded, either here or at their talk page where I told them their comment was unacceptable (and they have edited since). If we don't see some kind of acceptable response, showing understanding of how their aggressive ownership approach must stop, I would urge some admin action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the phrase this issue you started will get worse. If that happens, then they persisted. It's out of my control. So, I don't see it as a threat. It's not like saying they're gonna get haunted, which is considered a threat. I can't haunt them 'cause I don't know where they live. This is why I'd rather stay away from anything that would cause me to lose my cool. ASTIG😎🙃 10:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Superastig, I don't see any way to misunderstand "Even if we argue about this 'til the day we die, my edit in the article stands. So, it's either you leave my edits as is...". It looks like blatant battleground ownership to me (and you had the nerve to accuse the other editor of ownership). *You* do not get to dictate that your edit stands, and it is absolutely unacceptable for you to try to control content that way. Do you really not understand that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

you had the nerve to accuse the other editor of ownership: It's based on the article's history, where that incident happened a few times before. I wouldn't have had accused them if it wasn't for them persisting. My edits in that certain article aren't disruptive at all since I leave a clear explanation in each of my edit. If they make some minor changes to my edits, then fine with me. It's no big deal. But if they completely revert my edits, then I don't think that's tolerable. ASTIG😎🙃 15:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a dictionary definition of WP:OWN and you're providing no evidence to indicate you shouldn't be blocked more broadly. Star Mississippi 15:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That's terrible.—Alalch E. 15:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that response leaves me kind of speechless... admins? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm likely too involved to act, but I'd wholly support a broader block Star Mississippi 20:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, gotta say thanks for making this whole thing real easy to understand.. Lulfas (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Obviously open to review and any admins feel free to change (including modifying to a pblock) if so desired. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, it's unfortunate but I think it's necessary - at least until we get some proper understanding of why their approach to disagreement is so utterly wrong. And, I'm not an expert on them, but I can't see a pblock that would work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That was my thoughts - I considered a pblock from article-space but ownership issues would probably migrate to other namespaces, so in terms of being prevenative, I went the full block. Daniel (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

An indefinite block is too much IMV. Blocking them for 2 days to a week would suffice. But Blocking them indefinitely is outright ridiculous. Judging from their contributions, they're not like that everyday. I can say less than sometimes, they go berserk. Warn and note them about WP:OWN, and put them under surveillance by stalking their contribution page time by time. That'd do the trick. SBKSPP (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in my long experience, short timed blocks rarely work with chronic poor behaviour (even, perhaps especially, if that behaviour is intermittent), and editors often just sit them out and then carry on as before. What I think we needed is "You can't edit until you can convince us that your behaviour will change". And that's all an indefinite block is - it can easily be for less than 2 days. (I often think "indefinite" is a bad name - it's more of an open-ended block, just needing a bit of discussion to resolve.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Closure review - WP:NOT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a request to review the recent close at WP:NOTDIRECTORY to determine whether or not the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. This was discussed with the closer here and here. (There is also a behavioural discussion ongoing at ANI, but as several participants in that discussion have pointed out, the scope of that discussion does not include a review of the policy validity of the determination of consensus in the close.)

I myself did not participate in the RfC discussion nor am I involved in the underlying issues. However, multiple experienced editors have objected to the close (as shown in the linked discussions), on the grounds that the closer chose to implement proposals that were not included in the RfC as formulated. Indeed, the closer implemented a proposal that was explicitly considered in the RFCBEFORE discussion, but not included in the RfC itself. As the closer has opted not to file for review themselves, and given the importance of the policy page concerned (WP:NOT), an expedited review of the close seems to me like a good idea. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Involved comments

