Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1152

Please ban Fabrickator from interacting with me.

[Edit: I have copyedited this post in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.]

I'm not the only user that thinks Fabricator should be banned from interacting with me. In fact, I got the idea from this comment by Asparagusus on my talk page.

Also, Graham Beards implied here that Fabrickator and I should stop interacting with each other, which I agreed with, and Fabrickator did not agree with.

I believe Fabrickator has been guilty of hounding me on Wikipedia, and has been incivil about it. Here he sarcastically referred to an edit of mine that he disapproved of as "brilliant". Something went wrong with the formatting (I think Fabrickator caused this somehow, but I'm not sure), but who said what and when is still fairly clear, I think.

Fabrickator has persisted in communicating with me despite my requests that he leave me alone, and has also repeatedly ignored my questions about why he so interested in me, and in one case, cryptically said, "I'm not going to directly respond to your question." when I politely asked, yet again, why he was so interested in me.

Fabrickator has reverted several good edits of mine, seemingly after following me to an article. Here is just one such reversion. It is notable, because firstly, it was re-reverted by Graham Beards, and secondly, Fabrickator did his reversion quietly. He did not tell me what he had done, which is remarkable, given how much irrelevant material he has posted on my talk page . I only found out he had done it much later, after Graham Beards had unreverted it. Thirdly, it is *clearly* a remarkably incompetent and fairly harmful reversion.

So Fabrickator has not just been wasting *my* time, and a few other editors who have kindly taken some interest in this matter, such as Graham Beards and Asparagusus, but, more importantly, has directly harmed Wikipedia and Wikipedia's readers.

I think Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, while I am not banned from interacting with him. Having said that, I would be content (delighted, in fact) with a two-way ban, if it is permanent. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A few points here. If you want someone to stop posting on your talk page, you should make a clear request. This also means do not ask the editor any questions or otherwise talk about them on your talk page. Such a request should be respected with the exception of essential notices etc per WP:USERTALKSTOP. If User:Fabrickator had continued to continued to post on your talk page despite you asked them to stop, I think we would now be at the stage where they received a final warning before an indefinite block. I think your requests were a lot less clear than they should have been. Still I'll warn them. As for your iban proposal, that is a lot more involved and we'd need to see evidence of something more than simply posting on your talk page when you asked them to stop. If they're indefinitely blocked there's no need for an iban. A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough. Nil Einne (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In User_talk:Polar_Apposite#sigmoid_colon_redux, I offered to abide by an informal 60-day interaction ban. That was on February 8. I asked him to clarify whether he accepted that, he did not "formally" respond to that, but he did acknowledge it, and stated that he was interested in either a temporary or permanent ban. I did not ask for further clarification (the intent being to avoid interaction). So for about the last 35 days, I have refrained from any interaction with Polar (obviously, aside from this interaction, which I presume that I am obliged to respond to).

I viewed this informal approach as having certain advantages:

• Save administrators from having to become involved in adjudicating the dispute.
• Also save them the trouble of officially tracking the ban, assuming it were to have been granted.

If I were to have violated that ban, the voluntary ban would likely be viewed as a "confession of fault".

• There is neither an official determination of fault, nor an admission of fault'
• Upon successful completion of this voluntary ban, future requests for a ban should not be based on events that happened prior to the voluntary ban.

For the last 35 days, I have avoided any interaction with Polar. OTOH, in spite of Polar's seemingly implied commitment to avoid any interaction with me and 35 days without any interaction, he now submits this IBAN request. I request that it be denied, on the basis of this informal interaction ban.

We should be very careful about the restriction of mere communication between users, recognizing in particular that the imposition of a ban places the banned party at a greatly heightened risk as well as creating what can be a problematic situation if (by some coincidence) they both happen to be "participating" in editing or commenting on the same article.

Respectfully, Fabrickator (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In point of fact, I had avoided communicating with you for 35 days. FWIW, though, you cannot reasonably avoid criticism by insisting that criticism of you (by myself and/or by somebody else) is not permitted. In any case, the appropriate place for such a discussion would be on one of the participant's own talk pages. Fabrickator (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If you avoided communicating with me for 35 days, and didn't revert any good edits of mine during that time, I thank you for that. But I want to *never* hear from you again, and *know* that I will never hear from you again, The only way that is possible is with a permanent interaction ban. In my opinion you should be blocked indefinitely (from Wikipedia), but I won't ask for that. You should be very grateful to if you only get a permanent one-way interaction ban. As I see it, you have nearly always wasted my time with your comments, and your reverts of my good edits is even worse, especially since you quietly followed me around Wikipedia reverting good edits of mine without even telling me. And in my humble opinion you have been uncivil while at it. It discouraged me from editing Wikipedia.

And you have, yet again, avoided answering my very reasonable and polite question. So I will repeat it. Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? Polar Apposite (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite, this is very stale. The most recent diff you provide is over a month old.

An admin should close this. TarnishedPath^talk 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you've brought this up. I've been busy with some things in real life for the last month or so, that's all. As you can see, I have almost no edits to Wikipedia during the last month. I have in a sense, been away from Wikipedia, to some extent, for the last month.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that the situation has changed during the last month. Whether it's "stale" is not a real issue. In fact, the fact that I have been away actually reduces the significance of the fact that Fabricator has not posted on my user page during the last month or so. I don't know whether he has quietly reverted some more good edits of mine. Polar Apposite (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite we're supposed to WP:AGF, not WP:ABF. If you had evidence of them reverted good edits of yours recently then you ought to provide evidence not state that you don't evidence that they haven't done it. The fact that you haven't provided any recent evidence of anything speaks very heavily to this being stale. TarnishedPath^talk 07:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is stale as well, but if the consensus is that this is not he the case, I think any interaction ban, if necessary, ought to be two-way. Fabrickator has done a poor job reading the tea leaves and should have backed off even if the request to stay off the talk was not explicit, but Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally. They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like "harmful" and "incompetent" needlessly in conversations.

In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I really can't see this going anywhere. TarnishedPath^talk 07:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I would ask that the implicit agreement of the "voluntary iban" (which was effectively "completed" by virtue of this incident being opened) should be abided by, i.e. that there shouldn't be an iban. It's not that I anticipate a desire to interact with Polar, but it will be counter-productive to have to think about this every time I edit an article or participate in some discussion. Fabrickator (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, it's clear that Polar Apposite does not want you to post on their Talk page. You should abide by that. However, that does not mean you must avoid them on article Talk pages, and conversely Polar Apposite can't just ignore you on article Talk pages when you bring up an issue.

If things escalate, we can start considering a two-way iban, but for now this should suffice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

[Edit: I have copyedited this post (like I did with the OP a few hours ago) in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.]

I'll reply to myself to avoid "bludgeoning" anyone :)

331dot told me on my talk page that, "It's not bludgeoning to civilly respond to arguments/posts made in and of itself; it might be if, say, if you had a snarky response to every comment about you. I would make a single, calm comment responding to claims made about you. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)".

Accordingly, I will respond to everyone's posts in a single (hopefully calm, ha ha) comment.

I don't know whether Fabrickator should be blocked from Wikipedia, because I don't know how valuable his other contributions have been. Looking at his contributions for the first time (I was not interested until now) just now, in search of reversions of my edits, I see that he has made a lot of edits purportedly fixing broken links, which sounds good. Why stop him from doing that, if it is good work? Banning him from interacting with me would not affect, I would have thought, his ability to fix broken links. His work in general may be valuable. All I am sure of is that his interactions with me have been a huge waste of time, and quite harmful at times.

I'd like to clarify that I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page, as that would give him an excuse to continue reverting good edits of mine without proper discussion or even notification. Also, doing so could be seen as uncivil according to the summary of this Wikipedia page which says,

"This page in a nutshell: Editors can request that other editors keep off their user talk page. However, such demands may be considered uncivil. Disobeying such a request may or may not result in sanctions, depending on the circumstances."

I didn't want him to never post on my page, just to stop wasting my time with useless posts that seemed aimed at socializing with me, possibly trying to befriend me (we have never been friends, BTW), or to harass me, or possibly some "frenemy"-style mixture of the two. When I asked him why he wanted to communicate with me, and what he found so interesting about me, I really was sincerely interested in learning why. He has always chosen not to answer my question.

@Nil Einne I thought you might want more examples of bad reversions of my work by Fabricator (I found three more) when you wrote,

"A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough."

Here goes. The egregious pathology article reversion [1], was not the only bad reversion of one of my edits. Another example would be @Fabrickator 's reversion here of this other good edit of mine to the Jo Koy article. Notice how there's no "reverted" tag on my edit, making it harder for me or anyone else to notice that my edit had been reverted. His edit summary says, "revert of 14:10 and 14:41 edits of 8 January 2024: both "Filipino" and "Filipina" are acceptable forms when used with "mother"; remove extraneous space at end of line". Wikipedia rules say that only positively harmful edits should be reverted, and so this justification makes no sense, because it acknowledges that my edit was harmless at worst. Secondly, even if both forms are acceptable (debatable, see my comments on the article talk page, that doesn't mean that they are equally suited to an encyclopedia article, so, again, the edit summary is nonsensical. I argued on the talk page that "Filipina" is foreign or slang, or at least has that vibe about it, and therefore "Filipino" is more encyclopedic. I also argued that "Filipina" is confusing, because then what does "Filipino" mean? Does it refer only to males? English doesn't have this final a vs final o male/female system. But Fabrickator has not addressed any of these objections to his reversion. I have no objection to his deletion of the whitespace character I added to allow a dummy edit (an accepted technique on Wikipedia which Fabrickator seems not to have heard of, leading to his taking me to task for this elsewhere, wasting everyone's time yet again). OTOH, there was no need for him to do that, as it was harmless. If he wanted to do it, I think he should have quietly deleted the white-space in a separate edit, and marked his edit as minor, instead of making a fuss about it.

To sum up, Fabrickator has done four reversions of my edits that I know about, having looked through all his contributions in the last seven months: 1. the egregious, bizarre, and outrageous, pathology article reversion, 2. the absurd and absurdly defended Jo Koy article reversion, 3. the useless (albeit harmless) and timewasting fuss-laden reversion of a whitespace character, also in the Jo Koy article, and 4. the absurd reversion of my edit adding a citation needed tag and substituting a failed verification tag here. Fabrickator's reversion was later unreverted here by Nardog, with an edit summary saying, "Reverted 1 edit by Fabrickator (talk): CN is correct, it's not cited to any source". To sum up, Fabrickator's four reversions of edits of mine comprise one outrageous one, one absurd one, one bad one, and one theoretically harmless one but accompanied by a lot of time-wasting fuss based on his not knowing what a dummy edit is and his not simply asking my why I added the white-space before berating me here (in quite an uncivil way, I might add. He calls the whitespace character an "extraneous space".

Out of four reversions, zero were useful, two were unreverted by other editors, three were harmful, and one was quite harmful indeed. And he followed me to all those articles, it seems, in order to do what he did. And his subsequent discussion has been either zero, ignoring me, or useless and uncivil. He seems to think he is competent to overrule me without discussion, but I think he is wrong about this. I saw that some of his copyedits to the work of some other editors were good, so he should probably continue copyediting, but overzealously trying to correct *me* has led to his getting out of his depth, perhaps. That seems a charitable way of looking at this, and assumes good faith. Let him try his luck with someone else, as long as it doesn't become hounding and incivility, as I would suggest has been my experience with Fabrickator.

@CoffeeCrumbs You wrote,"Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally" First, whether I have a history of "bludgeoning conversations" at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it? Second, could be specific about what I actually did wrong at those pages? "Flooding" is a bit vague. What I did in the latter case *could* be seen as simply making my case in a very thorough way, with appropriate attention to detail. As for the former, I thought I was allowed to ask as many questions as I wanted. It seems I was wrong about that, but since no one had told me about that rule, "flooding" seems a bit over the top, no pun intended. A giant puddle of tea come to mind :)

You wrote, "They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like "harmful" and "incompetent" needlessly in conversations." Again, how about being specific? I think I am allowed to use "harmful" and "incompetent" needlessly on Wikipedia, am I not? And you have made no mention of any of the rude things Fabrickator has said to me. That's interesting, isn't it? You don't look very impartial right now.

You wrote, "In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud." Again, are you able to be specific? What specifically did I say (you have no excuse for not being specific, as everything is there in black and white) that warrants a reprimand (light or not) to remind me that "every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud"? When did I ever say anything that indicates that I think that? Genuinely curious now.

@The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite I'm actually primarily concerned about his reversions of my good edits. Out of a total of four that I could find, zero were useful, three were harmful, two were undone by other editors, and one was egregious. All of them were bizarre, and the result of following me around Wikipedia. And there was no proper discussion or notification to me. Polar Apposite (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

When people are griping about you bludgeoning discussion, posting massive, badly-formatted walls of text only vindicates those concerns. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I did what I was told to do. Polar Apposite (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad to try improve the format. What specifically did you not like about it? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive feedback. The links should have been inside words, and I put them all inside words just now. Was that what you had in mind? What else, if anything made call it "badly-formatted"? Cheers. Polar Apposite (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to read all of that. TarnishedPath^talk 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't going to speak up in favor of any administrator(s) taking action regarding either you or Fabrickator, but as you continue to WP:BLUDGEON while ignoring WP:AGF, I'm starting to wonder if you're willing to collaborate with people who disagree with you. It's really unhelpful when you post a giant wall of text, especially when a huge chunk of it is an off-topic wall of text in which you explain that you have your own guidelines that somehow override Wikipedia's at MOS:PHIL. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

First, whether I have a history of "bludgeoning conversations" at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it?

I'm going to single this out, because the rest of that wall of text is just rambling. Yes, it does have bearing because it can indicate that the problem isn't Fabrickator, it's the fact you keep throwing these lengthy diatriabes up instead of concisely making your points. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am just appending this comment at the bottom, I'll remind people that (if you're not subscribed to this specific discussion), it's hard to see the edits that have been made at various places in the text. You might want to look at the "diffs" if it matters to you

Second, I will note that Polar has stated that he never asked me not to post to his "talk" page, so the fact that I made posts to his "talk" page is not per se an issue.

Third, as Polar has pointed out, the Wiki software doesn't allow you to add an edit summary without making some kind of change. If you try to do this, it just silently discards the edit summary provided, so inserting a space character is just a way to get around this behavior. This was something I had been unaware of, so my criticism that he added an extraneous space was unwarranted, and I apologize for that. Fabrickator (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but I still want a permanent interaction ban, ideally one way. Polar Apposite (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies or demanding things, especially not a one-way interaction ban. You really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this before it turns into a boomerang in the form of a motion from an uninvolved editor. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, another minor point. The interaction ban had been proposed by User:Graham Beards in January (though it's in Graham's talk page archives for 2023 ... see User talk:Graham_Beards/Archives/2023#Please advise me regarding dealing with Fabrickator.). As is clear from this discussion, I do not go along with this proposal. I interpreted this as Graham's attempt to gracefully bow out of the dispute, but I mention it here just because I want to set the record straight. Fabrickator (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for being so reasonable. I think you might want to consider at least acknowledging that you were wrong in thinking that he was bowing out, and maybe apologize to him (optionally). Polar Apposite (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop this, right now. TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Polar Apposite, no one, I mean NO ONE, is going to read that wall of text you posted. And they are unlikely to participate in this discussion. And the one thing I remember when I was a regular here at ANI years ago is that you will never get an IBan or TopicBan without considerable community support which you don't have here and are unlikely to receive given these diatribes. You can't just request an IBan and magically have an admin impose it. It has to have support from your fellow editors which isn't going to happen. So, I suggest like most of us, you avoid editors you don't get along with or use Dispute Resolution if that is an appropriate forum for your disagreement. It also seems like this is not a current, intractible dispute but something that has bothered you in the past which makes it even more unlikely that any admin wandering through here will take action. Just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm appending this to the end, like Fabrickator did with his comment. I'm also omitting all pings. Hoping not to be accused of "bludgeoning".

  Although it is true that "I've been busy with some things in real life", as I said above, it's also true that I was quite discouraged by the hostility that I've experienced on Wikpedia, and that my fellow editors seemed not to care about what Fabrickator (and some other editors, but that's another matter) had done to me. That's maybe *why* I busied myself with real life matters for a month or so. So calling the matter "stale" because I took a month break is not appropriate, I think.

  Did I do something wrong that can't be said out loud? Why are so many people being so hostile to me? I feel like people don't care or even would be glad to see stop copyediting Wikipedia.

  Why should Fabrickator continue to get away with wasting my time and worse, reverting my good edits, just because I got in trouble long ago as a newbie, in an unrelated matter? How long am I supposed to be punished for that? Didn't I pay my debt to Wikipedia by being blocked, so to speak?

  And anyway, shouldn't we be prioritizing the project? Good edits are good edits, regardless of who does them, or even why, right? And there's also the time wasted by third parties who undo Fabrickator's reversions of my good edits, which has happened in two out of the four cases. Polar Apposite (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  You've not provided any additional evidence or reasoning with this comment. What is the point of this? You've just repeated yourself. Stop now before this becomes a motion about you. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was told [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&diff=prev&oldid=1214804087 here]: "Shorter is always better. If you feel that you have something new which will positively contribute to a discussion, you should do so. If you have been warned against excessively posting, though, consider whether you need to post it."

  What I posted was shorter. I felt that I had something new that would be a positive contribution. I considered whether I needed to post it (and concluded that I did). I did exactly what I was I told to do. Polar Apposite (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, you really didn't. You posted another evidence-free diatribe. This is becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is a pertinent portion of the discussion with Graham Beards, in which I described Graham's proposal as a way of "graciously bowing out" of the dispute. Fairly shortly after posting this message, I received a thanks from Graham. It would be pretty juvenile to go around parading the fact of having received a "thanks" from somebody, but it is significant here because it seriously contrasts with Polar's interpretation of the situation. Fabrickator (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Polar Apposite... Before this thread gets closed down, I feel "inspired" to come back to the discussion you and I were having several weeks ago regarding the length of the sigmoid colon.

I realize this is very much a sore spot for you, but I felt it showed that you had a blind spot with regard to editing Wikipedia. In this discussion, you expressed doubt about information in the article indicating the length of the sigmoid colon was 35-40 cm., based on your belief that this length was not plausible. The question I asked you was how you would advise an editor asking you this same question, but that had seemed to get you all riled up.

I'm here now, and I'm again asking this question. Seriously, if it's not apparent which Wikipedia principle(s) should inform you on how to resolve this concern, then that casts doubt as to whether your continued editing of WP is appropriate. Fabrickator (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd drop this attempt at discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You wrote, "I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies [...]". Did I actually get blamed for accepting an apology? That would be Kafkaesque". Polar Apposite (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It often takes two to tango. TarnishedPath^talk 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of editors here like to speak in riddles, I see. Polar Apposite (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not a riddle. It's a common saying where I'm from. TarnishedPath^talk 14:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it does kind of sound like a riddle. I like riddles! Fabrickator (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

MateuszCOMPANY - edit warring, copyvios

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

This user has taken ownership of FSO Polonez. While their English is limited that is easily fixed. However, they also insist on uploading a loooong list of how many cars were exported to each country, which I consider WP:CRUFT. More problematic, they've also uploaded dozens of copyvio images to the Commons and insist on placing them in the article. I started a deletion request at Commons, but it moves slowly and the user also has problems with WP:CIVIL in my estimation.

Requests to heed WP:BRD are ignored, their only response so far was Please find something else to do. I spend my time and knowledge to do something good for Wikipedia and people which want draw knowledge. If you have problem with that, report it to administration and continuing to restore their edits. So here we are.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User continues to edit-war and is immune to reason. YBSOne (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And still edit warring past final warning. Warned by 4 users. YBSOne (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

158.223.0.0/16 and 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64

• 158.223.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I previously raised concerns on 18 March 2024, and the WP:DISRUPTIVE editing is continuing.

The very latest example is yet another modification of a direct quotation (Special:Diff/1215894901.) I tried pointing that out the last time it happened (see User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct#HGV20) but whether the editor just ignored it or just flat out doesn't understand is difficult to say. Their English comprehension seems limited; a number of haphazard edits (like Special:Diff/1213373005, Special:Diff/1215867316, Special:Diff/1215727741, [2]) make it look like that they don't understand what was written before or the effects of their own changes.

Combined with their talk page interactions (including on User_talk:158.223.122.211) my impression is that they tend to miss the point a whole lot and are quite oblivious to it. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

194.66.191.22 vandalising over 20 years, requesting perma-block

194.66.191.22 (HOPEFULLY I DON'T MESS UP AND POST ALL OF HIS USER TALK PAGE MESSAGES AGAIN) has been vandalising over a 20 year period, and it even shows the old block notices! I'd like this IP to be perma-blocked. Waylon (was) (here) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't permanently block IPs. That IP is registered to a college in the UK, as noted on their talk page. We tend to get intermittent disruptive edits from schools (as well as public libraries, Dunkin Donuts wifi, etc.) and it's not uncommon for elementary and high school IPs to be blocked for long periods of time because of this, but I would be hesitant about placing a lengthy block on a post-secondary institution over occasional vandal edits, as there's a chance that the students might be able to contribute something of value someday. Spicy (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Last edits were from February 1, so there's nothing actionable here at all, and they had already been warned for those edits, so your re-warning was pointless. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

IP Repeatedly Disrupting Table Formatting

• 2804:14C:128:270D:0:0:0:475 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Kingsman (franchise) (diff): vandalism after final warning. Repeated disruptive changes to content and removal of formatting across a variety of articles. Majority of edits have been reverted. The IP has also repeatedly performed such disruptive behaviors on the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One and Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two articles, among many other franchise-related tables. This is getting quite annoying to revert each time they return and they ignore any warnings given, and have edited as such through different IPs. The reach of their edits is problematic, though individual page protection for every article may be too extreme. I previously took this issue to AIV though they recommend I bring it here instead. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

user:Zack097 adding unsupported categories

Zack097 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Noticed a few additions of categories which were not supported by article contents. User has a history of adding poorly or unsourced content, with numerous level 4 warnings. Some examples include [3], [4], and [5].--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This user has done almost nothing constructive in the many years since they created the account. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Sca's jokes on WP:FPC

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 suggest that Sca be topic banned from WP:Featured picture candidates. Sca has been making jokes on FPC instead of using it as a place to usefully collaborate with others. This is not a new practice, he has been doing it for several years, and despite being banned from WP:ITN/C twice for the same reason, he persists. Some examples include here, here, here, and here. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted two small humorous comments on nominations (not those of FatCat69) currently listed at WP:FPC, leaving 11 serious and constructive comments of mine. I suppose user FatCat69 might feel ill-disposed toward me because of (serious) critical comments I've posted about a few of his nominations, and I suggest that he and I agree not to engage in any continuing disputation, but seek to cooperate from now on. (Further, I would agree to a "no contact" direction covering the two of us.) -- Sca (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I really don’t mind the criticism. After all, instructive criticism is how things get done. That said, it’s the jokes that bother me, I don’t think that FPC (and other areas) is the right place for joking, as it can sometimes come off as a bit disrespectful. I usually don’t mind humor, as long as it’s kept respectful and in the right place and time. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the jokes are funny. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Support no contact as this report seems unnecessary and is likely indicative of larger beef. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment A German with a sense of humor, and an American without. The world has gone mad, I tell you, MAD! Paradoctor (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

OP, did you make any attempt to discuss your concerns with Sca? It appears that you skipped that step and jumped directly to proposing a tban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if a FPC topic ban is needed yet, but it is disappointing that Sca appears to be repeating at another Main Page venue the same kind of behavior that got them partially blocked from WP:ITN/C. It certainly would not help any future appeal of that sanction. They previously promised to regard ITN as "serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments"; perhaps they should take the same attitude towards FPC as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve got to be honest, but it’s because of Sca’s persistent nasty behavior that I have pondered on the concept of no longer contributing to FPC. It’s not just my nominations that he posts snarky comments on, it’s everyone. Very seldomly does he post actually useful comments. Unless he can get his act together, I feel that FPC would be a much better and more welcoming place without him. I also feel that the other users in this conversation are wholly ignoring the fact that Sca was blocked from ITN twice for this type of behavior. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I get that they are not treating the nominations with the seriousness you'd like to see, but it seems extreme to describe that as persistent nasty behavior, as it seems pretty mild. Like others, I'm wondering why you didn't raise this with them at their talkpage instead of going straight to ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

FatCat96 did raise the issue with them here on January 18 but was immediately reverted by Sca. A less confrontational tone from FatCat may have had more success, perhaps. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't an attempt to discuss so much as it was a belligerent ultimatum. OP should have tried a more collegial approach. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I chuckled at a few of these. If users get blocked for making harmless jokes, it's dark day for Wikipedia. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:Humor. It states:

• Humor is sometimes misinterpreted
• Irresponsible humor damages Wikipedia's credibility
• Not everyone is looking for humor
• What one may find hilarious, another may find offensive

I believe that Sca's jokes fall into several of these categories. These may not be true for everyone, but one should certainly remain mindful of these (which I think it's pretty obvious Sca does not) when commenting these "humorous" comments. One could easily misinterpret Sca's "humorous" comments as hateful, rude, or offensive. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 05:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:HUMOUR is an essay, and an absurdly stringent one at that. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know… I think it makes some pretty valid points. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 12:34, 28 March 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:99.209.199.62 Keep vandelzing Wikipedia

Hi I just saw a ip keep vandelzing the page Final Fantasy XVI can you please block the ip since he continued after the final warning Fixer332 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fixer332 The IP has now been blocked for a week. Next time, a better place to report this would be AIV. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Improper close

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.

---

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

I reverted this close. Can someone review the account which made the close. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I also notice that Candied Tater's userpage redirects to an admin's user page (and here is the diff where they created that redirect). Seems like the user picked out the longest thread, or saw it at WP:CR (permanent link). Whatever the user was trying to do, it seems disruptive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I blocked him under WP:NOTHERE. The user page (now deleted) sealed the fate, redirecting to an admin's page (User:Red-tailed hawk) after that admin changed it so they don't redirect their user page to a Guideline. Troll like behavior, obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I went ahead and deleted their 2 !votes on this page. If someone objects feel free to restore. But seems like WP:DENY is the best approach here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:49, 28 March 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:8diq and disruptive editing

8diq (talk · contribs · count) has

• repeatedly inserted a large amount of inline images (which is basically the only type of edits they did) despite MOS:IRELEV and other editors' warnings on their talk page
  • first warned on December 2023, around ~25 edits afterwards
• posted copyrighted materials on articles and cross-wiki-uploaded copyrighted images to Commons tagged as "own work"
• not even one edit that is not reverted

Northern Moonlight 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Fred Zepelin

I am asking for User:Fred Zepelin to be indefinitely blocked from posting to my personal talk page, and for an administrator to consider appropriate action in response to his hounding and ongoing personal attacks.

During a recent content dispute, he accused me of “whitewashing” and being a “white supremacist apologist”.[6] The two other editors involved in the discussion suggested he “focus on content, not contributors” and “clear the slate with a strike and or apology”.[7]

Instead, he followed me to another article where his first-ever edit there was to revert my content and source[8] and template-warned me inappropriately.[9]

I have asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page[10], citing WP:USERTALKSTOP[11] and telling him that I would view future violations as harassment. [12] But days later he again posted there again, and with another personal attack.[13] BBQboffin (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Which they immediately reverted and apologized for (and was in regards to what was not a PA at all). What are you asking us to do if the other user already self-resolved it? Nate • (chatter) 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Immediately reverted - yes. Apologized for casting aspersions about alleged "whitewashing" - no. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

So what is being asked for, then? The editor immediately reverted so there's nothing to revert, though it looks like the two have had a running content dispute for the last month but not to a block-worthy extent. I just can't stand when the reporter leaves out something on purpose (the reversion) to try to have an action done, without the other in the dispute being able to respond. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"I forgot" is neither an excuse for harassment nor is it an apology. Posting "Knock off the whitewashing" and then reverting is like someone throwing a punch and pulling it back at the last minute. It doesn't "self-resolve" a situation; it has an intimidating effect. And this isn't the first time FZ has done this: he had been warned about respecting WP:USERTALKSTOP with another editor[14], ignored the warning, and got himself a 48-hour block[15]. What I want is for him to just stop posting to my talk page: if he can't be banned from posting there permanently, maybe a 72-hour block would help him remember next time that harassment (of me or anyone else) is not OK. BBQboffin^{grill me} 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary on their self-revert, "forgot, this particular user asked that I not post on thier talk page," gives me faith they'll stop posting there. Do you agree but still think they need to be blocked, or do you think if they're not blocked they'll continue messaging you there? City of Silver 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I can’t know if he's going to forget again. A talk page block would make it 100% certain. BBQboffin^{grill me} 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but that wasn't what I asked. And they're not going to be blocked from your talk page because it's possible they'll have messages they're required by policy to leave for you. City of Silver 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In lieu of a talk page block I would accept a promise from FZ not to post on my talk page anything beyond required-by-policy messages. BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been four days and they haven't posted since you took them to ANI, which is not a result I want for anyone as "chilling" an editor from posting again is a major reason we discourage ANI reports of this kind if an issue is easily solvable by using a talk page to discuss editing concerns. We're certainly not going to take action on the above because of that, and I truly hope you didn't needlessly scare a productive editor away because of this overreaction to an honest mistake. But in the reverse, Fred had been warned to step back from editing on a particular article on their talk page, so we're not going to warn someone either from taking a break and pausing editing, then coming back a better editor if they do so. Nate • (chatter) 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Fred did return and going by their response, they felt this ANI thread was completely frivolous (but put it more profanely) and resumed editing elsewhere. Next time, use the user talk page first before going to ANI, because nothing is happening here. He's done with you, be done with him, and move on, BBQ. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, next time I'll use the user talk page more than I did, but I don't think this is an "easily solvable" issue. I will move on, although on his first day back I see another editor has already become exasperated with Fred and asked him not to post to their talk page[1]. Fred certainly has value to the project for his tenacity and skill in ferreting out sockpuppets and their ilk, but it would be nice if he would show mutual respect to his fellow editors. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible content ownership at List of X-Men members page

I joined Wikipedia in mid-March 2024 and started editing X-Men related pages yesterday and participating in recent discussion some of those pages and noticed so many ongoing discussions (also not archived) in List of X-Men members talk page. I read last two talk pages of it, which made me suspicious of ownership of content of the List of X-Men members page by @Hotwiki. Then I read last 500 edits of said page and made this report. I took me 1 day to make this report. I am new here and it is not my intention to Personal attack by mentioning so many users including @Hotwiki, just so you all don't feel that way. So below are 7 points of my report.

• 1: (WP:OWN, WP:RS) @Hotwiki sometimes asks for references but sometimes he himself don't provide a reference. Also one time he called a reliable secondary source moot while doing this edit[16] on the basis of "This was already discussed before in the talk page, so that reference is moot. As for Fall of X, there's not a reference given to that issue." but you can search that that not any reference is declared moot in any discussion in Talk:List of X-Men members. He reverted the edit[17] done by @Tomahawk1221 on the basis of "Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source". He reverted the edits[18][19] having the same information (some more addition) done by @Ringardiumleviossa and @Lipshiz on the basis of "Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source". But when some of the information were removed[20] by @Sewnbegun on the basis of "Removing unreferenced content", he reverted[21] them on the basis of "Restored, I've read those issues before, and they do infact became trainees in those issues since they were working aside the X-Men in a field mission." I don't get why many editors need reference as per reliable sources for adding same information but one editor don't. That resulted to @Hotwiki making disruptive edit[22] on the basis of "these are unreferenced as well, we aren't going to cherry pick which unreferenced material to stay here here right?" Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis WP:RS - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[23] on the basis of No there's NO need to add Multiple references in a single info, if there's already a VALID/reliable reference posted.
  • 1.2: Reliable sources were finally provided regarding the above mentioned information in these edit[24] by @Sookenon.
• 2: (WP:OWN, MOS:GRAMMAR) Another of the authoritative attitude is seen during simple changes like fixing basic grammar/grammatical errors or expanding sentences. He reverted[25] an edit done by @Khajidha to the previous version. Another similar edit[26] (on the basis of "Full stop is unnecessary because they are just words and not full sentence.") was reverted[27] by @Hotwiki on the basis of "its fine to add a period in table descriptions, especially the other descriptions have a period in them. We aren't to edit war with these simple changes, are we?". Lastly, he kept reverting[28][29][30][31] changes regarding some sentences in Subtitute X-Men teams section and only stopped until these edits[32][33] were made on the basis of "Fixing basic grammatical errors, double check before making any edits to it" and "Adding extra and suitable information won't hurt (Like the big ones added in the X-Force and X-Club)" respectively.
• 3: (WP:OWN) One of the most interesting edit was done here[34] by @Hotwiki on the basis of "No need to state the obvious". He later himself made an edit[35] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of "fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as "Muir Island X-Men" thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute".
• 4: (WP:OWN, WP:CON) @Hotwiki made this edit[36] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of "Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well" but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.
• 5: (WP:OWN, WP:OVERCITE) An IP user added[37] months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit[38] on the basis of "Not all of those months are referenced." I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition[39] of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill.
• 6: (WP:OWN, WP:RS) @Hotwiki agreed to one thing from above point that List of X-Men members page is not the list of names of members of X-Men when @Sewnbegun added[40][41][42] references to full names. You can clearly see that many of the names just had references added but some had changes made to them on the basis of those sources. Eventually those changes were also reverted[43] whole by him on the basis of "Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters". The question also arises why reverting those name which are clearly well sourced? because in fact these "sourced reverted names" were the only names not picked by from Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members. which was in consensus - You can confirm it by checking these edits[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] if you have time.
• 7: (WP:OWN, WP:CON) @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits[60][61] regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of "Revert unnecessary changing of order" and "Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes." This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[62] but it was again reverted[63] on the basis of "Still no talkpage consensus" but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against).
  • 7.2: I wasn't going to mention above point since I think editors should wait for few days before making changes "as per talk page", but I did it to show you the more of the authoritative attitudes of Hotwiki as the same situation as above happened in this discussion Dark X-Men (2023) & Woofer. 2 were in favour (@Storm1221 and @Hotwiki) and 1 against (ToshiroIto7). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teedbunny (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You must notify users you are reporting on. Says so at the top of the page. Paradoctor (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I already did. Thank you! Teedbunny (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Gone in 60 seconds, eh? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

See it again please. Teedbunny (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Uh, I already did. Therefore the reference. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand the reference but should I notify all the users mentioned or the only user reported on? Teedbunny (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors whose conduct is being discussed here should be notified of such. Remsense诉 15:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me mention that There were TWO editors who were making drastic changes in the article. User:Ringardiumleviossa and User:Sewnbegun. Both are now blocked due to sockpuppetry and apparently they are connected. There's recently unusual activity from IP users who are making a ton of changes. These are already discussed in the talkpage of the article. I'm surprised that Teedbunny is bringing this up now? I'm not the one who reverted your most recent edit in the article. And Sewnbegun who I reported for sockpuppetry yesterday, is finally blocked today. Hotwiki (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ringardiumleviossa and this is how User:Sewnbegun was blocked. How am I taking ownership of the article, when clearly User:Ringardiumleviossa, User:Sewnbegun and a bunch of IP users making their 1st edit on Wikipedia, in the same article - was/were trying to manipulate the outcome of the article by jumping through different Ips/accounts. Hotwiki (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also can Teedbunny simplify what am I being accused here. Yes I reverted edits that were unreferenced. But what unreferenced material in the article did I include in the article?From February to March 2024, there were a lot of drastic changes coming from two editors (who are both apparently involved in a sockpuppetry). There were making so many drastic changes and I've tried my best to discuss everything in the talk page. When I added "names" in the article ([64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]) it was from the article proposal of User:Ringardiumleviossa in the talk page or it was already in the article, I simply repeated names for consistency as several characters are mentioned more than twice. I don't recall anyone from the article, calling me out for unreferenced edits? Hotwiki (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for #5 (An IP user added months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit on the basis of "Not all of those months are referenced." I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill). I asked for references for the months, simply because there were too many months being added, and I was unsure, if those months were accurate anyway. At that time, the article was tagged at the top of the article, for needing more sources. Hotwiki (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for #7. ( @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of "Revert unnecessary changing of order" and "Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes." This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[290] but it was again reverted[291] on the basis of "Still no talkpage consensus" but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against). How is there already a consensus? beside me and Sewnbegun. The only editor that made another comment in the talkpage was Teedbunny. The IP user who originally made the changed - is a suspected sockpuppetry that is connected to Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun. I was waiting for more editors to make a comment, (not just one editor). Sewnbegun reverted it again right after Teedbunny posted a comment, like as if Teedbunny made a consensus for the article. And I just didn't see it as a consensus yet.Hotwiki (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for #4 (4: @Hotwiki made this edit[264] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of "Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well" but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.). What is the problem with that? Plenty of different editors in the past, have been bolding name of characters indicating that they are current members of the X-Men- without leaving a reference/citation for verification. I even addressed about this in the talkpage in its own section.[80] Hotwiki (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for 3 (One of the most interesting edit was done here[263] by @Hotwiki on the basis of "No need to state the obvious". He later himself made an edit[264] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of "fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as "Muir Island X-Men" thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute".) I don't see the issue of me adding the X-Men in section titles, and it was a non-issue if I remember correctly. Hotwiki (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, one more thing. List of X-Men members is now protected from persistent sockpuppetry until April 26, 2024. For those who are just seeing this, I hope you are aware of the sockpuppetry going on in that article in the last two months. I've done my best to cooperate with User:Ringardiumleviossa and User:Sewnbegun via talkpage of that article, even if both of them turned out to be the same person, that was also jumping through several IPs, in order to manipulate the outcome of that article. Hotwiki (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Teedbunny: how am I being called out here in ANI, yet you didn't mention the sockpuppetry suspicions towards @Sewnbegun: especially if you read the talkpage of that article. Hotwiki (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for 7, I stated it I think editors should wait for some more to get more editors to respond. You said " I just didn't see it as a consensus yet" because only two voted for it and one, who were you didn't. I must also point out why you didn't any see any consensus over Dark X-Men (2023) & Woofer here when clearly there were two in favour (including you) and 1 against? Reverts[81][82][83] were kept being done as per this discussion. Teedbunny (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not all your reverts were unreferenced. There were many names which were perfectly sourced that were removed. Teedbunny (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope you don't ignore the fact that in the last two months I was dealing with 2 registered editors (Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun) and several IP users involved with sockpuppetry, in that 1 article. If you have read the entire talk page, you would know I have tried my best to keep my cool and worked with those editors as much as I could, especially with Sewnbegun despite my suspicions of them being the same person which turned out to be right. Hotwiki (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also may I add, Sewnbegun was adding "references" to content that wasn't being challenged/questioned in the first place. No one was asking in that article for the name of Professor X, to be added by reference as his name was already in the article for more than ten years. As I explained in that article, a reference for the date/issue of membership was already enough. Hotwiki (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about the changes based on sources like for example see Magneto's name. Teedbunny (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed that and prepared another report on him, but beat me ahead by doing sockpuppet investigation yesterday. I also noticed the above points I mentioned in this report regarding you too. Teedbunny (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, you could have easily adressed this in the talkpage of that article or in my talkpage first, rather directly going to ANI. I haven't encountered you directly in the past, so this ANI report is comingoff as a surprise. Hotwiki (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is that article a prime example of why WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are rules? Looking through the talk page, I see a great deal of debating what constitutes a real X-men member. If reliable secondary sources verify, then the debate could be settled by citing them. If no such sources exist, I question how such a list fits in with the rest of Wikipedia.

In any case, while I agree that Hotwiki can come off as having slight WP:OWN leanings, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of sanction, and I also note that I cannot find a discussion from Teedbunny attempting to address this on Hotwiki's talk page. Also, this very long report doesn't make it easy to see at-a-glance what policies or guidelines Hotwiki is alleged to have broken, other than WP:OWN, which seems to me to be a weak claim. Rather, everyone seems to be operating in good faith, and so this situation seems like a good candidate for dispute resolution, not administrative intervention. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck, please just read the last point (7 and 7.2) carefully. Teedbunny (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Having reread both 7 and 7.2, I continue to see no wrongdoing. There doesn't seem to be a consensus; there's Hotwiki who discussed at length their opinion, a sockpuppeteer whose opinion is rightly discounted, and you with a single comment. Attempting to make the change once with per talk page is well within WP:BRD. Hotwiki reverting is likewise part of BRD. Frankly, even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions, consensus is not a vote count. If there's still disagreement, perhaps posting a neutrally worded request to a related wikiproject would get a broader base of opinions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I know this report is long which was the Main reason why I reported this to administrators.

• Along with WP:OWN @Hotwiki has also possibly broken these:
  • WP:RS for point 1.
    • Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis WP:RS - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[84].
  • MOS:GRAMMAR for point 2.
  • WP:CON for points 4 (no consensus at that time at all but still edits were made) and 7.
    • While for point 7 why reverts[85][86][87] were made on the basis of this discussion even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions?
  • WP:OWN leading indirect WP:OVERCITE for point 5 which too only primary sources (detailed reason is given above).

Teedbunny (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you're expending so much effort on digging up months-old edits when you could try talking it out with Hotwiki. In any case, responding to your points...

• Point 1: While I agree this shows Hotwiki leaning towards OWN behavior, I disagree that this represents a serious breach of WP:RS. Sometimes people fail to include a source. It happens. I've done it. Tag it and move on. The example you gave directly above likewise seems to be avoiding the WP:OVERCITE you mention later on. Maybe it'd be better with two references, maybe not, but that's a content dispute, not a behavioral one.
• Point 2: MOS:GRAMMAR: Hotwiki's edits there seem to me to support the MOS, and were therefore justified.
• Point 4: That's not violating consensus. I read that as Hotwiki pointing to the talk page for their reasoning. Again, part of WP:BRD.
• Point 5: I see no consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of all those sources. And again, I'm curious what you're looking for: In Point 1, you criticize Hotwiki for removing unnecessary material, but here you object to them leading to more references. I'd be okay with either, but you can't have it both ways.
• Point 7: Not being Hotiwki, I won't speculate as to why the reverts were made. I will say that, glancing over that discussion, there were indeed 3 editors in good standing, with 2 opposed, 1 in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, Hotwiki alluded to WP:NODEADLINE, which is a policy-based argument of "Let's wait and see before we add it." I may be misunderstanding (this isn't my field) but even if that was against consensus, one violation seven months ago does not demonstrate ongoing disruption.

Teedbunny, I'll be frank. In my view, there is no demonstration of any ongoing disruption. I strongly recommend you try talking to Hotwiki if their behavior is suboptimal, or otherwise following WP:DR. I also submit that it will be far easier than continuing this thread. Your reliance on tenuous or dated evidence makes this seem more like a grudge, which could lead to a WP:BOOMERANG if it continues. You seem passionate about this topic, so I hope you'll direct your energies to improving the encyclopedia; spending them at ANI would not seem to be be a productive use of your time. I've said enough in this thread, and will bow out and await other editors' input. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take in consideration in the future. Teedbunny (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to second EducatedRedneck that this doesn't seem to be an urgent issue immediately requiring administrator intervention. Q ^{T C} 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Issues should be discussed on the talk page before they're brought to ANI. This page isn't for disagreements on sourcing or reverts you don't like. The exception is that it is disruptive to revert if your only reason is that the previous version is "stable" or that someone didn't ask for consensus in advance. Removing unreferenced content is allowed, and best practice is not to add anything unless it's accompanied by a secondary source. Sock edits can always be reverted without question after the editor is conclusively determined to be a sock, although they're no longer subject to indiscriminate reverting if another editor restores the edit. Finally, the entries should not be based on comic book references per WP:PRIMARY policy #5: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Editing to preserve a policy violation can be disruptive, but it should be discussed before we call it disruptive. I second everything that EducatedRedneck said in their initial response above. This should probably be closed so the issue can be discussed on the talk page, and this doesn't need to be an ANI complaint unless discussion fails and disruptive behaviors continue afterward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, do the list of X-Men members need more reliable secondary sources? Teedbunny (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Mann Mann's vandalism on Central Asia

I gave Mann Mann his first warning in edit history, second warning in my own user chat history, third warning on his own page. I noticed an entry that said Central Asia were predominantly Iranian before the 10th century. In the reference, this was a claim made by Ferdowsi in Shahnameh and only valid south of Amu Darya(disputed if it is even in Central Asia.) So I fixed that. That's the reference keeps trying to revert back to, it is from Ferdowsi in the reference and only refers to south of Amu Darya, not ALL of Central Asia. I added my own contributions towards Botai Culture and Tiele people. Mann Mann just keeps vandalizing ALL of my well-referenced edits by reverting. He should be at least banned from Central Asia and other related pages. TheLastUbykh (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, see the discussion on the Help Desk. [88] TheLastUbykh has already been asked to read WP:VANDAL, and to discuss the matter on the article talk page, apparently to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I already started a talk in regarding that source by Ferdowsi. That should resolve that part.