• Overturn (involved, ofc). As I've said elsewhere, there's no plausible way this can be read as a consensus of the associated discussion; the proposal to remove the sentence entirely was barely discussed at all, but it is clearly if anything a more extreme version of the proposal that clearly failed to reach a consensus. Objections to the proposed change hinged on numerous people disagreeing with the removal of notable, eg. I don’t understand why we should be DABing eg non-notable players on football teams..., The current wording prevents the mass creation of hundreds of thousands of dab pages between non-notable individuals... Weakening to DABMENTION is too weak. We don't want or need inclusion on dabs for anyone namechecked in any article. ... indicates that our guidance should not be weakened. Per reasons given by others and in general to not lower the bar. All of these and more provided detailed policy-based arguments not to weaken the text in question by a more minor version of the much more drastic change that the closer nearly invented whole-cloth. And the closer made no attempt to argue that any of these objections were not policy-based or could otherwise be ignored, instead resting their close on the fact that no one had specifically objected to their own preferred solution by name (obviously not; it was not the focus of the RFC and was barely mentioned in it.) Their close, and their later arguments justifying it, disregard the fact that complete removal of the sentence in question unequivocally goes against the substance and rationale the opposes gave for toning it down, which is precisely the sort of thing a closer should be looking at most closely. A more typical WP:SUPERVOTE that implemented a proposed compromise that wasn't really adequately discussed in the RFC would already be bad enough; but this is a supervote whose supposed solution is a more extreme version of something the RFC plainly rejected (and which the closer, in the first half of their close, conceded there was no consensus for!) It is simply not plausible for a closer to find that there is no consensus on a minor alteration to tone down a sentence, and yet somehow find that there is a consensus to remove the sentence entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn (involved). How can there be no consensus for changing the wording, and at the same time consensus for completely changing the wording by removing it. The removal of the text was something only a few participants discussed and isn't a compromise between those suggesting change and those opposing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  There is a difference between having no consensus for a specific proposed wording change, and a having a general consensus for simply removing it without those changes. They are not mutually exclusive. That is how both can be true. Huggums537 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Having no consensus for any change and having consensus for complete change is mutually exclusive. Those opposed where opposed to changing the text, removing the text is changing the text no matter how you phrase it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 07:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Removing text removal might be changing it, but I went back and read all the oppose votes, and none of them opposed a text removal as you claim. They only oppose the change that was proposed. There is a difference between saying the opposers didn't want the proposed changes to be made, and saying the opposers didn't want any changes to be made. The closer was right in determining that both supporters and opponents alike wanted to see changes made, but the proposal was not it. Huggums537 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  They opposed changing the wording, removing the wording had already failed at an earlier RFC. This was about changing the words in the sentence, and removing all the words from the sentence is obviously and plainly changing it. Opposes saying some change to the wording of the sentence is drastically different from removing the sentence altogether, which again had already been rejected by an earlier RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Re-reading my comment again, as I appear incapable of not making minor mistakes, I remembered that you had in fact already answered this yourself. Per your comment the last RFC was about a complete removal of the contentious material rather than wording it in a more acceptable way like this one does. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  As was pointed out by jc37, the previos RfC was closed with no consensus for any text removal. Please note the first sentence of the closure on the previous RfC: There is no consensus to remove the text. Furthermore, even in the previous discussion it was determined that A common thread seen in comments on both sides is that the wording could be better tuned... so whatever opposes wanted in that discussion really doesn't matter, and would be irrelevant to this closure. Also, to be clear my comment was about the "contentious material" i.e., "just the notable ones" which as shown above had no consensus for removal, but it was clear editors on both sides were in favor of some kind of a change to text. Your inordinate amount of focus on what the opposition wanted seems unusual, and a bit odd. Huggums537 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  In other words, a close of "no consensus" doesn't mean "we reject this and so the consensus is that you can't do it" as you have made it out to be here. No consensus means a discussion was made, but no agreement could be made either way, and it leaves it open to future debate and determination especially when you consider the closer mentioned both sides agreed the wording could be better tuned. Using your own rhetoric, that means both sides agreed the wording could be changed. Huggums537 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  You literally said the RFC was specifically about not removing the wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's fun. You are seriously attempting to explain to me what the meaning was behind what I wrote? I'm glad you think you are the authority on me and what I say. It must be nice to be the king. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Struck on the suggestion that it might possibly be bordering uncivil territory. Huggums537 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  You appear to be authority on the editors who opposed, as you've explained away their opposing as actually being support. But I guess I fall under so whatever opposes wanted in that discussion really doesn't matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  I guess we have a difference of interpretation as to what is represented by the opposition with both us thinking we are the authority, and that should be perfectly fine for either one of us to think we know better what the general idea is, but that is different than someone thinking they can read the intentions of another person about a specific comment they made and be a better authority than the person who actually made it about what the interpretation should be. Huggums537 (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Let's start over. The older RFC did not say both sides agreed that the words should be changed, it was a common thread in the discussion. So some of the editors in the discussion thought the words should be changed, not both sides. Changes require affirmative support, if the change doesn't get that affirmation it is rejected. It is not up to those supporting the status quo to seek affirmation for the status quo. And again no matter the rhetoric used wanting to change the words is not equal to supporting the removal of the entire sentence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  No thanks. I'd rather not start any of this over again. You can have the last word on the matter. It is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned. Huggums537 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, Newimpartial, for opening this. I believe this close should be partially overturned (involved); the close of the actual proposal was reasonable and within closer discretion (No consensus on initial proposal.), but the aspects that went beyond the scope of the proposal (There is a consensus to remove the sentence about DAB pages, but no consensus on what to replace it with (if anything).) are not.
  While sometimes RfC's can expand beyond their initial scope it must be clear to participants that they have done so in order to establish sufficient WP:CONLEVEL. This did not happen here.
  In this RfC a workshopping section was opened, and in that an editor proposed closing this discussion and opening a new one, saying We should scrap this proposal and start over with a proposal to remove the line about disambiguation pages from WP:NOT altogether.
  Editors reasonably interpreted this to not be a proposal under consideration in the current RfC and so failed to object to it. This lack of objection is actually behavior that I generally encourage; it is rarely useful for editors who outright oppose a proposal to contribute to workshops on the proposal, and I generally consider expressing such opposition to be disruptive to the workshopping process.
  This lack of clarity prevents WP:CONLEVEL from being reached; if editors do not know a proposal is under consideration we deny them the opportunity to contribute to it.
  Further, the sparsity of information about the close limits our ability to determine how the closer determined there was a consensus for this alternative possibility. My reading of the discussion is that there was roughly equal support for this proposal as there was opposition against it, when we consider implicit opposition through !votes for the first proposal being justified in a manner that results in them being incompatible with the second proposal.
  However, it appears the closer came to a consensus by down-weighting those !votes; for example, when asked whether they considered Aquillion's !vote as being applicable to this second proposal, they said The answer to that is yes, somewhat. They didn't clarify whether "somewhat" meant they down-weighted it, but my interpretation of that sentence is that they did.
  In the absence of any justification for such down-weighting - and failing to explicitly !vote on a proposal is not the basis for such justification, per WP:NOTVOTE - this down-weighting should not have occurred, and in its absence the result should be "no consensus", even if we do consider this to be a proper proposal under consideration.
  As such, I consider either relisting this RfC, with an clear statement that the second proposal is being considered in this RfC for consensus, or closing it as without any comment on the second proposal, to be reasonable options. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Closing is more than just a read of votes as was pointed out here and here. Huggums537 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC So this is no change for the part that is already NC and changing the other part to NC. A "finding" on something that was really not a part of the RFC nor substantially discussed in the RFC. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse. While it is a messy and long discussion and the closing statement should have explained it better, it is the correct analysis of the discussion. The proposal would have aligned the guidance in NOT with that at DABMENTION. This is functionally very similar to just having the highest level guidance on this be at DABMENTION or outright removal, which many supporters explicitly endorsed. On the other hand, the opposes were more mixed. Some opposed because the wording was too confusing, other opposed because they did not believe that this level of detail should be in NOT and should only appear at DABMENTION, including some who also explicitly endorsed removing the guidance entirely. Some opposed under the mistaken belief that it would open the floodgates to bloated DABs. DABMENTION is how DAB pages have worked since basically the first guidelines were approved by the community in 2005.[2] The addition of the guidance in 2017 to NOT, initially in the context of DABs of people's names.[3][4] and the 2022 revision to have it apply to all DABs, [5][6] both of which were undiscussed, did not result in any significant shift to how DAB pages actually work. It is simply wrong to argue that reverting to the 2016 version would suddenly result in DAB chaos. That being said, given the procedural issues, I would not be strongly opposed to an overturn to NC as long as there is no restriction on starting a new RFC except possibly requiring a workshop to figure out the RFC question beforehand. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Start a new RfC for the bit that is controversial. There's support for it, but it wasn't part of the original RfC, so we should talk it out. SportingFlyer T·C 14:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved comments