This is also about Mann Mann's vandalism of my other edits in that page. He down righted deleted my contributions in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele.

"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. " TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheLastUbykh, you started a discussion (not a good faith discussion, but at least you started one) at Talk:Central Asia, then immediately restored the disputed content, posted at Help Desk, posted a warning at User talk:Mann Mann, then opened this thread, as well as repeating it at WP:AIV and User talk: Michael D. Turnbull. Mann Mann hasn't even edited since you started the discussion on the article talk page; you need to wait and give other editors time to respond before escalating matters so rapidly. (By the way, "warnings" in edit summaries are meaningless.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Look, I just did what he did. He didn't start a talk in regarding my edits either.

And unlike him, I am new to this and went to help desk to proceed. I don't see how that's not in good faith. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheLastUbykh, wait for Mann Mann to respond at the article talk page and work out the content dispute there. Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheLastUbykh, you also failed to notify Mann Mann of this discussion. Please go to the top of this page, read the large banner, and follow its instructions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I did leave a message to his username talk page. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheLastUbykh, read the red banner at the top of the page. Follow those instructions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And I did that after reading your first post. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

When you said you'd left a message on Mann Mann's talk page, you had, but not the proper ANI notification. You posted that to their talk page at the same time that I repeated the statement about the instructions at the top of the page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The OP had discussed this topic earlier at the help desk, and I haven't been impressed with how they've been navigating the problem. What started off as a content dispute over the reliability of some sources soon devolved into an accusation of vandalism against Mann Mann, but looking at some of the target's relevant edits, such as this one as well as this one, they were concerned about possible original research and other policy contraventions, something that is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

there is no original research, shahnameh by ferdowsi is the original historical document for the claim. keep going back to references between arabic and western researchers after 10th century, it keeps going back to this 'historical' document. the references they use, goes back to those same arabic and western researchers with this claim of Central Asia being Iranian majority. What we discuss is that Iranian languages eventually replaced Chinese as the franca lingua due to trade. And that they were Iranian-speaking, not Iranian majority besides lands south of Amu Darya, which I included in my edit that would include Sogdians.

this was an easy discussion on a classroom setting but I don't have my phd(or a phd) to easily recognize to all these sources. so the time strain keeps getting bigger than the scope I initially thought it would be so I am questioning my commitment level at this point. I might add those to the talk page and wash my own hands off until someone nerdier comes along.

anyways, there is no reason still for the removal of my Botai and Tiele contributions. that I considered a vandalism. he didn't just dispute those parts but removed my contributions unrelated to Ferdowsi. TheLastUbykh (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not our own conclusions. You added info under citations that did not support it. This is still WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

there is no personal conclusions, only a question of use of primary or secondary sources. secondary resources in academia, especially when those secondary resources use references that were secondary resources themselves from a time with less academic integrity.

again, this claim goes back to shahnameh, through following the references and going back to other articles and books published in 19th and 20th century that use shahnameh as a reference to try to push this claim.

shahnameh is the primary source. the main historical document of this long-standing and wrong claim, that has no prior basis before 10th century and contradicts earlier Chinese historical records that are also primary sources. period. this is what we study in our eastern asian studies departments. it is "paris is the capital of France" in the current mainstream Academic consensus. TheLastUbykh (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You're proving my point. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment Besides personal attacks, TheLastUbykh is also misusing sources per [89]. You don't need to know the Wiki rules to know that misusing sources is bad. WP:OUCH? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My reverts on Central Asia were justified. In the first revert, I restored the most clean/acceptable revision before the mess (including your edits). I did not restore my revision and I even restored the correct contribution that I reverted.[90][91] In the second revert, my mistake was not writing a better edit summary to convince you taking your concerns to Talk:Central Asia, but the revert itself was the right decision. On the other hand, you started edit warring[92] and launched a crusade/quest by calling me vandal.[93][94][95] You even used log-in/log-out method (editing as IP) to push your edits[96] and targeting me.[97] Was I harsh? Maybe. But your contributions show some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also, your report and your comments are just WP:BOOMERANG. Yeah, I was a vandal since August 2012[98] that you discovered me. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't edit/patrol Central Asia for a while because I'm not interested in working with someone who doesn't even know how to open a discussion without harassment and personal attack. I let other editors reach a consensus. --Mann Mann (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm very concerned that TheLastUbykh is trying to justify their edits, which means they will likely do it again, and thus get reported to ANI again. In these type of topics, we commonly have new users who make some sort of disruption and get blocked. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks at User talk:Anant-morgan

User:Anant-morgan continues making personal attacks following a block [99]. Please remove talk page access. JimRenge (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I heavily agree. They literally flipped Doug off after he blocked them. I honestly feel pretty bad for him. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, Ingenuity resolved our problems. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that Are you restarted or something? isn't what A-m meant. Narky Blert (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Molarinoye09

Molarinoye09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since September 2023, Molarinoye09 has been disrupting Take That related articles by introducing unsourced material, or creating articles and using sources from Instagram, which aren't enough to go about on. When the article gets redirected due to WP:NSONG, or if a link is removed due to said article being redirected like these articles here, and here, they revert back and sometimes respond with "Don't do something bad." or "leave this article alone!" and has even got to even posting those on the article talk pages of those redirects, as well as stating "This is an article, not a redirect." which also suggests WP:OWN issues. They have been previously warned multiple times, but they have continued to ignore them as if the policies of Wikipedia do not apply to them, though they did state that they "would not be blocked" when they were warned about missing copyright and/or source information for images they upload. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Their behavior to date unsuitable on multiple grounds--uploading fair use images without appropriate justifications, poor quality articles, bad sourcing. This, created today, is obviously unsuited for mainspace. If this continues they're getting blocked, but I'd like to hear from them first. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

...aaand within 35 minutes of You and Me (Take That single) being redirected to the band (09:26), they're back again with Draft:You and Me (Take That song) (09:59). Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely no response to the ANI notice either. I think they are refusing to communicate. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Double check me on this, but based on the timestamps I don't believe they've edited since this discussion opened. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I created the page for the band's new album back in September, and I've been chasing after them and trying to fix their, to be frank, pretty poor edits. They are constantly trying to make new pages for singles which might not need them, and even when they're in draft form, add links to them on the actual wiki. You can see this on some of the edits they did to the page for Wonderland. I've helped out a little with these pages to make them a little more justifiable to exist, but even then they are purely stubs which are just on the cusp of notability.

Another thing I've had to deal with them (which I find particularly annoying) is they stole the description on my profile page, changed "The Beatles" to "One Direction", replaced my name with their own and did nothing else. It does make it funny therefore that their profile page claims they are interested in 90/00s electronic music, and have been writing for a wiki about aviation accidents since 2020, when they certainly haven't. But still, it's annoying.

As to whether or not I think they should be banned, I think so, but only for a week at most. This person clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and just telling them doesn't seem to be fixing it, as you mentioned. I think banning them temporarily will show them that they need to listen to us. Tedster41 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on their edits, I would say it would be a longer temporary block than just a week. I don't think a week is going to get them to hear us out, as they'll likely jump back to doing the same edits as before once it expires. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Emrahthehistorist17

This emerges from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes. While the discussion was active on AN, the mass edits to infoboxes stopped albeit with no response of any sort from Emrah. Mere days after it was archived, the mass edits described there promptly started up again. The exact same issues I noted previously which deal with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and use of the |result= in {{infobox military conflict}} immediately recurred.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhus%27_invasion_of_the_Peloponnese&oldid=1128963126&diff=cur (inserting anachronistic infobox flags)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Sparta&diff=1215622745&oldid=1092629126 (inserting fictional and anachronistic infobox flags)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215737268&oldid=1208663331&title=Byzantine%E2%80%93Norman_wars (misunderstanding the article; inserting more flags)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&diff=1216054692&oldid=1213019550 (restoring partially previously reverted edits that misunderstand the article – noting that Asiagenes and not Africanus was the main Roman commander – are inconsistent with use of |result=)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ecbatana&oldid=1199556869&diff=cur (misusing |result=)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_campaigns_in_Germania_(12_BC_%E2%80%93_AD_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1215919875 (misusing |result=)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_Actium&diff=prev&oldid=1216062151 (misusing |result= along with unsourced additions)

There have been multiple attempts to discuss this. I noted five previous attempts in my AN report:

This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done., I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice.

There was absolutely no response to the notification of AN discussion. The only response I am aware of to anything since then was on Emrah's talk page yesterday where he simply responded with a curt Okay, I changed Hannibal and Ligustinus, but don't delete my other additions when factual errors were found. These edits to infoboxes are highly disruptive, especially when Emrah does not seem to understand that infoboxes are supplementary summaries of articles that reflect the contents therein and then misunderstands what is being summarised (as at Roman–Seleucid war). This has been made clear multiple times; to pause these edits while the behaviour was under discussion at AN, be entirely silent contra WP:COMMUNICATE, and then restart them immediately after that discussion at AN was archived, feels akin to a sort of bad-faith gaming and at minimum a WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Ifly6 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Its the same behavior of refusing to read what WP:MOS says and trying to push his views at whatever cost. When some points out that he has introduced an error its either WP:ICANTHEARYOU or making minor modifications that do not solve the underlying problem and then saying: "I changed it, it fine now.".--Catlemur (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:LeeWeathers1986AV reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Disruptive editing; edit warring; uploading logos with no source or licensing info. Initially reported at WP:AIV but rebuffed.

Logo examples: [100] [101] [102]

Reversions of my removal of said logos: [103] [104] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

More sourceless logos: [105] [106] And they're refusing to respond to my warnings on their talk page. I think this user's WP:NOTHERE. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of those logos can be tagged {{PD-textlogo}}. He is overusing the thank function, which is causing friction, so I left him a note about this. PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sak7340

Sak7340 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on Mohammed Zubair (journalist) and is on their 8th revert so far. There is a WP:EWN report but it hasn't been reviewed yet. They've now created a couple of retaliatory and incomplete reports there on DaxServer [107] and myself [108]. There is a discussion on the article talk page, but it's going nowhere fast. I'm hoping this will get some faster attention as they've continued the disruptive editing after all of the warnings and the original EWN report. Ravensfire (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The edits are a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sak7340 has been blocked by ToBeFree for two weeks and the article ECP'd for a while. Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Needs extending to indefinite, and talk page access removing, in my opinion: see this: [109] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've increased to indefinite. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

New attack account harassing GuardianH

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.

---

Special:Contributions/Iamguardiansguardian is a new attack account harassing @GuardianH:. They have made 4 posts so far.^diff Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Single-purpose account devoted to attacking GuardianH identified similar accounts as socks of Korensho.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 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.

Block request

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 somebody please block this IP? Special:Contributions/170.231.85.132 Petty vandalism adding fake death dates to BLPs. Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There's someone in Brazil who does this frequently, using various IPs. Just revert/warn, revert/warn, report to WP:AIV. Schazjmd (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

And they're blocked. Thanks, @Jauerback:! Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 29 March 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 talk:KVixen NOTHERE and legal threat.

KVixen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been told repeatedly that he can not use Wikipedia for promotion. He accuses us of discrimination and harassment, threatening legal action for targeting him. I'll add difs as I go. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This sparkling gem sums things up nicely-- Wikipedia:Discrimination noticeboard. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

He sent me a email and told me "Do not target me again", which i never did. It was posted on my talk page. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

They were just blocked from editing. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:KVixen and User:KVixen were promotional content deleted. much to his chagrin -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(ecx4) I've blocked indef as they were clearly here to self promote. Seriously can you let me get a word in edgewise? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, in that case, just a pair of panties -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Logosx127 must be WP:NOTHERE

For several days, this Wikipedian has made some contributions which necessitated reaching a consensus for Eastern Catholic Churches-related articles, especially the Syro-Malabar Church article and talk page. That conversation was then brought to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Is_the_Catholic_Church_a_single_denomination_or_a_communion_of_24?, and it has lasted for days on end again. After the involvement of multiple parties disagreeing with their contributions and seeming rejection of notice given User_talk:Logosx127&diff=prev&oldid=1214852164 here, and then the lack of consensus, they opted to continue their contributions claiming a consensus had been reached. Now, discussion is at a stalemate with Logos themselves seemingly verbatimly disregarding the arguments against their desired overhaul of edits. With their latest responses, it also appears that they might just be WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but WP:ADVOCATE. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

When there are arbitrary corrections to articles, how is it wrong to question them in the discussion? How is questioning and taking a strong position in a talkpage pointing out a very clear and obvious contradiction be considered wrong? That too, especially when other editors are agreeing with me and clearly recognising the issues as in here. About the issue with the claim of consensus, it was actually another editor who initiated the claim of consensus as seen here [110][111][112][113] and many more. Since they were the original user involved in the dispute with me, I agreed with them. I too tried to implement it, even though it was against my position, believing that the consensus was created against my position. How'd that be considered advocacy? When you make such accusations like nothere about me despite all my recent edits being there at various talkpages, please also explain the rationale. Because the only rationale I find behind is an urge for harassment. Logosx127 (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, forgive my ignorance on that part of their consensus claim. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

For more details, you may please have a look at this response that I gave to Lion there. I have answered more of their allegations there. I think copying all of it here will be boring for the adminstrators as well as me. Logosx127 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

To offer my two cents: With TheLionHasSeen, I participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, trying to offer several possible solutions to the ambiguities/confusions that Logosx127 (and seemingly only Logosx127) believes are present in Wikipedia's coverage of particular pages. The solutions I presented didn't seem to satisfy the concerned editor. I'm not sure about WP:NOTHERE, but I am concerned that the whole thing ballooned into a very long, timesinking discussion when this is, in my view, all possibly resolved by any editor taking the time and making the effort to add one or two sourced sentences. As the only editor who seems to believe that the pages affected currently present ambiguity/confusion, the rather obvious question is why Logosx127 didn't do this themselves. I was also concerned that Logosx127's discussion seemed to have two prongs which are impossible to reconcile: on one prong, we need to clarify ambiguities/confusions; on the other prong, the only correct interpretation of the ambiguity is their own with no possibility of nuance. My instinct is it might just be a good-faith but counterproductive zeal against any possible ambiguities/confusions that does not square nicely with nuances and reasonable interpretations, rather than WP:NOTHERE. But this is only based off our discussion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I also participated in the aforementioned discussion, and I concur entirely with IgnatiusofLondon's interpretation. I think Logosx127 sees a problem and is trying to fix it; whether there actually is a problem to fix is being debated. There are issues here, but NOTHERE and ADVOCATE are not the ones. Smdjcl (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Logosx127 is a stubborn editor who occasionally intentionally pushes the edit warring limit and sometimes is unwilling to concede to consensus, but they seem to be genuinely here to build an encyclopedia and lobbied hard to have their editing privileges restored. Especially considering that I rose the matter with admins who looked into Logosx127's editing history and found no serious misconduct, I'm inclined against any sanctions at this time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, after reading these observations, I have to admit that I would like to not be inclined against any sanctions either at this time. From seeing others' input here, I see that it is merely zeal, even though it seems to be coming off also as hardcore zealotry. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti what might be an alternative if they continue to push the edit warring limit however and is unwilling to concede to consensus? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your comments are contradictory. Initially you said there is no consensus, now you are claiming that there is. Logosx127 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is a consensus, it's that no one here agrees with you, and I will not engage in another edit war with you on Oriental Orthodox Churches. This is becoming enough, and I am beginning to wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is also a consensus, it is that on the lists of Christian denominations by category and membership, no one desires to remove the Eastern Catholic Churches completely by your measured understanding. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti, @IgnatiusofLondon, and @Smdjcl, I am growing tired of this continually being dragged. It came to the point of me putting a warning notice on their talk page, but I reverted and recanted publishing it because it would have done no good. Now, they have come on my talk page copying what I did. I reverse my request of no sanctions, and request a hammer. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been continuously disregarding the article talk page and the reliable sources at Oriental Orthodox churches. Now you are disregarding your own words and is edit warring by removing sourced content. At this point I must certainly respond to this mocking wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others?: Well I am not here to war, my policy is WP:NPOV. Some editors tend to attack me when they believe I am a threat to their POV. In the specific case of Eastern Catholic Churches, it is their catholic pov. I find it very ridiculous considering the fact I am myself a Catholic too. Logosx127 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the edit warring going on right now, I'd say you both need blocked from editing the article for a while, and need to hash it out on the Talk page. Follow the Dispute Resolution process.

That said, Logosx, templating in retaliation is not a good idea per WP:POINT. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I am withholding myself from any contribution regarding this, because while they might not care, I do care that I am not blocked and would like to exemplify the character of one who doesn't desire a blocking, @HandThatFeeds. I do however choose to ignore their retaliatory report, when they could have easily been reported for edit warring before, but again, I digress as I refuse to have that permanent record on my account. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, in my own defense, I withheld responding on the talk page because it seemed that you, @Logosx127, did not understand that the source was not removed whatsoever, as you have disregarded it seems before with other discussions which became prolonged. The information was restored back to its form before any of these issues ensued. The information in the versions has been sourced prior to your contribution, and then properly sourced thereafter. I am now more confused than ever. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, must be inevitable anyway since they opted to report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring after all of this. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait a minute? Isn't there a discrepancy with that edit warring report? I reverted them 3 times on that article today, once on yesterday (the 27th), and then twice on the 24th? I did not go beyond the 3RR warning. Oh well, as I said, I'm not trying to take any bait and be blocked by responding to retaliation and as others stated, zealotry (not me, though later affirming). - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring does not specifically require violating WP:3RR. And frankly, Logosx reporting that while there's an ongoing discussion here smacks of WP:FORUMSHOP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for enlightening me lol. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no forum shopping here. It is related to a different issue altogether. Here we are discussing about the dispute at the Eastern Catholic Churches and related articles and there is no edit warring in this case. I have purposefully distanced myself from editting articles in this case. I have been mostly editting only in the talk pages for a while. But there, at Oriental Orthodox churches, it is a totally different scenario. Lion is disregarding the talk page and opinion of other users and is actively edit warring. In my report, there is a reference to this report too. Meanwhile I have temporarily stopped editting in that particular article too as I am fed up of this. Logosx127 (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the same issue, you and LionHasSeen in an editing dispute. Hence forum shopping. It should've been handled here, rather than splitting up the admin actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Logosx127, your behavior across multiple articles and discussions has been an issue. Not to a degree that merits a block or any formal sanction, but just that you should probably avoid pushing the edit warring limit, avoid forum shopping (this is the second time recently), and be far more willing to concede to consensuses you don't like. You're making good contributions in other contexts, though, and your new article on the Indian Christian schism deserves high praise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If I were to edit war, I wouldn't have any time left to do anything constructive. But I've been distancing myself from disputed articles. It's not because of any change of mind but I really don't have much time to waste in reverting back and forth and I find it ridiculous to do so. Logosx127 (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You say that, but are starting another one again with Oriental Orthodox Churches, again? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

sigh So you're both still in an editing dispute with each other. At this point, I don't care who is right, both of you need to knock it off and follow dispute resolution or you're both going to wind up topic-banned (or just blocked). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We've come to a compromise earlier; I forgot to simply remove my comment. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, I thought to merely keep the peace even after they've written their prior statement; I let their revision stood, but corrected some much needed grammatical adjustments which could have been brought about as their contributions happens from a mobile device. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:136.57.150.89 keeps making disruptive edits & continually reverting edits without reason

User:136.57.150.89 is making edits which may or may not be disruptive. They are making edits without giving a reason, then when another users reverts their edits they decide to re-revert back to the edit they made. In they pass they’ve made it clear that they don’t like their edits getting revert without discussing with the user that reverted their edit in order to get to a conclusion that everyone can be satisfied with. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Said editor has been clearly edit warring at WGBH-TV, making the same deletion four times over the course of a day and a half, with the first three each undone by a different editor (the fourth is not yet undone.) User talk:136.57.150.89 shows a history of problematic behavior over the last few months. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IP user has also been disruptive at User talk:Dipper Dalmatian, repeatedly reverting DD's WP:BLANKING of material that IP has added (which in itself are mere inappropriate demands that DD not revert his other edits.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, side note, said user started to harass me over reverting their edits. Even re-reverting the angered messages they left on my talk page after I reverted them. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked. I've blocked the IP for a week. Bishonen | tålk 17:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC).

Altay S.K. and Karşıyaka S.K. battleground behaviour

Can I get a second (or more) set of eyes on the above.

We've got an ongoing dispute between Delbatros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and various IP user(s). The crux of the matter appears to be of all things a logo/jersey design. Neither the IP(s) nor the registered editor is behaving particularly well and has resorted to edit warring and personal attacks towards each other, to add to the mix theres (potential) copyright concerns which dont appear valid false accusations of vandalism and definite ownership problems.

Delbatros was blocked for edit-warring already and the Karşıyaka S.K. page semi-protected to try to resolve the dispute, the issue now appears to have migrated to Altay S.K. with similar behaviours from all involved, to prevent more damage at this point i've partially blocked Delbatros from the page and semi-protected it to prevent either user from further disruption.

We do need a long term solution to this though and given the amount of action I've already done I'd appreciate wider opinions/assistance. Amortias (T)(C) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As an aside the IP's appear to be too variable to realistically target/notify a single page so I haven't notified any of the IP editors but they seem to be quite good at locating posts related to Delbatros. If anyone can think of a good way of notifying them please let me know for future reference. Amortias (T)(C) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit the pages of Turkish clubs in other languages ​​as well. I'm not making any wrong changes, I'm not vandalizing, I'm not a malicious user, I know Wikipedia rules, I'm just annoyed that the anonymous user (I know he has an existing wikipedia account) is following me with a different IP because he is wrong interfering with all my positive contributions. I started a new project to keep the jerseys of various branches of Turkish sports clubs up to date on other Wikipedias. We will design the jerseys with the support of relevant users, we will update the Wikipedia pages in other languages ​​of the relevant participants and branches of our sports clubs. (I will update most of the pages) Delbatros^Talk 08:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you'll only be updating them if they're correct. The IP, however, is correct regarding the away colours of Karşıyaka S.K. [114] Image from a match from 25 February. If you look at the version you have inserted, that can't be an away design because it's almost exactly the same as the home one. Google also suggests that neither of you are correct on the home shirts, they currently appear to be green/red halves [115] image from 24 March on the official FB page. As regards Altay S.K., Adidas do appear to be their shirt manufacturers, so the IP appears to be correct there Altay's official kit store though you appear to be correct on the kit colours (except that the away and third shirts should possibly be swapped). As regards behaviour, even if you were correct your behaviour on 16 March on Karşıyaka S.K. deserved a block (22 reverts!!) and you made 7 reverts today on Altay S.K. which deserved one as well, and I would be doing so if another admin hadn't partially blocked you. I suggest that this behaviour stops right away or you will find your ability to edit severely curtailed. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A person who does not know what communication means, who only wants me to be blocked indefinitely, who does not dare to intervene or communicate with his own Wikipedia account (the same user who follows me with different IP numbers and tries to interfere with my contributions every time), is enough not to interfere with my contributions. You mentioned the jerseys of two clubs. Unfortunately, the current season jerseys of both clubs are not available on Wikipedia. I said that there is no harm in having the previous jerseys on the Altay SK page temporarily, and I say it again (the same jerseys are available on other Wikipedia pages). I cannot get rid of this anonymous user, I have to complain to the administrators about every intervention he makes against my positive contributions, but I do not want this because I do not want the administrators to waste their time. I think there is no harm in having the previous jersey on the page temporarily until we add the new jerseys. Delbatros^Talk 11:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Er, no. Let's be clear about this. You removed a correct jersey that the IP had edited (and edit-warred multiple times to do it), and you also edit-warred to insert an incorrect edit that a club's jerseys were made by Nike, when they clearly aren't. If you end up blocked, that is down to your subpar editing, not them. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

S201050066 once more

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357#S201050066 again

Could we get a block on IP 64.229.35.200 (contributions) and S201050066 number 43.3, who posted some angry rant on my talk page? It looks like this user is being disruptive in COVID-19 articles again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Tenryuu all the rest of the Timeline Of The COVID-19 pandemics articles on our list to S201050066 number 43.3 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed by Spicy. Lynch44 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And the IP's been blocked for 7 days by Nthep. ‍ Relativity 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I give thanks to all the admins involved. I don't suppose this is enough to merit semi-protection on COVID-19 timeline articles that S201050066 has edited? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

S201050066 has once again resurfaced as another IP, 142.0.158.174 (contributions). May I ask for a block on this address and once again semi-protection for the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in [month] [year] articles? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have been in touch with S201050066 via social media. He has apologised for his recent behaviour, stating that he and his colleague had been assaulted at work. He wrongfully believed that me and @Tenryuu: were behind the incident and decided to take it out on us and Wikipedia. I told him that we had nothing to do with the unpleasant workplace incident and that it did not justify his behaviour on Wikipedia. I told him to get help from his family or loved ones in the future. Much as S20105066 wants to edit, I think his pattern of behaviour won't endear him to the community. I have told him in the past that he needs to stop living in the past and move beyond Wikipedia. Hopefully there is a pathway for him to return to Wikipedia but I agree thay now is not the right time. Andykatib 21:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The course of action leading to vandalising an online website because of an unrelated real-life assault is profoundly baffling. Andykatib (who has been pretty nice over everything that's happened) and I do not own the COVID-19 timeline articles; any detrimental edits to those pages affects anyone who reads or has them on their watchlist. Even if an assault is what spurned the sudden influx of edits, that doesn't excuse non-sequitur outbursts like "if you try to revert us again we will sue wikipedia" and "stop reverting our edits or we will file a 20 billion dollar lawsuit on wikipedia". I will not consider those to be legitimate legal threats given the user's history, but I strongly suggest that S201050066 seeks appropriate legal recourse through proper channels to address the incident in real life, not annoy uninvolved people over the Internet who might not even be living in the same country. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back in touch @Tenryuu:, I agree with your points. S201050066’s online behaviour including edit warring and making legal and personal threats are unacceptable behaviour akin to a toddler throwing a tantrum after not getting what they want. It may help for Wikipedia users to know that S201050066 has autism, which can affect his thought patterns, rationalisation and behaviour. I am speaking as someone who has Asperger's syndrome and has a brother with high-functioning autism. I am not trying to excuse S201050066 actions but I think this information may be helpful for understanding his behaviour. Autistic and Asperger’s people can manage their thinking and behaviour, just like other neurodiverse and people with disabilities. Since s201050066 is prone to intermittent outbursts which leads to his misbehaviour on Wikipedia, I agree that it’s not in the best interests of the community and himself not to let him edit as long as he continues to persist with edit warring and harassment. Andykatib (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus and "Failed verification"

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.

---

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

Apologies in advance for the wall of text, but this is mainly due to having to outline and explain a list of concerning edits. NoonIcarus has inaccurately cited "failed verification" in an apparent effort to remove information from the project. This was addressed before by Mbinebri in the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article talk page, who said "In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate". More recently, I have noticed NoonIcarus performing this similar edit (and engaging in an edit war) to remove information about leftists being tortured during a former Venezuelan government, arguing that this was not presented in sources. Well, this information is from the New York Amsterdam News article cited, where the paper writes "Posada worked as an official in Venezuela's DISIP ... where he participated in the torture of left-wing activists". So, instead of NoonIcarus actually not having access to information to "verify" source content, it appears that they are intentionally ignoring source content in order to maintain a particular POV on the project.

After noticing this repetitive behavior, I reviewed NoonIcarus' similar "failed verification" edits, recognizing inconsistencies:

• Carlos Vecchio: NoonIcarus removes information about Vecchio working for ExxonMobil, saying it "failed verification." However, on page 38 of Libres: el nacimiento de una nueva Venezuela, Vecchio writes "Trabajo entonces en Mobil de Venezuela, la empresa petrolera, estaba ganando seis veces más de lo que ganada en PDVSA," ("I then worked at Mobil de Venezuela, the oil company, I was earning six times more than what I earned at PDVSA", showing that he clearly worked for ExxonMobil. This may be an attempt to hide that a high-level Venezuelan opposition leader previously worked for an American company, which is controversial in Venezuelan politics.
• 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum: NoonIcarus removes information about the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies working with the Venezuelan opposition during the election, citing "Failed verification, dead links". Strangely, these Stratfor articles were taken down after I added them to the election article, however they are still present in Google searches (as of now, though I took screenshots if necessary) and the article in particular can be seen mostly intact in this random 2007 forum. And here. Edit: Links should work now. Thanks!--WMrapids (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies: NoonIcarus tags "CANVAS is funded by primarily American organizations" as "Failed verification". However, if you look at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article about the Venezuelan opposition's links to CANVAS, it says "Canvas wird wesentlich von amerikanischen Organisationen finanziert" ("Canvas is largely funded by American organizations"), showing that this can be verified.
• Venezuelan opposition: NoonIcarus removed information about CANVAS training members of the Venezuelan opposition, saying "Failed verification. This information comes from a 2012 WikiLeaks piece". This is entirely inaccurate and a falsehood as this information is sourced from Stratfor, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Le Monde diplomatique, with these sources not citing Wikileaks at all.
• Guarimba: NoonIcarus tagged the sentence "Oxford Analytica wrote that half of the protest deaths resulted at barricades" as "Failed verification". In the cited article, it clearly states "an estimated half of those killed losing their lives at opposition barricades".
• Guarimba 2: NoonIcarus says "Failed verification" about the sentence "Many families were confined to their homes as a result of guarimbas and in turn, children were prevented from attending school and individuals were unable to receive medical care." The source, the notable Venezuelan historian Margarita López Maya writes "Las protestas, conocidas como el «guarimbazo», ... [resultaron con el] confinamiento de centenares de familias a sus hogares por los cierres de vía que impidieron llevar a los niños a las escuelas, acudir al trabajo, o llegar a centros de salud." ("The protests, known as the 'guarimbazo', ... [resulted with the] confinement of hundreds of families to their homes due to road closures that prevented them from taking children to schools, going to work, or reaching health centers."
• Guarimba 3: With the sentence "At some guarimbas, protesters rob individuals who criticize the method", NoonIcarus said "Failed verification. Nowhere to be seen in article". The cited article by The Atlantic says "more radical elements of the party take to what’s called guarimba ... MUD supporters have stationed themselves at these ... shaking down people who don’t support the shutdown".
• Protests against Nicolás Maduro: A sentence about opposition protesters attacking a government facility said "President Maduro said the attack forced the evacuation of workers and about 89 children", with NoonIcarus saying that this had "Failed verification, no mention of children". The archived story, however, says "había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno" ("there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen"). One could excuse a potential lack of knowledge about web archiving, but NoonIcarus is very knowledgeable about web archiving when they want to be.

This is just a small review of the last four months of editing by NoonIcarus, so again (see here about the previous inappropriate use of "stable version"), who knows how much they have removed using the "failed verification" method this time. Overall, NoonIcarus' editing behavior makes it clear that they are removing information not based on "failed verification", but for other reasons; most likely related to seeing this information as a bad POV about the Venezuelan opposition. This is further evidence to add to the previous concerns about NoonIcarus not being here to build an encyclopedia. WMrapids (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow. These "failed verification" lies (which is what these are) are so pervasive that unless NoonIcarus has a very good explanation for all of these, I'd go ahead with a site ban. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

All of these edits are recent or recent-ish (2024), and it's apparent from his userpage that NoonIcarus speaks Spanish. NoonIcarus isn't an inexperienced editor. I do find NoonIcarus' position defensible on the 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum; I could imagine that if I saw commentary I found suspicious that was sourced to a dead link, I might tag it with {{fv}}. I also think he's got an arguable case on Guarimba 3 because "shaking down" doesn't necessarily mean "robbing". On the other matters I fully side with WMrapids.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall: There was a URL issue,[116][117] though as I said, the articles were still easily accessible on Google. WMrapids (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your side of it. I just think it's only fair to note that it was a contentious claim sourced to a dead link.—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO the correct solution is to use {{dead link}} for the link not working, and also {{Verify source}} if you have doubts and cannot check the source due to the dead link. Failed verification implies that you checked the source and could not find the claim rather than you could not view the source. Note that the documentation for the failed verification template specifically says you should use dead link instead when the website is unreachable. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

While I didn't see anything in the documentation that I saw that says it's okay to use both the dead link and verify source template, I'd argue it's perfectly fine since they describe two related but separate issues. One is that the link is dead, so someone needs to either fix it in some way. E.g. they could find an archival link. Or alternatively replace it with a working source. Or in some cases if the source doesn't need a link ensure that there is sufficient info in the citation and possibly remove the link. The second issue is that an editor has doubts over the content but couldn't access the source to confirm it one way or the other. So wants someone who does have access to the source to verify it, perhaps providing a quote on the talk page to help or something. This isn't so different from a book or journal the editor doesn't have access to or a paywalled website, except here the problem is a dead link so fixing the dead link and confirming it verifies should be enough. If for whatever reason e.g. an editor gnoming a lot of related dead links doesn't have time to check, they're perfectly fine fixing the dead link, removing the dead link template and leaving the verify source for someone else to deal with perhaps even the editor who added it in the first place when they find the link was fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Using {{dead link}} is the correct option, but Template:Failed verification/doc only mentioned that in the body. I've made a slight change to reflect that in the lede of the documentation. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The main issue with said sources is that their format ([118]) did not show how they were accessed in the first place. There weren't archive links, archive dates or quotes, and if they had been truly accessed just a few days ago they should have been available when I did. I want to leave clear that I oppose removing links for being dead as the only reason, and I have rescued several of these references when I have found the archives. I was unaware about {{Verify source}}, and it looks like an useful tag that I will probably use in the future. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that {{Verify source}} should only be used only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information yourself if you are unable to find it, and still have doubts about its authenticity. You might also be interested in WP:IABOT, which can often repair dead links. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Not trying to bludgeon here, but "good faith" tagging has been a consistent issue for NoonIcarus as well.(1,2,3) @Boynamedsue: even said "All of the in text tags here lacked justification. I am very concerned about Noonicarus… This is the diametric opposite of our actual policy". Just wanted to share this to provide more context. WMrapids (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Response here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thank you kindly, --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Re Carlos Vecchio: The cited book says "Mobil de Venezuela" and in the previous paragraph it suggests that the date was July 1998. Wikipedia's ExxonMobil article says Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil in November 1999. So I think NoonIcarus was correct, the Wikipedia claim that BLP subject Carlos Vecchio worked for ExxonMobil was poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs. Looking at History of ExxonMobil, we do not simply say "Mobil" when discussing the company historically. If we want to be super specific, "Mobil de Venezuela" could have been edited as a redirect (like Mobil de Venezuela), but this still doesn't warrant NoonIcarus' removal of the information entirely. WMrapids (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact Mr Vecchio did work for ExxonMobil a few years later, I was thrown off by your quoting of a passage that is not about that. Although I think the citing could have been more specific I was wrong to say it's poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, The Wordsmith, and Peter Gulutzan: I'm appreciative of you all clarifying the appropriate usage of templates and the source content regarding Mobil (ExxonMobil). But, Mbinebri already warned NoonIcarus about inappropriately using "failed verification", S Marshall notes that NoonIcarus has the experience to have known better and JCW555 suggests a "site ban" since the user appears to be a deliberately removing unwanted information. We have been dealing with NoonIcarus' inappropriate edits for some time now (block deletions and canvassing, edit warring against consensus, activist/battleground edits). So, do any of you have suggestions on how to remedy NoonIcarus' gaming behavior that has continued (especially on Venezuelan topics) for years now? I previously suggested a topic ban, which is less severe than a full "site ban".--WMrapids (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Such suggestions should wait until NoonIcarus has had some time to respond, I think. We normally give users a while to answer.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pre-emptively, I would definitely support a TBAN, because I have watched NoonIcarus's behaviour for a long time, and it is absolutely unacceptable. To be honest, I am suprised they haven't recieved a ban or block of any sort regarding this issue. I fear that they might be one of the unblockables, and that would be a great shame. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@JML1148 The reason this issue is getting little attention from admins is because of how verbose all of the participants are and how this dispute is outside of the knowledge of most people in the west, which is the English Wikipedia's main editor base. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally get the the thing regarding the conduct of the participants. I don't really think the issue is with it being outside the knowledge of most editors, though - there's been a few RfCs with widespread participation including the dispute between NoonIcarus and WMRapids. I definitely think a large number of administrators know about the dispute and the poor conduct involved, but aren't getting involved. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remember where we knew each other from, until I found the request for comment RfC: VENRS, which WMrapids started. If your understanding about my experience as an editor comes mostly from WMrapids, I kindly ask if you have a chance to take a look at the ANI own complaints against WMrapids below. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Currently writing a response to the accusations. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, the allegation is that a user should be blocked for adding "failed verification" tags where other tags are appropriate? Isn't that a sledgehammer/nut response? As people have already shown the first two e examples aren't straightforward, I'm looking at the third example, the Frankfurter Zeitung source on Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies. The tagged reference is as follows: "Generation 2007". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 1 April 2019. There is no link, so impossible for someone to verify without finding the 1 April 2019 edition of FAZ, something I couldn't manage to do easily. It looks like the complainant here has access to the text, as they quote it on this page, so why not just add a hyperlink, or at least give the full quotation and maybe a page number, and remove the tag? Maybe "failed verification" is the wrong tag, but surely the ref doesn't meet our standards of verification and therefore Noonicarus was correct to tag it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Now I'm looking at the fourth example, Venezuelan opposition. Here the sources were removed rather than tagged. All of the removed sources are problematic from a verification point of view: the same FAZ ref without a link, a Monde Diplo article that is paywalled but which in another edit Noonicarus says doesn't mention Venezuela, and Stratfor links which are dead. So it would have been right to tag it. The removal was part of what seems to be quite a lot of back and forth editing with the complainant here inserting very POV material and Noonicarus hastily removing it. Would have been better for both editors to slow down and talk it out, but this is not an example of one user deviously using "failed verification" as framed in the complaint. The fifth example, Guarimba, is a bit like the third: the citation to Oxford Analytica doesn't have a hyperlink so is impossible to verify. The quote is too short to confirm it supports the text. Noonicarus tags it instead of removing it. It should be tagged in some way as it does indeed need more to verify it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) With the sixth example, also from Guarimba, I agree with WMrapids that on the face of it this should not have been removed. Noonicarus' edit summary is "Failed verification. Care should be also be taken, since unreliable government sources are frequently used, such as Venezolana de Televisión and Correo del Orinoco. It's clear that this is not the best source" which doesn't seem to match the content removed, suggesting it may have been a mistake, and WMRapids was right to revert it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) The seventh example, same WP article, was also a bad edit. Possibly Noonicarus searched the source without noticing the paywall half way down but the full article[119] does include the "shakedown" passage. I'd say the removed content was a rather POV rendering of the material, so this may have provoked this excessive response. So far I agree with WMRapids in two out of seven examples. There doesn't seem to be the malignant pattern the complaint implies. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Last one, on the protests. It's true the second source, a dead link, contained text about children, so flagging as need verification or checking the archive would have been better than removal. However, the actual claim in the WP article text doesn't correspond to the sources as comments attributed to Maduro (including about children) weren't made by Maduro. Again, there was bad POV material to which Noonicarus overreacted. So three out of eight edits raised here are problematic, but not in a way that suggests a need to sanctions. Is there an 1RR rule on Venezuela articles? That might be a better solution, to calm down the editing in general. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: I think you might be missing some of the context here. Although whether or not this specific incident warrants sanctions is debatable, according to your analysis, NoonIcarus has a history of POV pushing, incivility and assuming ownership of articles. There is a very long and detailed comment that WMRapids left on a previous ANI incident, found here. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As I explained in my own response to the comment, the problem is that there hasn't been much pushing from my part, but rather from WMrapids. They have aggresively introduced POV in several articles for months now: National_Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services, Venezuelan opposition, Guarimba, 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2019 Venezuelan blackouts, 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2013 Venezuelan municipal elections. Most, if not all, of the recent disputes with WMrapids have resulted from me challenging the POV content and WMrapids' reluctance to change it. As of article ownership, it's enough to point out to articles such as Operation Gideon (2020), Rupununi uprising and Guarimba to show how difficult it has been to make any changes different from the editor's preferred version. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you JML1148. I wasn't aware of that context. Was WMRapids' last complaint supported by the community? It seems to me that WMRapids engages in exactly the same sort of behaviour that NoonIcarus is accused of in these same contentious topic areas, and if NoonIcarus has been a bit quick on the trigger with tagging WMRapids content (which often tends to POV), WMRapids is quick to revert NoonIcarus' edits without establishing consensus. Both of them do engage in discussion on talk pages, but often it is hard to get consensus due to a lack of un-involved editors. I don't think this is a disciplinary matter, and if it is then similar sanctions should apply to WMRapids. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Prequel to some of the tagging mentioned in the allegation above appears to be a request to the OP for info on the sourcing which was responded to rather brusquely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum#Stratfor BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: It looks brusque and rude, but it actually isn't. OP pointed to dead links asking "How did you get the information?" WMRapids replied on 06:36, 12 March 2024 that the links came from Google and corrected the deadlinks four hours later (10:45, 12 March 2024) saying, "No idea how this happened. Links should be fixed." Six hours after the links were corrected (16:32, 12 March 2024), instead of thanking WMRapids for correcting them, OP said, "Rude. It's your responsibility to ensure the verifiability of the content." WMRapids already had, so if anyone was rude, it was NoonIcarus, not WMRapids. One wonders if OP even made a minimal effort to correct the links.

I will give WMRapids the thanks at that discussion that s/he deserved and so the context is clearer for anyone who reads the short back and forth.--David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My message showing how the previous links gave no results in Web Archive should hint enough that I did try to fix the links. WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI. I don't believe that is true. WMRapids fixed the links on 10:45, 12 March 2024 shortly after ActivelyDisinterested explained the link problem on 09:08, 12 March 2024. (Thanks.) From my review of your contributions here at AN/I, your first comment here was 09:58, 13 March 2024--a day after the links were corrected. Please provide a diff showing where you pointed this out at this ANI before WMrapids corrected the link on 10:45, 12 March 2024. Providing a false timeline does not help your case.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: You're right. It was after ActivelyDisinterested told me that I thanked them and fixed the links about ten minutes later. WMrapids (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm striking that specific part since you're correct. My main point stands, though: WMrapids provided this example to falsely accuse me of "ignoring the content", when I showed in my comment that I tried accessing the references and that Web Archive did not provide any results. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: As I said in the opening of this discussion, Mbinebri already warned NoonIcarus that a "failed verification" tag is inappropriate if the user didn't have access to the source. A source does not need a link to be included. Failed verification means that someone had read the source and the content did not match the source. So, no, many of the tags and edit summaries were not "correct" as you suggest and NoonIcarus was deliberately removing information without properly verifying it.