• It seems like every time a close challenge gets to AN it becomes an impenetrable mix of involved and uninvolved comments, so I'm going to be proactive here and divide into sections, as has been done successfully in some threads in the past. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Partial overturn Overturn to NC- I think the "No consensus" close might be read as fine, but the implementation of the close was not. Editors argued over what the change should be - Removing the sentence without replacement entirely is not, in my view, anywhere close to consensus. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  IG an overturn to NC is more accurate here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to NC I don't really view it as a "partial overturn" because, well, it's a complete change in the outcome. But yeah, there was no consensus at all and certainly not for the outcome the closer got to. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC. There was no clear consensus to delete the sentence without a replacement for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC (speedily if possible). As BilledMammal points out, the enacted proposal wasn't formally presented for !vote at all, it was just suggested as a new proposal in a workshopping section at the bottom. To go from that to "there's consensus to enact this", when most participants didn't even consider it, is clearly not correct. Let's not drag this out too long - the correct solution is to reinstate the text, amend the close to "no consensus", and then open a new proposal if anyone wants to continue pursuing that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that matters. RFCs aren't supposed to be votes – not any kind of vote, including not the let's-pretend-it's-not-a-vote "!votes", either. From the very top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment: "RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion... The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions."

  Since RFCs follow the normal talk page guidelines, it really shouldn't matter whether a suggestion appeared late in the discussion or was presented as one of the original proposals. When editors find a good solution, they should adopt it. If some editors commented early in the discussion, and want to consider further developments in the discussion, then they should be following the discussion (see that [subscribe] button at the top of each section? You don't even have to watch the whole page any longer). If they don't choose to do that, or if they see the discussion and don't think it's important to comment on it, then that shouldn't be interpreted as them missing out on an opportunity to "vote" again.

  Editors might disagree about whether this particular approach is a good solution (I think it's not bad idea, and not an entirely unreasonable outcome from this discussion), but we really shouldn't even suggest that all the "ballot options" have to be posted a certain number of days in advance of the "vote counting" for a solution to be acceptable. That would not be following normal talk page guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to NC Pretty much agree with with the uninvolved comments so far. It's difficult to see any consensus reached in that discussion. Nemov (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn An utterly daft reading of the discussion, where the closer just snips a portion of text outright even though that was not supported by the discussion. Zaathras (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Obviously overturn per above and ask the closer to review WP:CLOSE—"A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." A two sentence, one line close for a 200kb+ discussion is simply not the expected standard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Adding hundreds of words to an already long discussion is not necessarily helpful. Most of the time, the result of a discussion is patently obvious, and an explanation is pointless. Also, we normally expect closers to explain how the decision was reached upon request, not pre-emptively. When nobody disagrees enough to ask, then none of us really need to read a bunch of verbiage about the closer's thought processes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  If the outcome is clear, I agree. If you're doing something brave, you do need more words. And this was brave. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree: It's not the length of the discussion that indicates a need for more discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn The word daft was used above; that might be a little harsh, but I can understand its use. Closing in favour of something which was explicitly rejected before the RfC began is simply bizarre. Was the RFCBEFORE even read? If not, it's eyebrow-raising. In fact, combined with the fact that the closing admin literally edit-warred ([7], [8], [9], even down to using the same edit-summary -by-rote) in favour of his closure, it's actually concerning. SN54129 15:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129, how can any RFC outcome be "explicitly rejected" before the RFC discussion happens? Do some of us have veto power over consensus? I can't imagine an editor starting an RFC by saying "There are four possible approaches here, but I (or a prior discussion) explicitly reject the fourth option, so the community is only allowed to pick one of the other three as the result from this new RFC".