I know that you two have worked pretty closely together on removing some info from United States involvement in regime change. This is where NoonIcarus and I have had a conflict (their frequent removals), but I reached out to them in an effort to avoid edit warring, suggesting that we add to articles and discuss instead of constant removals. This worked for but a moment until they reverted back to edit warring. It crossed the line when they inappropriately began removing information citing "failed verification", and now we are here. WMrapids (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

By "worked together closely", I think you mean that we have at times agreed on what the content should look like and you've disagreed. On that page, you secured consensus for some of your preferred edits and not for others. It seems to me that you both engage properly in talk pages and I was surprised to see you escalate this to an incident for admins. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Same here, particularly since WMrapids never told me about the misuse of "failed verification" or claimed that I wasn't accessing the references. While I have been frustrated by slow progress, I felt that the conflict had escaled down until now. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

1RR is a solution that has been proposed previously and I have tried to abide by. It wouldn't solve all of the current issues, but it is not currently implemented and it probably would be a good first step. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, this may help lower the temperature without an excessive overreaction. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Just remembering that this is an electoral year and there will be presidential elections in Venezuela. There will definitely be more traffic and more disputes. The 1RR general restriction should be helpful. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, NoonIcarus, you exaggerate and seem to inaccurately portray yourself as the "last one remaining" for Venezuelan political articles when this isn't the case ([120][121]). We can all be replaced and your depiction of yourself performing some sort of last stand (as you seem to do, arguing that this is an election year), is literally an example of a situation that validates evidence of battleground behavior. Number 57 themself has consistently assisted with the election article too, so it's untrue to suggest we don't have knowledgable users focused on the topic. You seem to be more concerned about someone with what you consider a bad POV participating in articles that you are interested in.

An unofficial WP:0RR was already recommended and you reverted back to edit warring (and inaccurately removing information citing "failed verification"). Given the previous sanctions (you already had 0RR and 1RR restrictions placed upon you) and the multiple ignored warnings, we are well past the point of further reversion restrictions as you have already crossed over the brink. Multiple other users have outlined many examples of tendentious editing; I have showed how you are repeating behavior you were penalized for and that you delete pertinent cited additions of others (the "stable version" and "failed verification" methods), Boynamedsue and Mbinebri already discussed you disputing the reliability of apparently good sources and your "political activism" or "ideological rewriting" in articles, while Number 57, David Tornheim, Goldsztajn, Lavalizard101, Simonm223 and JML1148, have shared how you have consistently introduced undue material. After reviewing all of the above, it shows that on Latin American political topics, NoonIcarus, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. WMrapids (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You have already made your point, there's not need to repeat yourself. Don't bludgeon the process. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

How long are admins going to let this go? It has been obvious for some time that Noonicarus can not edit competently on Latin American political articles and they need to be topic-banned at the very least.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Another few days. The OP has had time to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint. We give their target the same courtesy.—S Marshall T/C 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids and source misinterpretation

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

TL;DR: WMrapids accuses me of "ignoring source content" but omits that I access said content and try to help with verifiability, such as by asking for quotes, which the editor never provided until now. WMrapids has a history of source misinterpretation that needs to be checked.

I was hoping that with this exchange and more interaction in talk pages there would be less conflict but alas, we find ourselves here again. I have already made several complaints about WMrapids' poor behavior in the past, including but not limited to edit warring, blanking and hounding (ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS, ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking), ANI#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids). For the sake of brevity I will focus in the recent issues.

WMrapids has a history of reference misinterpretation, original research and poor sourcing, sometimes leading to BLP violations (eg: WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda and Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis#Lancet editorial misrepresented), not to mention lack of attribution or personal interpretation, as with the "shaking down" example. Controversial or fringe claims such as a congressman leading an auto theft gang, the CIA infiltration of Venezuelan intelligence services or the opposition involvement in the 2019 blackouts don't help either. The editor continues accusing me of bias, but with them casting doubts about Venezuelan torture victims testimonies [122][123][124][125][126][127] and own removal of content[128][129][130][131] shows that the editor does not hold all of the information to the same standard depending on its point of view. Another example of this is how they question the Organization of American States as a source in the Guarimba article ([132]), but doesn't have to have an issue with using it at the Ayacucho and Juliaca massacres articles (1, 2). To this date no explanation has been provided for this.

When I say "failed verification" it doesn't mean that I wasn't able to access the source or that I was too lazy to try to. God knows I have. Web Archive, Google Books, JSTOR, all the possible means available online if I don't happen to have an offline method to verify. Threads that include Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation, Talk:DISIP#Luis Posada Carriles, Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs and Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia show that I have accessed the references and that I am familiar with their content, if I had already not said it at the edit summaries.

WMrapids often doesn't include URLs, pages, quotes or other means to help with verifiability for bibliographical sources, even when they are easily accesible (just as BobFromBrockley as noted above), and have continued to do so even when other users that asked for them to be included. The responsability to ensure the verifiability of the information lies on the user that adds it, but the user shifts this burden onto other editors, best exemplified by one of the last responses to the source requests: "Google"[133]. Talk pages such as Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor are witness that I have tried asking about the original quotes or learning more about the content in question, even when I haven't found it after accessing the source, and I often choose rewording or fixing the references instead of removal when I have the opportunity: [134][135][136][137][138].

I am very dissapointed that this is the first time that any of these quotes are brought up: not in its references, not in the talk pages, but to make a case against me, as they have with other editors that have challenged their edits, for requesting them in the first place. I don't want to speak on behalf of Mbinebri, but I believe that our exchange was a lot more open and amicable at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt#Recent edits... with more to go(?) than the ones that I've had with WMrapids when I have challenged the content.

Responses to WMrapids accusations

The text's original source about Luis Posada Carriles (Bardach, Ann Louise (2002). Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana. Random House. pp. 184–186. ISBN 978-0-375-50489-1.), which describes the group saying [he] immediately went to war against the leftist guerrilla movements supported by Castro in Venezuela. It directly contradicts the description of he participated in the torture of left-wing activists. Searching "Exxon" in Google Books gives back page 56, whose preview doesn't mention anything about Qatar or Vecchio being a tax manager. Looking online, the main websites that have this information are outlets with a heinous reliability record, such as  The Grayzone (RSP entry) [139] and  Telesur (RSP entry) [140], as well as Venezuelan state outlets. This was added to the article just months after these articles were published:[141]. Modifying the URL solves this issue. See Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor for the CANVAS content. The provided links were broken, Web Archive [142][143] didn't throw any results, and I asked for the specific quote. Nothing misleading here, the provided reference did not reflect the added content. I'm glad this has been fixed now. The information about the alleged relations between the Venezuelan opposition, Otpor! and CANVAS comes from Wikileaks' "Global Intelligence Files". This is even mentioned by a source that WMrapids provided:Wikileaks Docs Expose Famed Serbian Activist’s Ties to ‘Shadow CIA’. Stratfor links were broken (see above) and Le Monde diplomatique didn't mention Venezuela, something I also asked at Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs.  WikiLeaks (RSP entry) is an unreliable source per WP:RS/PS. See S Marshall's comment regarding "shaking down". I'm not the only person that does not think that "extortion" is the same as "robbing" If I recall correctly, I removed the information about children because the sentence talked specifically about evacuation. Yahoo's source was also dead, but can be accessed through Archive and says: Several people, including a young girl, have been rescued from Venezuela's Housing Ministry after it was set on fire by anti-government protesters.[144] If I had removed content simply because the links are dead and I didn't bother trying accessing them, as WMrapids claims, I would have deleted the whole statement, which is clearly not the case. The only exceptions that I can see are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's and Oxford Analytica's sources; in both cases I tagged the sentences accordingly and did not remove the content. I'm finding out about {{verify source}} due to this thread, and I will probably use in the future in this context. As of López Maya's source, I simply did not find the original source. It is a 25 pages document and WMrapids usually doesn't provide quotes for the references, as I mentioned above.

I cannot stress how exhausted I am of this. It will be almost a year since this pattern has started since WMrapids started editing in Venezuelan topics. I don't know what to ask anymore besides for the community to make up their position based on this information and to propose a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

PS: I don't want to delve too much into the POV pushing accusations to not make the thread longer than it already is, and that it is neither the main topic at hand nor diffs have been provided to justify them, but in turn I want to provide a few in response:[145][146][147]. I don't care about any specific point of view, just about the quality of the sourcing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Response about POV --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll provide more information about the POV, since it is one of the two main topics at hand but I haven't provided a response, although I will collapse this. To describe my editing scope, in en.wiki I'm more interested in updating articles or current events, while in the es.wiki I'm more interested in created new content and starting articles, unless we're talking about translations into English or biographies for Women in Red. What I wouldn't want is that, given that writing about the current situation in Venezuela reflects negatively on the government, that automatically means having an anti-government POV, which in turns means having a pro-opposition POV. However, I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the Anglosphere, which is why I also understand the position of many of the participants here. To provide an overview, I was the first person to suggest an end date for the presidential crisis article. Since the Punto Fijo governments were brought up, though, as examples, in Spanish I have created the article about the 1969 Operación Canguro, the intervention of the Central University of Venezuela by President Rafael Caldera; the 1984 Tazón massacre, when National Guard soldiers shot at students from the same university; the 1986 Yumare massacre, during Jaime Lusinchi's government; the 1992 Retén de Catia massacre, during Carlos Andrés Pérez's second term; and the 1994 Sabaneta fire, the worst prison tragedy in Venezuelan history. I even created an article about a student from the University Simón Bolívar that was killed by the police in 1989, Gonzalo Jaurena, which at the end was ultimately deleted. At es.wiki I likewise used to patrol for vandalism in articles about government officials ([148][149][150][151][152] and trust me, there were plenty) until it became too time consuming. Given that we're discussing a general Latin American topic ban, it should also be useful to discuss other articles from the region. I have likewise edited about human right abuses by right-wing groups (or against left-wing followers) and I think it's important for them to be documented in Wikipedia: Argentina's Cecilia Cacabelos, disappeared during the last military dictatorship; Mexico's Halcones, responsible for the Corpus Christi Massacre during the Dirty War; the 1963 Dominican coup d'état, where leftist President Juan Bosch was deposed; Chile truckers' strike, supported by the CIA, and the 2017–2018 Honduran protests, after conservative Juan Orlando Hernández was declared elected among irregularities. In Spanish, I have also written about several cases about other countries in the Inter-American Commision of Human Rights: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I don't want to be defined by my worst moments or mistakes, or that the most recent editorial disputes. 2020, 2021, 2022 and early 2023 were relatively calm years overall. Regardless of the perceived POV, I'm knowledgable in general and I'm really looking forward improving articles. If there are issues in articles, including about neutrality (from human rights to corruption), it's something that can be discussed and I will probably have something to be able to help. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that you are attempting to boomerang this back onto me, as @JML1148: mentioned this "unblockable" behavior, I will try to provide a short response.

Yes, I may forget to include specific quotes and page numbers on occasion, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that you inaccurately designated content as "failed verification" and removed it inappropriately.

You also failed to justify any removal based on "failed verification":

1. The Posada information was based on the newspaper article, not the book.
2. You're attempting to deflect the information on Vecchio to Grayzone (who you personally and understandably have a beef with) instead of actually verifying the source itself.
3. We can understand that this was an accident, yet this could have been easily verifiable doing an internet search for the article title.
4. Regarding CANVAS, you inappropriately said the information was from Wikileaks when this was not the case.
5. The "shakedown" appears up for debate, though looking at extortion, it seems like protesters forcing disapproving people to give them belongs seems like a robbery to me.
6. The information about children was removed, period. You could have looked at the archived link to El Universal.
7. Finally, you use the excuse of not being knowledgeable of "verify source", which seems like a cop out for a ten-year Wikipedia user.

So, it still is clear to me that you are deflecting blame and making excuses for your inappropriate behavior on the Project instead of listening to the years of warnings from other users. I admit to not being a perfect user and you yourself have clarified things for me, but I never went as far as being dishonesty. WMrapids (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a response towards your accusations. Nothing more, nothing less. You're accusing me of deliberately ignoring the content in the references, and the diffs I provide show this is clearly false. Your lack of URLs, pages and quotes has been the norm, not the exception.

If we want to talk about dishonesty, it's probably best to ask: if for weeks I had asked for quotes or on what the changes were based (Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation, Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles, Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs, Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia and Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor), why is it only now that you're providing them for the first time? You once said it is becoming exhausting that we are arguing over the definition of a shake down now[153]. Do you find these questions annoying? That is something different and that you can say, but saying that I'm ignoring source content is deceptive.

By providing the sources only now, it shows how easily and accessible it is for you, but here it looks not as an attempt to help with the content verifiability or address my behavior, but rather to sanction me. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And talking about the {{verify source}} tag, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. One thing is tagging, another thing is contesting and removing. I only said that I'll be looking using it more in the future. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban from Latin American political articles for NoonIcarus

Support topic ban: After reviewing the response from NoonIcarus, it appears that they will continue to deflect their misbehavior onto others and have not learned from the years of warnings they have encountered. Again, while I am admittedly not a perfect user myself, it does not justify their dishonest editing, frequent edit warring and their battleground behavior in apparent acts of activism.--WMrapids (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• No. Proposals are needed here but it's best if they come from uninvolved people.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, agreed then. I was following the proposals already shared above, so no bad intentions here. Thanks for keeping this discussion in line! WMrapids (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses to WMrapids

[Later] This is complicated and hard to resolve. There have been previous reports by both parties and they've often been archived without result. That shouldn't happen again this time, and I've used {{DNAU}} to make sure it doesn't. Aside from the conflict of views about Venezuela, there's an ongoing issue that reduces to citing sources with sufficient precision. NoonIcarus expects citations to be rather precise, and he tags citations he sees as vague. WMrapids' citations are less precise, and he objects to NoonIcarus' insistence. From WMrapids' point of view, NoonIcarus looks like he's griefing; while from NoonIcarus' point of view, WMrapids is adding material that isn't properly sourced. WMrapids expects NoonIcarus to fix imprecise citations when he finds them; while NoonIcarus wants to tag them for someone else to fix. I think part of what we need to do here is to define good sourcing practice and set expectations about how to deal with citations that have poor precision.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Well, I want to clear this up now. My point of view is that others shouldn't have to clean up after citations. Now, I get it, my citations weren't exactly the most detailed, but this is something that I can and will improve upon (this also could have all been solved on my talk page if there was actually a sincere concern). The issue I and others have is that NoonIcarus disingenuously marked content as "failed verification" and removed it, with most of this content being controversial towards the Venezuelan opposition. This is a clear behavioral pattern that NoonIcarus has continuously participated in, which is the true issue before us. WMrapids (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC) I have asked you countless times for content and sources when in doubt, and both SandyGeorgia and I have asked you to add links in your references previously. This is not a new issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC) If editor X adds citations that are hard to verify and Y editor tags them, I'm not sure it's clearcut which editor is expecting others to clean up afterwards. Tagging seems to me the right approach, so the community can improve it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC) I want to clarify that I don't mind fixing the references if I have the opportunity, it is something that I have done in the past: [154][155][156][157] I just think this should not be the norm, or at least that the editor can help improving the format if possible. Too much precision probably isn't needed either. Just an URL should work in most cases, as it usually does, but if one isn't available, at least a quote and page. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC) @S Marshall: Many thanks for the mediation, by the way. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Latin American politics -- a wider TB to include politics in general might protect us from possible similar behavior in U.S. politics--especially those that might tangentially overlap with the interest this editor has in Latin American politics. I do think this ban should be extended to Spanish Wikipedia and WikiMedia files, but my understanding is that other languaged Wikipedia have their own judicial proceedings.

I don't think a site ban is necessary, as I don't think the editor has shown much interest in anything else, and maybe if s/he works on other subject matter might eventually understand just how problematic the behavior has been.

I agree with other editors that TL;DR is a real problem in this subject area. I think the reason for that has a lot to do with the fact that mainstream RS that is critical of United States involvement in regime change has been blacklisted on Wikipedia, by citing the mainstream U.S. sources that tend to parrot the U.S. State Department perspective (as I explain at WP:RS/N, here).

I remember NoonIcarus's behavior under the former name Jamez42. In January 2020, s/he received a 1-year editing restriction for behavior like the above. After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned. I warned him/her on 2/9/24 about repeated reverts of the same material, and s/he immediately deleted it without archiving with the edit summary "A single revert does not warrant this warning. Stop this harassment." --David Tornheim (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses to David Tornheim

Comment: Linking this February thread between the filer and you, for context for the participants: User talk:WMrapids#Allegations against NoonIcarus. I think it would also be helpful if you could specific which critical mainstream RS sources you're referring to. In  The Grayzone's (RSP entry) request for comment, you supported that it be categorized either under option 1 or 2, and I supported its deprecation (a decision I wholy stand by, by the way). Grayzone's rant about the decision and their attack against editors, including myself, was one of the reasons why I requested a change for my username. The RfC was also opened three weeks before you filed your own ANI against me four years ago. I really hope this decision of mine is not part of the reason why you're supporting a topic ban. Best wishes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC) No. It's not because of a difference of opinion at a single RfC. It's the POV editing which has gone on for years, which I and numerous other editors have observed and expounded upon here and elsewhere: [158],[159], and [160]. If the warnings were heeded, we would not be here, and I would not be advocating for a topic ban. To give an example of this POV-editing, and what prompted this warning: NoonIcarus kept reverting to his/her preferred claim that the Presidency of Venezuela was disputed. This was no longer tenable after 30 December 2022, because "Venezuela's opposition national assembly voted...to remove interim President Juan Guaido [and] dissolve his government..." [161] When at least four editors (one me) tried to remove the claim that the Presidency was still disputed (after 30 December 2022), NoonIcarus reverted, and kept citing an obsolete RfC from 10 September 2021 and also despite this RfC closed 3 December 2021 that determined "There is a clear consensus that Juan Guaidó isn’t the interim president of Venezuela." (In the 3 December 2021 RfC, of the twelve !votes, NoonIcarus was one of only two editors claiming Guaido was still "interim president".) It wasn't until I filed this RfC on 9 February 2024 that the matter was settled. It is not surprising that of the eight !votes, NoonIcarus was alone in claiming the Presidency is disputed. I don't consider that cooperative editing and the ability to judge the WP:RS with WP:NPOV. It's more like ownership and advocacy for the opposition. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC) A RfC that I suggested myself, about a change that had been disputed by at least two other editors: [162][163][164]. It's simply not as you're painting it. As I said in the RfC itself, if the community is clear on the position, I don't have any issues with the outcome. I asked before you have been inactive for nearly four years, until WMrapids left a message in your talk page (User talk:David Tornheim#Operation Gideon (2020)). The actions you're describing are from 2020 and before (already dealt before in the specific ANI) and from this year, not a pattern that has continued over four years. With that being said, I wonder once again why WP:RS/N was mentioned here to begin with. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) You already provided those exact same three diffs ([165] [166][167]) on the talk page here. My reply included this text from the WP:LEDE of the article: "The Venezuelan presidential crisis was a political crisis concerning the leadership and who holds the office remained disputed till 5 January 2023.” All three diffs are before 5 January 2023. The last two diffs ([168][169]) were from TEMPO156 (fka 25stargeneral) who reversed saying “Consensus on the Maduro and Venezuela pages that this can no longer be considered current.” You were already shown that those diffs do not support your insistence—which no one else shares—that the Presidency is still disputed. Yet, here you are showing those same three diffs again to defend your edit-warring (4-Oct-23, 11-Oct-23, 7-Feb-24, 8-Feb-24) post 5 January 2023 as acceptable. It’s more evidence of your inability to work collaboratively, listen to reasonable concerns, and objectively assess the RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Talk:President of Venezuela#Should we stop claiming the status of the Venezuelan presidency is "disputed"?. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC) @NoonIcarus: Do you really feel that an RfC from 2021 takes precedence over the changing circumstances described by the WP:RS that I mention above? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC) @David Tornheim, your support of Grayzone, a deeply problematic media entity that has even gone after Wikipedia, is rather troubling here. Could you explain your position here? Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) i do not wish to become involved in this thread even in the slightest but David supported the deprecation of Grayzone; evidently he does not support the site itself. sawyer * he/they * talk 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC) He supported "Option 1 or 2", which suggests we was in favor of keeping it as a source and furthermore says: "Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told." So I'm pretty sure he wasn't exactly supportive of the effort (unless I missed something somewhere else?) Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC) I misread the comment -  Self-trout. Ignore me! sawyer * he/they * talk 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @David Tornheim: While we're at it, I also recall that one time, when discussing images for Nicolás Maduro's infobox, you described him as follows ([170]): The second image has none of those problems. He is evenly lighted and looks straight into the camera with a somewhat somber but friendly face ready to engage the reporter in an interview. He looks more humble and receptive., and Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo., while also commenting: This is problematic given that he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a "dictator" to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change. You have already mentioned your concern about possible disruptive editing by me, but I want to clarify if your POV concerns are because it can differ from yours. Could you provide more insight into these comments? --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Latin American politics Noonicarus' editing is, in large part, political activism. Noonicarus' is here purely to ensure that articles on Latin American topics have an anti-socialist bias in general, and an anti-Venezuelan-regime bias in particular. While these opinions are perfectly acceptable, in my view, their editing on this topic runs foul of WP:NOTHERE. All editors, including myself, have political biases, but I am 100% sure that Noonicarus views their contribution to wikipedia as part of the struggle against the Venezuelan regime.