  An RFC has the power to overturn the result of any individual editor's decision, or any prior community decision. There can be no such thing as someone "explicitly rejecting" an option before an RFC even began. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to "no consensus". I simply don't see any consensus present in that discussion, and the closer's closing summary does not provide any sort of descriptive rationale explaining how the alleged consensus was obtained. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse as no consensus. That is: the discussion demonstrated that neither the current version of the text nor the proposed alternative have consensus. Several editors described both versions as confusing, and several editors explicitly supported scrapping the line entirely towards the end of the discussion. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse - the discussion about deleting the DAB bit altogether was fairly late on but there definitely seems to be consensus there, with no dissenting voices between the last update to that section about a month ago, and the close just a couple of days ago. I see the closer has reopened that part of the discussion now but it was a good close at the time. WaggersTALK 14:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Closer comments

Just a note: I think at this point, I'm not going to address what I'm seeing above. Rather, to save everyone time, (and because, in hindsight, while it isn't "required", I probably should have more explained in the close, though it did seem self-evident to me at the time of closure), I have self-reverted the latter part of the close to allow for further discussion. You can continue to discuss here if you like, but I think this can probably be closed. Thank you very much to everyone who commented. - jc37 23:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Follow-up discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Alteration_to_NOTDIRECTORY. - jc37 18:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Constant POV pushing

Article: Awan (tribe)

Problem: [10] and [11]

Comment: There is a constant POV pushing going on in this article, even though it is extended user protected, the info box contains wrong information (NOR) and recently unreliable sources are added in the article. These are very basic things which senior editors should take care. When I highlighted these issues, no one from senior editors who visit this article regularly replied to it. - Greentree0 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is a content related issue, so don't expect the admins to intervene. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  That being said, there are other noticeboards where you may be able to receive more assistance on this matter. From the sound of your initial comment, either the original research noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard might be a useful place to post. (I recommend posting to just one or the other, as posting to both will lead to confusion and duplicated work.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at the history, I would say that the ECP protection has actually stopped the problems; however as said above you may wish to post at one of those two noticeboards if you believe there are issues with the actual content. Black Kite (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Pitarobertz

Cross-posting my comments from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Rodagonda_reported_by_User:BangJan1999_(Result:_Declined): please refer to that page for context and further diffs.

User:Rodagonda is an obvious sockpuppet of Pitarobertz. A few minutes after account creation, Rodagonda immediately started removing G4 speedy tags from Savitha Nambrath, as shown in those diffs above. And today, they're at it again: [12], [13], [14], minutes after Pitarobertz removed the salt template:[15]. No response yet at User talk:Pitarobertz to my warning about sockpuppetry. Anon editors can't create an SPI, we can only add new reports to them, otherwise I'd have started one myself. 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A new third account, User:Peacehridhaan, has now taken over removing the speedy templates, and again 2 minutes after account creation: [16], [17]. 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Article deleted, article salted, obvious socks blocked. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: thanks, and what's to be done about the sockmaster Pitarobertz? 2A00:23EE:19C8:BA81:48C:2DFF:FEC5:9914 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Would need someone to start a WP:SPI for that, even though it's obvious; it could be meatpuppetry. Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

SPI report created at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pitarobertz. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour by Ghost Cacus

On 11 February 2023 I started the article Apulu, an Etruscan deity, and I expanded it during the following days. On 17 June and 20 June 2023 Ghost Cacus mistakenly changed his direct Roman equivalent from Soranus to Apollo. I reverted his edit and invited him to discuss the topic on the talk page, where I gave him a detailed explanation: Talk:Apulu#apollo as roman equivalent. Instead of answering me on the talk page, on 4 July 2023 he ignored it and reverted the change using an anonymous IP, so I undid that edit. Now he came back using his account, still ignoring the talk page, to revert the edit once again and write me "will you fucking stop?" He needs to calm down, learn how to behave and reach consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

They^. I wasn't in a good mood, so I got out of hand. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ghost Cacus: that's not a valid excuse, your behaviour is unacceptable. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Give me one source that says it's Soranus, not Apollo. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

And that ip isn't me Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if that ip was me, I wouldn't even use it. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ghost Cacus: As I already wrote you on the article talk page: Stop playing, I already gave you more than one. I added the sources to the page long time ago, way before your recent reverts. Instead of ignoring both the sources and this talk page, and writing vulgarities in the edit summary, learn how to behave. and Stop acting dumb. The sources have been on the main page for months, and you already tried to delete them several times. You came here writing vulgarities from your account. The fact you also used an anonymous IP (23.242.174.8) to circumvent this talk page and delete the sources is just a very serious addition, and the fact you're trying to deny it is even worse. I'm now officially requesting admins to check IP 23.242.174.8 since you use it to circumvent talk pages. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've commented on the content issue on the article talkpage (and left a pointer to that discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Deity equivalents where there is recent discussion on the general principle) but on the behavioural point frankly neither of you have behaved ideally. Yes, an edit summary saying "will you fucking stop?" isn't super civil, but frankly neither is you saying "stop acting dumb", nor you accusing them of "ignoring ... this talk page" when they are actively discussing on the talk page! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Hounding and personal attacks by a new user