They have explicitly declared that they believe "mainstream news sources" to be superior to academic scholarship, which is the opposite to our actual policy. For example, they recently spent a long time arguing against the inclusion in the text of the term "massacre" (used by many academic sources) to describe the killing of thousands of civilians by Venezuelan security forces in 1989. Their justification was that some Venezuelan news sources do not use the term. They have also dedicated a massive amount of time to attempting to enforce WP:VENRS, which is an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Boynamedsue is involved in the dispute from this discussion: Talk:Guarimba#Tags --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses to Boynamedsue

I agree with all of your observations. Since resuming editing on 2/6/24, I have seen this troubling behavior in the articles you mention while it was happening (as well as back in 2019-2020), even if I did not comment on it.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Context here Talk:Caracazo#POV tag and here Talk:Caracazo#Sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) NoonIcarus is well within his rights to enforce WP:VENRS, it is a Wikipedia standard policy and should not be characterized as "an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias." Frankly, I find that choice of characterization very concerning. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC) it is a Wikipedia standard policy. WP:VENRS is not a WP:POLICY. It is just an essay documenting the WikiProject Venezuela local consensus on those sources. That is useful, and I think the fix there if the list is wrong is to talk it out on the VENRS talk page and then update VENRS. But let's be careful of the terminology we use. VENRS is definitely not a Wikipedia policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Commented below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I have many South American election articles on my watchlist and I have regularly seen NoonIcarus making POV edits over a period of several years, mostly to Venezuelan articles, but occasionally to other articles where there is a prominent leftist candidate/party. This has often involved selectively removing information that is inconvenient to their POV with somewhat dubious reasons (which is the original complaint here). Frankly I'm amazed they have lasted this long on Wikipedia given their long history of POV-pushing. Number 57 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN per my previous comments. It's very clear NoonIcarus needs something to restrain their blatant NPOV editing. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses to JML1148
I assume you mean "POV-pushing" editing, because "blatant NPOV" editing would imply he was doing a blatantly good job. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN at the absolute minimum with the information provided by David Tornheim. There's no more rope here. – The Grid (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as target. WMrapids accused me of intentionally ignoring content. The diffs that I provided not only show my attention to the sources, but in many cases asking for even further information (1 2 3 4). These charges against editors that have contested their changes aren't new (1 2 3 4 5), and the archived ANI complaints show this has been a long standing and unanswered issue (1, 2, 3). WMrapids' bludgeoning has driven active participants from the Wikiproject Venezuela away (1, 2, 3, of which I'm apparently the last one remaining) and the community shouldn't forget either about the excessive RfCs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that exhausted unrelated contributors (1 2 3 4). A TBAN won't solve the underlying issues nor provide an answer to previous complaints. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses to NoonIcarus

Responding to your claims of being a target, it is ridiculous as it is plain to see in the responses above that multiple users have had issues with your editing behavior across the project. It appears that your edits have a POV bias towards maintaining the positive image of the Venezuelan government following the signing of the Puntofijo Pact (while I have seen a similar description occasionally in sources, you frequently describe it as the "democratic period"[171][172] or similar) and discounting human rights abuses performed by the "democratic" government ([173], [174], [175], [176]) while overtly promoting a negative image of the government following the Bolivarian Revolution. This is even more clear with your repeated dismissal of academic sources, minimizing them as "opinions" for the Puntofijo Pact article, something already mentioned above by @Boynamedsue:. Further, while reviewing your edits some more, I even found another "failed verification" edit from 2022 performed by you that was inaccurate; you removed "President Maduro denied the allegations, saying torture had not occurred in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez became president" when the Reuters article clearly states "MADURO DENIES TORTURE ... The president says torture ended in Venezuela with the arrival of President Hugo Chavez, his socialist predecessor and mentor, in 1999. 'Commander Chavez never gave the order to torture anyone. We came from that school of thought,' Maduro said." Such repetitive behavior of participating in (using the description of @JCW555:) "'failed verification' lies" over years raises questions of whether an even more severe ban from editing is justified. Regarding the further boomerang attempts, I learned from my mistakes with feedback from other users, which I have accepted, especially regarding RfCs (which were mainly opened due to stonewalling from NoonIcarus). As for other users not participating, Venezuelan politics are very contentious and are obviously exhausting to edit about (I feel it, trust me), so of course users will come and go. Other WikiProject Venezuela members are still clearly active and choose not to participate in the articles that you are interested in, which is their own decision, but if there were an issue with my behavior in particular, they could have raised concerns on my talk page or on this very noticeboard. So, exaggerating and saying "I'm apparently the last one remaining" shows how you view yourself as making some sort of last stand, which is further evidence that you are engaged in activist edits to right great wrongs and clearly demonstrates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. After seeing the further deflection, your continued editing behavior that has not improved over years of warnings (especially after the ANI raised by @David Tornheim: in 2020) and the additional "failed verification" edit mentioned above that occurred years ago raises the question; is a permanent ban for NoonIcarus more appropriate? WMrapids (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [177] ([178] and [179][180][181], see response above). --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC) No, a permanent ban is certainly not appropriate, and even a topic ban is marginal. This whole things seems to be a rather roundabout way of you saying you disagree with NoonIcarus about what constitutes NPOV. The best thing to do would be to talk about your differences with respect to what you think NPOV is on these articles in some section of WikiProject Venezuela and come to an NPOV consensus there. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC) I see that once again, the sheer volume of text we've produced deters uninvolved people from reading it, and I hope that any further contributions from involved people are both (1) absolutely necessary and (2) very succinct indeed.—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) I have a question here. Would it be a good idea to call in other editors of WikiProject Venezuela to get a second opinion on these charges. I'd like to get people who know a lot about the subject to comment, and I feel we're missing a significant portion of the community here who might know a lot about the topic, but at the same time, I don't want to accidentally WP:CANVAS. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @Allan Nonymous: NoonIcarus did this in a former ANI and some saw that as inappropriate and borderline canvassing, so we should avoid doing this again. It is also better that we have users independent of the topic who can make their decision solely based on reviewing behavior and edits. WMrapids (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Probably nobody would answer, at any rate. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I'm involved to the extent that I am a participant to an open AfD discussion initiated by VMRapids on an article created by NoonIcarus, otherwise, to the best of my memory, prior to that AfD, I had not edited articles related to Venezuelan politics. (Subsequent to participation in that AfD I made some edits to a US thinktank cited in the discussion). The key question here is whether there is a pattern of POV editing favourable to the Venezuelan opposition being masked by claims over source veracity. As the Venezuelan government seeks to delegitimise the opposition because of its so-called "foreigness" or so-called "terrorism", it is understandable that it will be contentious the extent to which the opposition is depicted as lacking endogeneity or engages in actions which may be deemed criminal. Nevertheless, with the evidence presented as it has been, the approriate response would not be to (a) throw accusations back at the filer and (b) to relitigate every edit, but rather to present evidence that one's editing is NPOV via a pattern of equal concern with the veracity of all sourcing in the subject area, not just the veractiy of sourcing which suits the editor's POV. Yet, the attempts to do this show a pattern of edits which reinforce negative aspects of the government or people associated with it and favourable aspects of the opposition. There is a consistent pattern of POV editing in the topic area. There does not appear to be any substantial reflection of a even a single mistake made or a point in time where the editor could have approached issues differently (reducing this to a "technical" issue of incorrect tagging avoids the core issue). FWIW, I think it is reasonable that the community draws VMRapids' attention to a lack of precision regarding their citations and a requirement for pinpoint referencing when possible (ie books, journal articles), especially given many elements of this are broadly wihtin a contentious topic area (post-1992 US politics). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, stonewalling, general combativeness, POV issues, etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• STRONGLY Oppose topic ban, while I personally agree that NoonIcarus seems to not have edited in the most consensus seeking way he could, it is clear that these are highly opinionated articles where the interpretation of sources is widely disputed. Hence, he seems to be following one interpretation, and WMrapids seems to be following another. As a result, I believe the best approach is for there to be a general discussion about the factual issues at hand and the sources somewhere to resolve this rather than using topic bans. --Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses to Allan Nonymous

The problem is the consistent rejection of sources which disagree with them, to the point where they edit with an inverted hierarchy of sources: Noonicarus specifically states that academic journals are inferior to Venezuelan news sources. They have also carefully curated a list of Venezuelan news (WP:VENRS) sources which excludes any source deemed to have pro-regime bias, but not sources containing pro-opposition bias, and frequently referred to it to support their arguments. They have shown no self-awareness or contrition here, no desire to change their editing style. Due to their prolific editing, they are, in effect, a one-user article-biasing machine.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC) This is not true. Unreliable anti-government listed in WP:VENRS include but are not limited to El American, Factores de Poder and Periodista Digital. You can see an example of me disputing said sources while citing WP:VENRS at Pablo Kleinman, for instance: [182][183][184] At any rate, WP:VENRS currently prioritizes descriptions from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, accepting the community's wider consensus. You can likewise see me recommending academic sources here: Talk:Caracazo#Sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) If you think that's an issue take that up with WP:VENRS. He's within his rights to enforce a Wikipedia policy. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) WP:VENRS is not a wikipedia policy, it is an essay written largely by Noonicarus.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Ah, I see. Well, in that case, an RfC concerning WP:VENRS might be a good idea. I think it would be greatly beneficial to get a consensus reliable sources list here given the issue. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @Allan Nonymous: Hi. WP:VENRS has had at least three RfCs (where some of the editors here have participated in), all started by WMrapids, of which the first two were withdrawn, in part due to the amount opened at the time and their broadness (RfC:WPVENRS, WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS and "Source description dispute"). I don't want to speak on behalf of other participants, but from what I gather the consensus was that it was better to discuss the reliability of the sources in a case to case basis, if there were any doubts, which is what happened with  La Patilla (RSP entry). One of the points of contention was that I removed many state-owned sources from several articles and cited WP:VENRS as a justification, which is what Boynamedsue is probably referring to. I want to leave clear that I have never claimed that WP:VENRS should be applied as a policy, citing it instead as an example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (just as the list of sources that other WikiProjects have), and since it is clear this has been controversial, I have not done this again since December and don't intend that to do it again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC) @NoonIcarus, Why did you ever think it appropriate to remove material and sources on the basis of an article which is clearly marked as opinion? TarnishedPathtalk 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) @TarnishedPath: I'm not sure if I follow. Do you mean WP:VENRS or the sources themselves? There were to main reasons for this. I mostly focused in references from the Bolivarian Communication and Information System state media conglomerate (but not limited to it; I also removed scores of references from EcuRed because its content is user generated, but I did open a thread at the RSN when there was opposition to it), including Venezolana de Televisión, whose comments can be found here: Talk:WP:VENRS#Bolivarian Communication and Information System, Talk:WP:VENRS#La Iguana. The first reason was WP:TELESUR's deprecation at RS/P, because Telesur is part of the conglomerate and other of its outlets routinely cite it for fact. The second reason are the sources individual histories with reliability, including Alba Ciudad (discussion here: Talk:WP:VENRS#Alba Ciudad), besides the ones mentioned above. The sources lack editorial independence overall or fact checking. I did not remove the sources merely because they are state-controlled or pro-government, but because of the verifiability principles and of their reliability track record, or in other words, per WP:GUNREL. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Boynamedsue and Novem Linguae clarified that it was an essay from WikiProject Venezuela before I could. However, I'll link its talk page (Talk:WP:VENRS) and note that a rationale and a description are usually offered to justify the classifications, as it would happen in the RS noticeboard. The assesment is not capricious, and the description from WP:RS/P is always used first when available (which represents a wider community consensus). If anything, more people is invited to participate. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support tban as even the more "defensible" uses of failed Verification often seem a somewhat inappropriate and as it does seem like a pattern of POV pushing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses to Simonm223

I think that NoonIcarus is largely editing in good faith here, and only about half (3/8, from sources cited as concerning by WMRapids) of his most troubling edits were deemed inappropriate. A warning and or 1RR for NoonIcarus seems more appropriate. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC) FYI. I engaged in a brief discussion with Allan Nonymous about the numerous posts at this WP:AN/I here (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks for adding this here! Is there a way you make sure to include the whole page in your link, just in case things things change there in the future? Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Thank you, that provides additional context which reinforces my support for the tban as the most appropriate remedy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: I guess I can't say I'm an uninvolved editor, as WMRapids cites me as the first one to bring to attention NoonIcarus' dubious removal of sourced content and NoonIcarus and I had many past debates over my bias concerns. It's been my long-held observation that NoonIcarus has been rewriting articles like 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt to push an anti-government narrative using more subtle tactics like overweighting anti-government content/sources, using selective attribution to portray pro-government views as biased opinions (while anti-government views are portrayed as fact), as well as the at-issue tendency to challenge and remove ideologically-inconvenient sourcing and info on, to be generous, thin grounds. I'm not gonna lie though—it's been cleverly done and I burnt out trying to fight it, hence my lack of involvement in the current debates. I don't vote this way lightly, as NoonIcarus has always been cordial and willing to discuss things, and I certainly don't blame anyone for hating the Venezuelan government. But it seems I'm not the only one alarmed by NoonIcarus' ideological rewriting, and if it's spreading to articles across the entire topic of Latin American politics, I would say it's finally time to stop this. Mbinebri (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses to Mbinebri

This is a really compelling argument for a TBAN, and frankly, I share your concerns here. I think it's clear that NoonIcarus should consider making changes to his editing strategy, especially given that this has been raised as an issue before. For now, at least, I still feel that a TBAN is going too far, but these concerns will need to be addressed one way or another. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC) You've made your vehement opposition to a tban very clear by now. But the thing is I remember run-ins with NoonIcarus under their prior handle going back years and it was, honestly, the exact same pattern. They should seriously consider finding some other area of the project to work on where they can operate more collaboratively and I doubt they will without some compulsion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Personally, the arguments made here have, at least, reduced the intensity of my opposition here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @Mbinebri: This really chimes with me, Noonicarus is not here to annoy or troll anybody, and the origin of their bias is understandable. However, the volume of their edits and the lengths they go to in defending them means that very few users have the energy to confront them consistently. Overall this is leading to a bias problem spread throughout our Venezuelan politics articles.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) It seems that this describes WP:COMPETENCE more than disruptive editing. Still, I thank you for your comments. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) I agree with you guys that the volume of the edits made and the aggressive reverts without seeking community consensus are a real concern. If anything this AN/I has taught me the importance of seeking consensus. NoonIcarus, is clearly falling short here often, and I feel a bit of understandable sympathy here (you should see the numbers I used to pull on old articles when I was younger, not my proudest work). At the same time, it is my opinion that NPOV is reached by taking the collective voices and perspectives of a wide variety of editors. My concern with a TBAN is, if NoonIcarus leaves, as a major contributor, could lead to a disproportionate under representation of his views among those who edit Venezuelan articles, leading to a worse WP:BALANCE overall, even if less edits are made disruptively by the remaining members. If there is evidence this will not be issue, I am more than willing to further reduce my opposition to a TBAN (as I have already done to some degree). This, I think cuts to the core of my concern here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @Allan Nonymous: I respect your sentiment and thought the same thing during my initial edits with NoonIcarus. They are fairly knowledgeable about such topics, but it depends on how you use such knowledge. It is important for us all to recognize that we are not irreplaceable and our misbehavior on the project does have consequences. I've sincerely tried many things to avoid conflict with NoonIcarus (including this recommendation, though it returned to edit warring), but as you can see from other users, NoonIcarus' editing behavior has been a repetitive problem. While NoonIcarus portrays themself as "the last one remaining", I have shown that WikiProject Venezuela members are still active and others in this discussion (including myself) have shared their own unsympathetic feelings towards the Venezuelan government ([185], [186]). So rest assured, such topics will be okay, and I'm glad that you are using this opportunity to reflect on your own editing as well. WMrapids (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Links to some of the own olive branches I have extended to WMrapids in the past:[187][188], and linking full last talk page exchange: User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) @Mbinebri: While I naturally disagree with your topic ban support, I want to thank you for your comments about our exchanges being cordial. Stay safe. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I feel might be a good compromise? Article Ban on Latam Politics, with a possibility for review at some point. This allows NoonIcarus to participate in the topic through talk page discussions (i.e. to suggest changes in policy/flag sources he may find problematic) without disrupting the articles or leading to edit warring. This might allow NoonIcarus to participate, so long as he remains within consensus as other editors can take up his suggestions. If he shows signs of working well on talk pages, then he can be allowed back on the articles. So far, I have seen him work well in discussions. In addition to this, as a show of good faith, I would hope NoonIcarus would open an RfC with respect to WP:VENRS so that we could make it more clear which were good and bad sources,as well a more general policy with regards to academic versus media sources (in particular, we should be careful when the academic sources about current political events). This would help reduce a lot of future lack of clarity on vague sources and what sources we should be using which has been a major contributor to this. Let me know your thoughts on this people. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses to Allan Nonymous' article ban suggestion

@Allan Nonymous: Users can request to be unblocked on their own talk page. I might have seen custom restrictions before where administrators suggest against blocked users from making a block appeal for a certain period of time (For example: User banned from Latin American political topics: May appeal in one year), but not too sure on this. Wanted to make sure that you know that not all blocks have to be permanent. WMrapids (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) I am aware here, but my hope is that this will prevent another case of "this user gets TBAN unblocked after a year/two/three" and goes right back to what didn't work before. This sort of approach would might help him and other people find a way to productively work together, instead of just creating a cycle. That's my thought, at least. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC) That's why a topic ban is the right solution and your "compromise" won't work--the behavior extends to talk pages and the disruption would continue there. If NoonIcarus is going to learn proper editing behavior, they need to steer clear of politics.--David Tornheim (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) It is clear that the primary concern here are edits made to mainspace articles, and the vast majority of concerning edits are made there. I am disappointed to see that you seem to treating this as a punitive response given the general consensus that topic bans are not punitive. I am making an effort here to seek consensus, so I hope you are willing to do so as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) This is a misinterpretation of what has been said. Your continued response to every editor is verging on WP:IDHT and I would gently suggest your opinion has been heard and it would be wise to step back and allow a consensus to emerge. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC) I'm a little confused by your concerns of WP:IDHT here? I agree that at the beginning of this discussion, I responded to a lot of different editors (this is my first AN/I so I didn't fully understand the discussion protocol and I apologize for that) but this was a response with regards to a consensus seeking solution and is is to an editor I have engaged with multiple times, as part of a discussion largely regarding an effort to "step back and allow a consensus to emerge". If you could clarify a little more your concerns (maybe on a different page, as this may be off topic to the discussion), I would be more than happy to attempt to address them. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Effectively half of this discussion consists of you replying to every other post to argue your case. You've been cautioned about WP:BLUDGEON once already. You don't need to reply to every post here. Doing so will do nothing more than raise questions about why you are so passionately defending NoonIcarus. So you should really stop. Simonm223 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) I apologize that at the beginning of this AN/I I replied over enthusiastically, this is my first AN/I so mistakes are bound to happen. At the same time, this section of the AN/I is mostly me asking WMrapids about my concerns about any action taken, and I was glad so see here that he mostly addressed those concerns. Hence I have significantly reduced my opposition to a TBAN. Furthermore, I did ask and still have actively raised serious concerns about NoonIcarus citing WP:VENRS which I have continued to raise and hope he can make a good faith effort to address. I, personally, don't feel my recent efforts fit very well into a case of WP:BLUDGEON or WP:IDHT, but I do appreciate your feedback here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) @Allan Nonymous, I have been watching this thread and your replies have been coming up in my notices a lot. You should listen to Simon. TarnishedPathtalk 10:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Notifying @Allan Nonymous:, since it's their comment after all: do you agree that your comments in these responses to Mbinebri are collapsed? If so, do you have a preference if they are displayed this way or this way (the current one)? --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite block for NoonIcarus

• Support indef - per WMRapids’ opening statements and the statements of JML1148, Simonm223, User:Number 57 and others here. This is a clear WP:SPA account with numerous examples of bad faith editing, resulting in a previous one year editing restriction. Now this. Enough is enough, I’m calling for an indefinite block. Jusdafax (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

TLDR

Disclaimer: I personally am not an "involved party" in the case however, I have interacted with several of the editors in other cases. My position on the topic ban proposed is "STRONGLY oppose".

This is an effort to provide a brief summary of the events leading up to and the part of the vast, wall-of-text dispute titled "NoonIcarus and 'Failed verification'" in an attempt to make it easier for other users whose eyes may glaze over at the sight of so many words, inspired by the suggestion of S Marshall.

The dispute here starts with a complaint from WMrapids concerning NoonIcarus removing a variety of citations and associated text using the tag "failed verification". Of these, NoonIcarus is a confirmed Spanish speaker and member of Wikimedia Venezuela, WMrapids is a member of English Wikipedia's Peru project. This notable here as the articles the two seem to primarlily edit concern latin american history, mostly, Venezuela. After consulting with members of the Wikipedia discord concernin the best editing practices, it is clear that this is generally considered acceptable within the confines of Wikipedia. Furthermore, in articles for controversial topics, it is considered standard practice (better to say nothing than something controversial). However, it quickly became clear that issue involved was not merely the use of "failed verification" efforts but whether these efforts systematically contributed to a POV. Some of the edits appeared more than defensible, others were significantly more dubious and it may have been possible NoonIcarus was removing sources that were in fact verifiable. From there, debate escalated to a wider debate around whether NoonIcarus' editing approach was approrpiate for the topic, particular concerns were raised about edit warring. A possible mitigating factor was raised that, if WMrapids was making unsourced edits, these may have been partially justifiable. There was no general total community consensus about the veracity of the allegations, but it does seem that at least some of the edits were to actually verifiable content. After this, NoonIcarus was given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. [This is Part 1 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.] Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus provided a report responding to the allegations made. The report was not directly responded to, but discussions on the original complaint did continue afterwards. Soon after, WMrapids, immediately made a request for a topic ban on NoonIcarus concerning Latin American political articles. This was immediately good-faith rejected (and the request was later voluntarily withdrawn) on the grounds that a complaint filer cannot be the one to initiate such action. Another user made supported the request which was then considered the initial request. Tensions at this point were high. NoonIcarus' response to this topic ban attacked WMrapids, claiming the user was a toxic influence on the English language Wikipedia's Venezuela project, and that additionally, a series of aggressive rolling RfCs he had made against existing policies on articles was "exhausting and demoralizing" members of the Wikipedia Venezuela project, as part of an effort to support his agenda. WMrapids and some other involved editors countered these claims with claims he was selectively ignoring evidence that went counter to positions amenable to his own agenda. [This is Part 2 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.] Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Just to mention that I'd be happy to answer any related questions. I don't want to cram this thread any further, but it could really benefit from clarification to non-involved editors, so they could be broken into sections or collapsed. WMrapids should be given the same courtesy as an involved user, as they probably and understandably will disagree with some of my replies. I'll provide an answer to the POV pushing accusations as a collapsed hatnote below my first response (added here). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Moved prior comment to correct section. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wrong place to put this, this is for discussion and summary, if you want to stake your position on the TBAN, post in that section. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  I really need to stop using the mobile interface. I intended to post there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we close this?