Following a dispute over content at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film), a new ussr - User:Saikyoryu began hounding me to other, completely unrelated pages , e.g within an hour of me first editing A Letter to Liberals, they were there to partially undo my edit (my first edit: 01:09, 19 July 2023 , their first: 02:19, 19 July 2023). They then had the gall to go to the talk page of another editor and complain that I was following them around, The other editor told them they were in the wrong, and advised them to leave me alone, and I also warned them about it ([18]) and today the were back at it, at and just now at [Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. When I warned them again on the talk page, their response was to come to my talk page and call me a "misogynistic racist".[19] The user's editing history suggests to me they are not really a new user (I can provide detailed evidence) but whether or not they are a genuinely new user- an administrator needs to put a stop to this hounding and personal attacks. Red Slapper (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I see Saikyoryu accusing User:Isaidnoway of Sealioning multiple times at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) (once saying "Holy fucking fuck I am AUTISTIC and even I'm not as fucking dense as you are pretending to be with your fucking sealioning." and of "falsehoods", accusing User:FMSky of the same thing once. Also at that page accusing you of dishonesty and "lying bullshit".

The editor asked for help at User talk:ToBeFree and when that didn't work replied "I tried that form and it failed and lost my typing twice. Thanks for being just and dishonest and giving me the same run around the "help" people did. BARF." To be fair to them I see that they later apologised.

But before the apology they posted at User talk:MJL#Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) "ToBeFree won't do a thing to help anyone. The page I was sent to at the Help Desk won't WORK to ask for an edit to the talk page. You look like you're a person who might actually give a damn". Red Slapper responded there and there was back and forth between the two. Too long to go into detail here, people can read the discussion.

I see further attacks on User:Wolfquack and User:Skarmory on their talk pages.

I do think Saikyoryu could be a constructive editor if they could avoid this type of behaviour but I am not at all convinced they can do that. I'd like to hear from the editors they have attacked. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I was never attacked; all the conflict on my talk page was between them and Wolfquack. Still, what I see here is someone who needs to calm down and remember this is a collaborative project. Hostility is unnecessary and disruptive. They're constructive in terms of the work they do, at least from what I've seen, but more collegiality is needed. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Skarmory Sorry, misread that. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. I'm now here from WP:RFPP/E because an unnecessary request was made and I had a look at the contribution list again to see if the user is partially blocked. I guess an interaction ban is the minimum that should result from this discussion here. Whether it needs to be one- or two-way, I don't know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Saikyoryu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a pattern of continually commenting on the contributor and being uncivil towards editors on Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) — here, here, here, here, here, and falsely accusing editors of trolling or harassment — here, here, here, here, here and personal attacks as seen here and here. They were cautioned about remaining civil, shown here in this level 2 notice, and then in their revert of the notice, made an unfounded allegation about my motive for the notice here. Since the personal attack on me, I have disengaged with interacting with Saikyoryu. In relation to Red Slapper, this personal attack is way over the line and is worthy of a block. In my view, editors who make an attack like that should be shown the door.— Isaidnoway (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I now see this is more widespread and user-unspecific than I thought. I've just removed a few personal attacks from comments that have not been replied to yet ([20]). I'd be blocking if there hadn't been the unpleasant non-administrative interaction between them and myself before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That guy is a sock anyway. Their first couple of edits consisted of tagging pages for notability (1), lecturing IPs (2), adding "citation needed" tags (3), and explaining users the concept of WP:COI (4) ----FMSky (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

^Seconded. Those early edits to the help desk are a dead giveaway. SN54129 12:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Indef blocked. @Red Slapper, sorry that it took this long. Sandstein 12:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Red Slapper (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper is also a sock of NoCal100, so this is probably two POV socks beefing with each other and wasting our time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Grand Mufti of India under attack

The article, Grand Mufti of India, is under attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Mufti_of_India&diff=cur&oldid=1160360777 2409:40F3:1014:6FE7:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for three days. The disruption is pretty minor at this stage. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)