Honestly I think this discussion has progressed as far as it is going to. I'd ask for an admin to review and determine appropriate consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I provided one last response regarding POV here. New participants can drop the last thoughts before closure. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Simonm223. Having those who have already commented continue to edit this thread and add more diffs and never-ending argument/counter-argument is tiresome for readers. I can suggest one admin who has already shown a willingness to review one of these lengthy discussions (about this topic) and make a final ruling. If another admin believes it is acceptable to ping them and ask for their help here, please advise.--David Tornheim (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  It might be better, now that a request has been made (and given the fact that this is at the top of AN/I) for you not to ping admins, and for one to naturally come around and close this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

SEND TO ARBCOM. I am not surprised to see a citation tagging incident escalating to a show of blatant and shameless partisan participation at ANI while I have been on a mostly-break since early December when two of my closest friends died coincidentally on the same day, and I knew that I could not reasonably deal with serious grieving and WMRapids' editing at the same time. Editing around WMRapids since I first looked in to these recurring issues in Aug 2023 and found few admins or independent editors willing to engage (for example, zero feedback at NPOV noticeboard, and BLP noticeboard, and much more in other places) has required CONSTANT citation cleanup, correction of failed verification and flagging the use of non-reliable sources and much more, complicated by WMRapids' failure to engage collaboratively on talk, as documented in three full archives of one article only at least.

When I engaged initially, I had hoped that the J. K. Rowling experience could repeat, via a combination of patience and demonstrating collaborative editing to yield good results, but that was not to be the case.

When I had to also deal with serious real life loss and grief, I gave up and left Wikipedia almost entirely, because the situation has such a long history of diffs and behaviors and hounding and aspersions that have gone ignored at noticeboards, that it really belongs at ARBCOM where it can receive a dispassionate and non-partisan examination of long-standing behavioral issues and polite POV pushing, and I just have not been in an emotional place to be able to face the work required. There is plenty detailed in the talk archives of Operation Gideon (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5, Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6 and Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7) and plenty at WMRapids' user talk, (samples, [189] and [190]) but I see (again) few people taking the time to understand the full situation.

I found this thread because I received an email ping this week from Tornheim here, on a page where Tornheim admits not reading the talk page, did not examine even the most recent edits, and the POV tag was clearly reinstated by WMRapids,[191] which is easily apparent in recent edits and detailed on talk. It is not surprising that anyone would give up in the environment I experienced in trying to edit around WMRapids, and simply tag their edits as failing verification, as they usually do, as seen in three archives on that talk page, because after months and months of dealing with similar editing behaviors, one tires of having to do all of the EXTENSIVE cleanup required from their style of editing. I am not yet ready to face situations like this again on Wikipedia, but I do have months worth of diffs showing recurring POV and failure to use and cite adequate sources (see the three pages of talk archives mentioned above, but there is much more and in more places). Should anyone take the time to send this situation to ArbCom where it belongs, I could eventually provide diffs including those showing why the community has not been able to deal with this, but I am now on an extended vacation visiting my children and have a long drive home next week. This thread is a fine example of using ANI to eliminate one editor with whom others disagree over something fairly minor in comparison to the other behaviors seen in several articles by other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to propose this, but I'm unfamiliar with the requirements to start a case there. It will definitely help handling such a complex issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

When multiple users, who even state that they hold a similar POV to NoonIcarus (not being sympathetic to the government), say that there is a severe and consistent POV issue, that is not something "fairly minor."--WMrapids (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that this needs escalating to Arbcom. I think there's detectable brigading going on in this AN/I and that's why no uninvolved sysop has stepped up to deal with it.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't agree with your "brigading" assessment as it appears that the majority of these users have not been involved with one another. Being transparent, David did mention to me on how to correctly present an ANI somewhere before possibly, but this ANI seems clearly appropriate given that NoonIcarus disingenuously applied the "failed verification" tag and removed material.

  That's not true, though. I've had editorial disputes with the majority of users that support a topic ban against me, which is understandable given how controversial the topic is. I haven't brought it up to not sidetrack the discussion, but I'd be happy to comment more about it if needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Striking since I misread. Apologies. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus do have a history of collaborating together for years, however, which makes it interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after NoonIcarus contacted them in their talk page. (See edit)--WMrapids (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Allan Nonymous' mention of discussing this ANI on Discord was something new to me, too.

  As for Arbcom, I'm open for whatever may aid with settling disputes, but there seems to be a solid consensus of users supporting a topic ban for NoonIcarus. MoneyTrees, who is a member of Arbcom, was involved earlier on in this discussion. Would it be appropriate to ping them and ask their opinion? WMrapids (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think the reason this hasn't been closed is because you're right. There does seem to be a solid consensus. People qualified to close this might be a bit wary of it, though. I very much doubt if MoneyTrees would oppose an escalation to Arbcom in the circumstances, but if you'd like to ask them, you're welcome to do so. SandyGeorgia edits widely in controversial areas and it's not at all unusual for her edits to intersect with someone else's, but if you have concerns or suspicions about her, feel free to raise them at Arbcom when I open the case, or here now, or in any other appropriate place of you choice. Sandy won't be angry or defensive if you do, but she might be amused.

  To be quite frank, the only reason I didn't open an Arbcom case this morning is because Sandy wants to be involved and this isn't the best time for her. So I'm holding fire.—S Marshall T/C 14:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would appreciate feedback from at least one admin about whether they feel it necessary to escalate this incident to Arbcom before we just decide to supersede the obvious consensus here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need an admin's consent to escalate to Arbcom, because Arbcom's where you go when uninvolved admins aren't stepping up to deak with the problem.—S Marshall T/C 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Then I trust, when you've created this arbcom case, it will accurately reflect that the core subject is NoonIcarus' edit history and will notify all editors involved in the AN/I discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  That is one of the core subjects, yes, although I hope to persuade Arbcom to accept a case whose scope is Conduct in articles about the current politics and recent history of Venezuela. I certainly don't intend to make everyone who's posted here a party to the case, and it's not needful to notify non-parties. I'll notify parties to the case on their talk pages, and in the interests of transparency I'll also place notices here in this thread and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Butting in here; some three months ago, I was on the verge of taking these disputes to ARBCOM, because the conduct and content issues are inextricably linked, and there's experienced editors shielding disruptive editors on both "sides" of this dispute. I desisted largely because I wouldn't be able to participate in the evidence phase of such a case. It's been increasingly clear to me that that was a mistake, and I was waiting for the expected non-resolution of this thread - despite the numerous NPOV violations documented from multiple parties - to file a case. If nobody else does so, I intend to do so soon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've been caught up in some of the side discussions in this areas with multiple RFCs, or attempted RFCs, happening at RSN, and have thought that it might all end up at Arbcom. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  S Marshall thank you for that consideration, but frankly, there will be no optimal time for me. The vacation has somewhat helped me regain my bearings post-grief, but when I return home, I am scheduled for hand surgery for a pre-cancerous growth that needs to be excised, so I don't know what typing ability I will have. Growin' old ain't for sissies, but we all know the arbs are heaving a huge sigh of relief to hear that my typing might be affected, and my typical verbosity might be curtailed, but I will have timing issues regardless. The reasoning for opening the case is well summarized to the one sentence in this thread by Moneytrees; finding the extreme list of previous dispute resolution will be more time consuming, and unfortunately I have most of that back at home. The behaviors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard should also be within the scope of the conduct, and one can easily see in all of those threads who the other parties are.

  Dustfreeworld, thank you for the concern (I haven't actually read the majority of my talk page yet-- as I said, I came to this thread by looking in to an email ping from Tornheim when I was settled in at my son's house and able to review my email), but in the interest of length, the new casting of aspersions and failure to assume good faith re when or why I returned to editing are better explored with the facts and diffs in the arbcase, as they demonstrate a pattern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  ♥ --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: I'll trust your judgement on this then, though I do want to get the opinion @Moneytrees: as well. I've always advocated for more involvement in these disputes, so the more the merrier in this case. I'm just glad that these issues are getting some attention. Thanks for guiding us through this. WMrapids (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi there, as an uninvolved editor, may I ask what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing WP:Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian? Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day. May I also draw your attention to WP:Kindness campaign and WP:Editor retention as well? Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong with this, but the timing is curious to post something to a talk page which will be usually emailed. I don't know Sandy's personal background, so of course condolences to them, but I am more concerned about NoonIcarus' gamey behavior due to their history of unconventional canvassing.WMrapids (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (See edit)--WMrapids (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did email her months before all of this happened, because it's not the first time and she mentions she has gone through a difficult time. I found the WikiLove after looking for diffs to add to this case, and I'll remind that this is not the first time that you accuse me of canvassing for questionable reasons (Talk:WP:VENRS#RfC: VENRS, hence why the aspersions casting is also an important issue in all of this). I'll ask you again to not throw stone in a glass house after your own potential canvassing in previous and related move discussions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @WMrapids. Thank you for the reply. I know nothing about your/Noonlcarus’s background either. I don’t know what do you mean by “usually emailed”. If user’s talk page can’t be used to express WP:Wikilove, what is it used for? Used for arguing or assuming bad faith? At least 10 users have replied to that post of mine with messages such as “stay safe” already. What does that mean?

  1. It’s not “usually emailed” as you said. 2. Sandy is a well-respected and much-loved user.

  Aside, just curious, have you ever sent any Wikilove to other users on their talk page? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just for the record, I'll link once again the Wikilove I left for WMrapids in Christmas: User talk:WMrapids#Season's greetings. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Dustfreeworld, just an FYI ... because of my dislike of the pingie-thingie, I have my preferences set so that I see pings only via email; that way, they don't disrupt my concentration when I'm in the midst of complex edits. For most of late December, and until early March, I wasn't up to even checking my email. I did see the Tornheim ping via email because it was the most recent when checking in after I arrived at my son's house for Holy Week, and I was finally feeling ready to see if the Venezuelan editing situation had improved during my absence. As this situation has long needed to go to ArbCom, now seemed to be the time to say so. I'm sorry I won't be able to help out at my typical rate for medical content for at least the near future; after a long absence, catching up can be daunting, and I'm not sure I'm ready, as I also see J. K. Rowling descending into non-collaborative editing, which is discouraging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sandy, no worries, RL is more important. I hope things will get better soon. People like you,[192] so please, be well and take good care of yourself. ♥ --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC); edited 02:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  Seeing no retraction from WMrapids of his false charge after several days, my response is on his talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I know you have a lot going on, but I have to respectively ask since you have become involved; why haven’t you commented on NoonIcarus' behavior (either in support or opposition) and have instead focused on users who have had to deal with their POV editing?

Now, I also have to respond to your accusations about my citing and copying within Wikipedia. Regarding the citations, your "sample" is from about 6 months ago when I first was getting involved in controversial articles (I now know about exceptional claims needing exceptional sources, etc.) and we discussed above how I could be more specific when creating citations. Understandable. As for attribution, I have already discussed this with a patroller and they said my edits have improved. In a recent edit, I even made sure to attribute when it was my own original edit.

So while you have tried to make the point that I am some sort of troublesome user, there is direct evidence that I have responded to the feedback and have improved my editing. This isn't the case for NoonIcarus, however, so that is why I have to ask, Sandy, why have you decided not to comment on their misbehavior? Why haven't you discussed on how they are removing information while making false "failed verification" edit summary claims? Again, my sincerest condolences for all that you’re going through, but this is something that needs to be discussed as well.--WMrapids (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Tornheim pinged me to an immediate question for which the answer is obvious, and that is what brought me to this ANI. You reinstated a POV tag that had been resolved, as you re-added UNDUE material that had been many times discussed, without engaging talk,[193] and that is the (immediate) pattern of editing behavior I've observed over the long haul, which hasn't improved. You take long absences, then don't engage talk at all or ignore requests and questions, and then come in to edit as you please regardless of what has been discussed on talk, sometimes having found sub-standard sourcing or sources that either don't verify content or conflict with higher quality sources, (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources) and then leave the citations and other cleanup to others until the next lather-rinse-repeat cycle, and don't appear at times to have read or digested what is written on the page (eg the most recent aspersion in this thread). And you can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion.

As to whether your editing has improved, I haven't had time to check for good faith engagement on talk, but I see the same casting of aspersions as always in this very thread; you seek out obscure journal sources to back your POV (aka cherrypicking via apparently google searching on terms eg Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources rather than relying on a preponderance of higher quality sources); you leave the burden of discussion on others while the content you edit war in stands for months as others won't edit-war it out again; and the finger-pointing and the aspersions are persistent (see above), as is the tendency to not see that you do everything (and more) that you accuse NoonIcarus of doing.

Beyond the immediate instance that brought me here, I haven't taken time to look at anyone's recent editing, because a) I am visiting my son, b) all of these matters should be examined before ArbCom, not here, c) the issues with NoonIcarus in this instance are already beaten to death, and d) discussions with you (as with me) tend towards verbosity that will simply exhaust other readers. I am well aware that at times NoonIcarus's editing is also sub-par in several ways, but he has a full command of the sources, context and history, and a full and fair airing of a complex situation is unlikely with an ANI pile-on. The aim of my posts here is only as is appropriate to outline why an Arbcase is called for and context for the immediate issue here (failed verification tags as cleaning up after your edits can be exhausting and it is difficult to get you to engage talk). And I note that, unlike you, NoonIcarus is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to his command of English and being able to explain himself (eg, the misunderstanding about his objection to how some scholarly sources are frequently misused in Venezuelan content, and he is not the only editor to have noticed that). There is no need to fill up this ANI with further analysis of NoonIcarus's editing; what was not represented here at all was both sides of a complex situation in which users with less command of the sources frequently show up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Now at Arbcom

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan_politics.—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Please do not close this thread while ArbCom is considering whether to open a case. If ArbCom accepts the case, they will of course have the final say about NoonIcarus. If ArbCom declines the case, the community should take action, so that dummy edits will be useful to prevent this thread from being archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. A good faith arbitration request has been converted (thus far) to a referendum on ANI and noticeboard functioning, which unfortunately distracts from an already complex case, and adds to the TLDR aspect by further making it near impossible to respond on the arb pages while staying within the 500-word limit.
  The acknowledgement and statement on the arb request page of not wanting to even read this thread leaves three separate things that now need to be responded to, and that can't be done in 500 words: 1) answering BK49's query about why an arbcase is needed at all (which in optimal cases is all we would be entering with our 500 words on the arb page); 2) remedies or sanctions that may help short of a full arb case (since that has been suggested now) and I agree with Number57 about the negative effect that general sanctions will have on Venezuelan content if the underlying behaviors of both parties aren't addressed with warnings issued at least so that we can proceed rapidly to AE should they continue; and 3) the entirely separate matter of word limits at ANI. It's very disappointing to see the word-limit issue take over the case request (most responses are to that, with underlying issues not addressed), and it might have been better to raise that outside of the case page where the broader community could hold a full discussion, as there is much more than TLDR affecting the protracted dispute, even short posts get no feedback from admins, and a full discussion of that proposal, or alternate solutions, isn't feasible under a 500-word-limit scenario.
  I have yet to enter a declaration or full evidence here at ANI as my intent was to do that instead at an arbcase in the evidence phase, as this ANI thread became a pile-on where some of the (much more serious than failed verification tagging) evidence presented wasn't apparently even read or considered. I submit that pattern is likely to continue even if the TLDR is contained, as Wikipedia participation in Venezuelan content is lopsided and requires knowledge beyond the typical, including of Spanish. I am unsure where or whether to enter evidence and diffs here (where they won't be read), or there, or some combination of both; if arbs don't want to bother with complex cases, then letting Venezuelan content go the path described by Number 57 of Israel/Palestine is perhaps the most logical response, and I will not waste my time further. I await advice on how to proceed; if I am to enter evidence here, ANI needs to examine behaviors and issues more serious than those attributed to NoonIcarus, with some of the most serious affecting living persons. It would be detrimental to content to close this page thread by sanctioning only one party in a two-party-plus-brigade problem, while an arbcase is sidetracked to a separate issue of how to improve noticeboard functioning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, claims of brigading keep being made but no evidence has been presented of it. Simonm223 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• If people believe WMrapids also requires sanctions, why not just start a proposal for them here? I'm just not seeing the arguments for pre-empting the discussion of NoonIcarus' behavior above when it's so completely one-sided to the point of approaching a WP:SNOW close. If there are actually-solid reasons to think that it's been canvassed, the closer can take that into account, but right now it is so lopsided that it's hard to see how it could make a difference; the people doing the canvassing might get sanctions but it's not going to change the result. If people believe NoonIcarus shouldn't be topic-banned based on the merits, they need to actually say as much rather than just make procedural arguments. If only a single person is willing to defend their behavior on the merits then I think that it's clear it's going to happen no matter how this is resolved, and that dragging things to ArbCom just to get the same inevitable result is a waste of time. If people think that WMrapid should also be topic-banned or otherwise sanctioned, they should at least attempt to make that case to the community and gauge consensus on it before rushing to ArbCom; but right now it feels like people are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Some bludgeoning and allegations of canvassing aren't enough to take something to ArbCom while the outcome is so one-sided, since that means the community is handling this. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  When I referred it to Arbcom, it had been open for more than two weeks because the community wasn't handling it. All this has been raised several times before and got archived without closure. This time I used {{dnau}} to prevent that happening again, and it just got ignored and soon floated to the top of AN/I with all the involved people replying to each other, hugely multiplying the amount of reading required. The disputes are so sprawling and unstructured and smeared across so many pages that it isn't attracting experienced, uninvolved editors to do the reading and the thinking. Please bear in mind that I've largely sided with WMrapids on the specific issue that started this; my intention by referring to Arbcom was to get it moving, not to stop it in its tracks.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• I concur with User:S Marshall that this should go to ArbCom for two reasons. The first is that the case record has gotten so lengthy that it should be resolved in a deliberative fashion after thorough review, by ArbCom. The second is that Venezuelan politics has become a contentious topic, and that future disputes may better handled at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 1 April 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.

Deletions of (article) talk page material

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 have a long-running dispute that has started on 8. January when User:Chaheel Riens deleted 26 KiB of talk page material. I would like the mentioned 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored (archiving it would also be fine with me). However, this dispute is interrelated with the correct interpretation of WP:TPO, and it might have important consequences as such.

As a justification for his actions, User:Chaheel Riens provided WP:FORUM, WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO, here. After some further arguments and counter-arguments, he refused to properly argue . I think that there was some amount of WP:LAWYERING involved on his part, but I don't see that as important.

I took the issue to the DRN, but it was not successful. However, my conclusion was that DRN was not a proper venue, because the central issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material, which is a conduct issue.

The relevant guideline related to this problem seems to be WP:TPO. Some experienced editors are interpreting it as supporting the disputed deletion, while other experienced editors are of the opposite opinion. The editors who support the deletion are referencing various parts of WP:OR to justify the disputed deletion. In my opinion, such justifications are invalid, because WP:OR clearly states: This policy does not apply to talk pages... Other justifications for deletion are invalid due to similar reasons. My conclusion is that the policies are supporting my side of the argument, therefore the deleted talk page material should be restored and then archived.

Currently, this dispute is stuck at some kind of status quo, as I was absent for a month, and other editors apparently refused to argue further. I think that further arguments would be futile anyway, because this dispute is essentially about two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO, as it was noticed here .

This dispute is unlikely to be resolved by any kind of discussion between involved parties. I judge that WP:ANI is the relevant authority for this kind of disagreement, because deletions of talk page material are conduct issues. To escape the status quo, some definitive guidance is needed about the proper course of action in this dispute.

Initial discussion at ZX Spectrum graphic modes

Link to the continuation of discussion after DRN failed.

Link to the discussion at WP:TPG talk page.

- Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this still the same discussion where you pretty much accused me of being a scammer and a liar? I distanced myself when it because clear it was turning into a slow-motion train crash while beating the dead horse at the same time. I've given a cursory glance over it since I last commented, and you don't seem to be gaining much favour - even the editor who was critical of me seems to have washed their hands of you and the discussion. This could be a case of WP:FILLIBUSTER where you just go on and on and on and on and on until everybody simply gives up in exasperation. I've taken the liberty of pinging the other involved editors who were missed, but the discussion is such a mess it's hard to see if all have been included. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I have never accused you, or anyone, of being scammers and liars. It is just your interpretation of one hypothetical statement of mine, which I posted in a separate discussion about copyright issues [194] [195] that isn't really related to this one. I apologize to you any everyone involved if you were offended by a lack of clarity in my writings, because I don't think that you are a scammer or a liar.

I argue that what you have just suggested is essentially an attempt to perpetuate the status quo. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum: You mentioned "the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers". Would you have included Chaheel Riens in that group? City of Silver 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I must admit that, at that specific moment, I was quite confused about what is happening. Therefore, my statement in question did not refer to anyone in particular. The copyright issues are a serious problem, and my statement was intended to alert to the importance of those issues. I appologized here to another user, User:4throck, who might have been most obviously affected by that unfortunate statement of mine. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here or indeed anywhere. The proper path forward is to work on something else. What practical difference is there between moving this information to the talk page archive vs having it available in diffs? Unwillingness to repeat oneself endlessly is not "refused to properly argue." VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not again! - I tried to mediate the dispute, which was originally presented as an article content dispute, but was really mostly a dispute about the removal of talk page material. I developed DRN Rule F and was preparing to mediate a discussion about the removal or restoration of the article talk page material. User:Z80Spectrum then began discussing the dispute with User:Ritchie333, an end run around my mediation, so I failed the mediation.
• I will comment that I started off sympathetic to User:Z80Spectrum about the talk page edits. The guidelines on editing other editors' talk page posts are poorly written, and do not clarify when the removal of talk page material is in order. My opinion is that they should state that removal is only rarely appropriate, and that normally disputed talk page material should be either archived or userfied. So I started out thinking that User:Chaheel Riens had been overly aggressive, but I tried to maintain neutrality. User:Z80Spectrum soon acted aggressively, making an accusation on the talk page of User:Ritchie333 that I still don't entirely understand, but that appeared to be casting aspersions. Two months later is late to apologize for a personal attack that was called out at the time. Now User:Z80Spectrum wants to reopen a dispute that had faded away more than a month ago.
• This filing is a boomerang thrown by User:Z80Spectrum. If the community agrees with User:VQuakr that there isn't a current issue, then the issue is what to do about this vexatious litigation by the filing editor. I think that there wasn't a current issue until this report was filed, but now this report is reopening something.
• One possible resolution to this case would be a one-way interaction ban on User:Z80Spectrum against interacting with or attacking User:Chaheel Riens.Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not "reopening" this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.

  I would like to point out that all I want is the 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored and archived (that's the primary reason for this WP:ANI report). I will accept the interaction ban on my behalf, or any similar measure, to get that deleted content restored. I also wanted to clarify the ambiguities in the WP:TPG guideline, but that is secondary. This dispute is not about opinions, it is about proper application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and those are not decided by a community vote.

  I think that your accusation of vexatious litigation is not very nice. What else should I have done to get the deleted content restored? Did I not do everything you have suggested to me? Did you communicate any other suggestions to me earlier? I do not care about any measures to User:Chaheel Riens, as I have said earlier on your talk page.

  From my point of view, User:Chaheel Riens was misinterpreting my words so I felt no need to apologize on my own incentive. If he had asked me to apologize on my talk page, I would have apologized. I even apologized to one unrelated editor, here [196]. The discussion at DRN was interrupted due to the copyright issues, and I considered those a priority over the DRN discussion. In spite of your alleged "sympathetic" stance towards me, your post is a one way attack against me, with not a single word said in defense of my perspective. Therefore, I doubt your neutrality.

  I certainly don't want this discussion to get derailed again by off-topic comments, so I would like to remind that the reported issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material. If my conduct had not been stellar, I will accept the consequences, I will accept the boomerang, but I won't accept if the reported issue is completely ignored. Z80Spectrum (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this boomerang has NOTHERRE written on it; way too much valuable time has been wasted on this.  // Timothy :: talk  05:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Another Reply to User:Z80Spectrum

User:Z80Spectrum writes:

I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not "reopening" this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.

When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? In early February? I started a discussion of talk page removals at the Talk Page Guidelines talk page, in which I said that the talk page guidelines about removal of talk page posts were poorly written. Between 4 March and 17 March? You took a break from editing. If you were ill, I am sorry that you were ill and hope you have recovered. If so, I apologize for any rudeness on my part.

You say that the dispute was never closed. It was never closed at the Talk Page Guidelines talk page. It was closed at DRN. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. It was your fault that you entangled two disputes, which confused me and confused User:Ritchie333, and looked to me like a personal attack on User:Chaheel Riens.

It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault.

If you were ill, I am sorry, and I hope that you have recovered. In any case, the talk page removal is not a conduct issue, because it is an issue of a poorly worded guideline. If there is any conduct issue, it is your conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Pt1. User:Robert McClenon said: When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you?

For example, at any time after 21 February 2024 would have been fine, after I had pinged you.

Pt2. User:Robert McClenon said: It was closed at DRN. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue [...cut...] It was your fault that you entangled two disputes [...]

No, it was not my fault. Or, maybe it is my fault, if I was supposed to stop the editing completely while the DRN case was in progress. How could I had known in advance that my attempt to coordinate efforts with User:4throck would lead me to stumble upon the copyright issue (which is at the end of a discussion with him)?

User:4throck was previously mostly sympathetic towards me and my writings, like in this comment, which is a part of the 26 KiB of deleted content.

Pt3. User:Robert McClenon said: [...] you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars.

No, that is just your interpretation. I have said: "You must consider the possibility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers.", here. There is a big difference. Notice the words "possibility" and "might". I don't like such serious misinterpretations of my words.

Pt4. User:Robert McClenon said: It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault.

The evidence is mounting that you were never sympathetic or neutral. For example at DRN, you took no action against this comment, where another editor is acting contrary to your Wikipedia:DRN Rule F, section 9 (also, in my opinion User:Chaheel Riens is completely misinterpreting the "archiving problem" there).

Two days before that, I reported this case to WP:ANI, based on what you have said

here, and based on behavior of User:Chaheel Riens, where it took him 42 hours to reply with this comment where I was accused of making a "threat".

After I reported the case to WP:ANI, you have proposed to continue the moderated discussion, which was fine. However, after I objected , the case at ANI should have been reopened, and the case at DRN should have been closed, as you have previously stated. Instead, you said I would suggest that you follow the guidance of User:Ritchie333 who closed your complaint at WP:ANI., defending the inappropriate closure of my case at WP:ANI. I agreed, nonetheless. However, given all that has happened at the DRN, it was quickly getting obvious that the case has no chance of succeeding, and it was getting worse by a series of misinterpretations by User:Chaheel Riens. For example: I was the one who agreed to archiving, and I clearly stated it at least three times: here , here, and much earlier, here on User:Chaheel Riens talk page. In the DRN discussion, User:Chaheel Riens was constantly making it appear as if I had something against archiving, by citing various technical trivialities, and by attempting to dodge the archiving question as long as possible.

Pt5. However, I decided to interpret all that as a honest mistake on your part, User:Robert McClenon. I considered that the "honest mistake" interpretation is the most likely one.

Pt6. By the time I raised the copyright issue, the discussion at DRN had already have failed, at least from my point of view. I also consider the legal situation with copyright to be of much higher priority.

Pt7. I judge that all the arguments against me are either gross misinterpretations of my words or gross misinterpretations of the entire situation. From my point of view, it is now quite likely that some of those misinterpretations were intentional, and some are a consequence of common human biases (i.e. User:Robert McClenon is far from being neutral, he is just acting in support of a long term editor, and against me as a newbie). I judge that even such are a normal and expected part of discussions.

All the evidence shows that I was the one who had a lot of sympathy for both User:Robert McClenon and for User:Chaheel Riens, and I still do. I'm willing to instantly forget all the injustices that you have done to me, under the condition that the 26 KiB of deleted material is restored. Then we can engage in a discussion whether that material is WP:OR, or not, on the "ZX Spectrum graphics modes" page, and any further implications of that material.

Took me three hours to write this. I hope that you appreciate it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Boomerang, whether that's a WP:CIR block, or a topic ban to prevent future disruption. This should have been dropped months ago, but instead Z80Spectrum has chosen to drag it out. WP:FORUM is definitely a bit vague, but this is not a good choice of edits to pick a fight over. What's more concerning is Z80Spectrum's insistence that this must be resolved to their satisfaction, after leaving it fallow for a month, as well as trying to insist the real problem is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material, rather than their dogged insistence on litigating this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was not "insisting" on anything. I don't have the power to do so. I was saying that I would very likely consider it unjust if my complaint about the deletion of the 26 KiB of deleted material is disregarded. I don't see any way in which that deletion can be justified, in the sense that I expect the deleted material to be restored.

  User:HandThatFeeds said after leaving it fallow for a month ... Wikipedia is not my full-time job. As I red in one of the essays, time passes slowly here, and breaks in disputes are usually welcome. It can be easily verified that all the last comments (before I took a break in this dispute) are mine, and that it was other editors who all went silent before I took a break. I can't reply to their silence. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Z80Spectrum, I mean this with all due respect and in all good faith, but for your own good, walk away. Deciding to go to battle with Robert McClenon, who is basically Wikipedia's aptheosis of equanimity, is not going to find you favor. We know how you judge your situation, but please take into account that others may judge it differently. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply, which I judge was in very good faith. Unfortunately, I habitually don't respond affirmatively to any arguments from authority. All arguments with me have to be properly justified, in a properly conducted and fair discussion. If that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, feel free to ban me. So yes, I'm going to argue against the respected User:Robert McClenon, until the arguments show that I'm in the wrong, or until I'm banned. Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I am not saying you must agree with anything Robert says. I am merely saying there is a vast swath of territory between 'disagreement' and 'picking a fight.' Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments. I'm also giving a peaceful offer, which is the same one from the very start of this case: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved. Perhaps I forgot to say that I will likely write about this incident on my user page, but I can try to avoid mentioning names there. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm also giving a peaceful offer[...]: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved.

  It's either your way or total war?!?? Paradoctor (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not my full-time job.

  No one is saying it should be. But, after a month, the discussion is dead and over. Dragging it back out over and over to get your way is just tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Z80Spectrum: in reviewing past interactions I was reminded of this (quite specious) interaction regarding copyright. When people are talking about WP:CIR in this context, "competence" is regarding your ability to collaborate on a project that is defined by its collaboration. It seems to me that you have battled or argued with nearly everyone you've interacted with; is that a habit you are able to change? VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  A fair question. Primarily, Wikipedia is a system. More precisely, Wikipedia is a complex system consisting of a community of people, principles, policies and guidelines, server-side software and data.

  All complex systems have faults of significant importance, and no human-made system ever has worked without failures. I am a newbie user here. I have to defend myself from all the consequences of the Wikipedia-as-a-system, including its many faults.

  In the case you have mentioned, if the copyright information of the problematic image was invalid, then I would have been legally liable to persecution. I consider such circumstances as a physical attack on me, as a consequence of one of Wikipedia's failures. I considered it as a grave and important situation.

  Wikipedia can't claim infallibility. I can't just rely on opinions of a few editors, or on information displayed by Wikipedia. Thus I demanded an opinion of an expert. I had every right to defend myself, in my opinion. When I got a good-enough explanation, I accepted it. If I have extensively argued before that moment, it means that I always had some unanswered objections.

  The problem would not have existed if the disputed image was hosted on Wikipedia, instead of a third-party website.

  Instead, Wikipedia-as-a-system forced me, under a possibility of a legal threat, to extract the necessary copyright information from Wikipedia in a somewhat aggressive way. No one was seriously harmed, as far as I can tell.

  You are correct in stating that I have argued with many people on Wikipedia. The problem is that I joined Wikipedia with a dispute-at-hand. It was not just an ordinary dispute, but a dispute where conflicting interpretations already existed before I joined Wikipedia. That is not my fault.

  I would honestly suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to try to fix its own faults first, and to not shift blame on the users, and especially not on newbie users. Unfortunately, complex systems are similar to persons, and they don't like to be criticized, so they usually don't listen to criticisms. I would also suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to be more tolerant of newbies, to not try to immediately intimidate them with WP:LAWYER. When reading many pages and essays here, I came under the impression that this criticism is already well-know, and that the real problem is in Wikipedia's reluctance to improve itself. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  My thoughts:

  - There are many ways you could improve Wikipedia that don't involve trying to restore that talk page - ways which it seems to me that a lot of others in this discussion would rather be doing instead of discussing this even more. Maybe seems unfair, but it appears that that is the current state of things.

  - If you want to improve the article and discuss it in the talk page, you can still do that, if you want to look at the deleted talk page content to find ways to improve the article, you can also still do that (by looking at the talk page from before it was removed).

  - Are you right? Are you wrong? Those questions should matter a lot less than questions like "How can we move on? What can we still improve? How can we discuss it in a way that won't result in someone interpreting it as violating WP:TALK?".

  The big thing here, is that this does not appear to be an issue of great significance, and the more time that is taken to either try to resolve the dispute or discuss things here in ANI (honestly, the more time that it takes to read big walls of text too) the less people are going to want to do that, because it's a lot of time for little gain.

  
  

  I don't agree with people saying that you should be sanctioned for making this ANI thread and for having dug this topic after people had moved on, because you made this thread as a way to continue the dispute (which seems to have been left as a possibility in the conclusion of the the DRN discussion) and because of what your intentions appear to have been when making it, but I think that you should withdraw this ANI thread and move on from and forget this dispute before people actually do get you blocked for it.

  The value you bring to Wikipedia is directly weighed against the time that is taken away from other editors without that time being used to improve or protect the Wikipedia.

  – 2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  And just to be clear, since I'm unsure how aware of how things work you are, withdrawing means saying that you do, that's all. – 2804:F1...7E:615D (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  If I understand it right, you are suggesting a compromise in which I withdraw, and I also suffer no consequences. I decline such a compromise (which was provided in good faith) due to the following:

  Objection 1. Such a compromise implies that I consent to devaluing most of my work on Wikipedia so far, in return for some kind of "safety". I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not.

  Objection 2. Such a compromise is not in accordance with my stated principles of justified and fair discussions. I would much rather see and suffer the consequences of the outcome which is at this moment uncertain, than to retreat without being given proper justifications.

  Objection 3. I think that I'm fighting for the right cause. The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals. One of the worst outcomes from my point of view would be the perpetuation of the status quo, in which WP:TPG remains ambiguous. Z80Spectrum (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals.

  You are vastly overestimating the importance of this discussion. You're also fighting the wrong battle. If you want sanctions, I expect you're going to get them now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Z80Spectrum, if you feel being banned from the topic page or Wikipedia in general is worth making your point, then that is certainly fine. I just want to make sure you're aware that you are making the former a near certainty and the latter more and more probable. All the best however things should go. Dumuzid (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, Dumuzid. If I'm banned, I can take it. I wasn't editing Wikipedia much before this incident, and I can certainly live without editing Wikipedia in the future. I wasn't even planning to edit Wikipedia, I was just bored, about 4 months ago. So, don't worry about me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yet Another Reply to User:Z80Spectrum

You seem to be arguing with yourself, and one of the risks of arguing with oneself is that one may lose the argument. On the one hand, you agree that the guideline on editing the talk page posts of other editors is poorly written and ambiguous. On the other hand, you say that you have reopened this WP:ANI thread because the removal of your 26K post is a conduct issue on the part of User:Chaheel Riens. If the guideline is poorly written, it is unfair to argue that there was a conduct violation, but maybe you are arguing both ways.

You have now decided that I was never neutral. You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored, because I thought and still think that deletion of talk page posts should only be done rarely. I disagreed with User:Chaheel Riens, and thought that they were overreacting when they deleted your 26K post. I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored either to an article talk page archive, to your user talk page, or to a user talk page archive. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of User:Ritchie333. It appeared to me that you are asking for his help with regard to the dispute about the talk page post. I now see that you were asking for his help with regard to a copyright dispute. I still don't know what the copyright dispute was, and I am not sure whether I want to know.

You say, in Pt 3, that I misunderstood what you were saying, about scammers and liars. That is probably true, but you said that you had evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARitchie333&diff=1197436589&oldid=1197435165

You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation.

You write:

I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments.

If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. You say that you didn't invite me here. By "here", do you mean WP:ANI? It is true that you didn't ping me, but I was always here. Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. You wrote: I'm not "reopening" this dispute, as the dispute was never closed. So did you think that I would have forgotten about it?

I didn't pick a fight.

Thank you, User:Dumuzid, for your positive comment.

Starting Over ?

Now, at this point, here are the issues that I think remain:

• 1. User:Z80Spectrum wants their 26K of deleted posts back. That material has not been revision-deleted. Z80Spectrum can copy it to a user subpage in user space. If they want it in article talk space, they can resume the discussion of the talk page guidelines, but at least they will have it. A user has more control over their own user space than over article talk space. If anyone else thinks that the material is inappropriate for user space, they can nominate the material for MFD. Userfication should be a satisfactory compromise that doesn't require a community decision.
• 2. Z80Spectrum did say that they have evidence. That was not a hypothetical statement, but an allegation against someone. They should either present the evidence, or say that they were just talking wildly.
• 3. Is there anything else?

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Z80Spectrum said they want the deleted material [...] restored and archived, or else. "Material" being his WP:OR. No thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I dislike your comment, Paradoctor. I repeat, again, a quote from WP:OR: This policy does not apply to talk pages. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Article talk pages exist to discuss changes to the corresponding article. "I dislike your comment" is an oddly (bizarrely, even!) confrontational way of putting things. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Pt11. User:Robert McClenon said: You seem to be arguing with yourself ...

Your argument depends at least on a presumption that the property of being ambiguous can only have a yes or no answer. I argue that there exist many intermediates, or degrees, of ambiguity. WP:TPO is not ambiguous to such a degree that absolutely no conclusion can be reached. I judge that, upon careful reading, WP:TPO supports my side of the argument to a level significantly higher than the case for deletion.

I will skip the detailed justification of my previous sentence. Instead, I ask you this: can you quote a part of WP:TPO which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB? Such a quotation would be a good start of a fair discussion.

On the other hand, you have stated at DRN : However, it is my opinion that the removal of material posted by another editor to an article talk page is only allowed under unusual circumstances, and those circumstances were not present. So the removal of the large amount of talk page material was an error. From my point of view, it appears that you are the one who is now arguing against own previous statements.

Pt12. User:Robert McClenon said: You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored ... Actually, I believe you. In the vast majority of cases, bias is sub-conscious. Biased persons are usually not aware that they are biased. Or, perhaps you were not biased, and it was some other kind of a honest mistake. Still, that DRN case was unjust towards me, primarily because it should have been closed and moved to WP:ANI when I requested it.

Pt13. User:Robert McClenon said: I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored [...]. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of User:Ritchie333. …

I judge that as invalid. One thing has nothing to do with another. I see no valid logical connections between whether the content should be restored and what I said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .

Pt14. User:Robert McClenon said: You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. …

I have already apologized for that entire discussion on User:Ritchie333 talk page, three times: [197] [198] [199]. I now apologize for the fourth time. I would also like to point out that I ended that discussion with You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here.. That final post of mine was an attempt to cancel what I have said there. Obviously, it wasn't clear enough.

This insistent objections concerning those few sentences on User:Ritchie333 talk page are getting in the way of a fair discussion. I have a feeling that you and User:Chaheel Riens are trying to scare me and silence me by quoting that discussion only when I try to argue for the restoration of the deleted material. I won't search now for evidence in support of that feeling of mine, but I will do it if the issue is brought up again.

I repeat: I see no valid logical connections between restoration of the deleted material and what I have said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .

Pt15. User:Robert McClenon said: If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. […] By "here", do you mean WP:ANI?

Yes, I mean/meant you, User:Robert McClenon. I was replying to an answer of another editor who used the phrase "pick a fight" first. I re-used his phrase due to concerns of clarity. Yes, I meant WP:ANI.

Pt16. User:Robert McClenon said: Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia.

On WP:ANI, I have already provided an answer to your allusion.

So, you claim that you were present on Wikipedia. Tell me, have you done something related to this dispute since February 21st? If you did, I'm still unaware of it. I was mostly absent, and I might have missed some important development, so I would like to get informed. Or, perhaps you did nothing since February 21st?

-

Answers to the three points titled "Starting Over ?":

Pt21. (answer to 1.) The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified. Perhaps you are trying to say that the deleted material belongs better to my user space, but I don't think it does. The deleted material is strongly connected to the "ZX Spectrum graphics modes" article, where it should be discussed. The deleted material specifically discusses improvements only to that article, and also discusses and documents methods of generating images specifically for that article.

I see no justification in the guidelines for your proposed compromise. Can you quote a part of WP:TPO that would support your proposal to move the disputed material to my user space?

A rhetorical question: What would you say if I proposed that every comment you wrote on any talk page should be moved to your user space, as a compromise?

I propose as an equally good "compromise" (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space.

Pt22. (answer to 2.) When I said "I have evidence", I meant that User:4throck

a) provided me with a link to an image hosted on a third-party website

b) didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright.

c) the image he previously uploaded to the Commons was modified in a strange way, which made me extremely suspicious

Pt23. (answer to 3.) Yes, there is more. Given the totality of your objections and proposals in this discussion on WP:ANI so far, I would estimate that, generally speaking, you are not arguing properly. I ask for arguments and justifications of better quality. I especially dislike apparent constant attempts to blame me for as many things as possible, which then causes me to spend unnecessary time and space for rebuttals of each accusation (since I might be punished by WP:ANI for any single accusation of yours). To accusations, I might respond with counter-accusations, as I did. To valid arguments, I will respond with arguments.

Please, if you want to improve the quality of this discussion, then try to provide a small number of well-thought out arguments, instead of a multitude of short, but easily rebutted arguments. You can start by answering the two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Lord, this is becoming a veritable black hole waste of time. I didn't realise it was still ongoing, as my username was incorrectly spelled in some of the earlier pings, so I never received them. However, I'll make just a couple of observations and try to keep away in general:

1. I propose as an equally good "compromise" (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space - that depends on whether the 26Kb in question has been challenged, and the reasons behind it. As this would obviously be a WP:POINTY edit, then you would most likely find your actions had consequences that you would undoubtedly feel were unfair. (Incidentally, you state that this is a rhetorical question, but also ask for it to be answered. It can't be both, but I chose the latter.)
2. The issue here that you are still fixated on the talk page removal, and will not let it go - to the extent where everything else fades out and your position must be accepted. However, to every other editor this is no longer the case - even those who supported you at first. It's now turned into a primarily a conduct issue, albeit your conduct around the original issue (even if mine was questioned at the start) - yet you refuse to accept or take advice in that respect. Even back when DRN was first mooted I was prepared to accept the outcome regardless, and recognised that I've interacted with Robert before in passing - he's to be respected here. I tried to support you, I really did - when you first joined I left you a Welcome template on your talk page, and recognised that you were just venting with your userpage, voting to keep[200], but you make it a hard row, and I feel like it's against the current. You seem to be making it personal, and that's not a good place to edit from. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Pt31. (answer to 1.) Perhaps I used a wrong word there (i.e. "ironically"). Precisely: that last "compromise" of mine should not be understood at face value. I also think that you didn't correctly identify the "two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted". It is likely a honest mistake on your part.

Whether the disputed content should be moved to my user space is a question of justification and a question of consistence. A justification has to be found in the policies and guidelines. "Consistence" is about the usual and accepted ways to solve this kind of a dispute. It would be the best if both the justification and the "consistence" coincide into one and the same action.

Pt32. (answer to 2.) I'll only let go if I'm provided with a valid justification (which can also be based on the concept of consistence, but such is a much more complex argument to make). "Advice" will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you can't convince other editors you're right, then you have to drop it. This is policy on Wikipedia. If you can't handle it, you're in the wrong place.

WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making [...] Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity [...] nor is the result of a vote. Paradoctor (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't have to convince other editors. Conduct issues are decided by WP:ANI, and the deletion od 26 KB is a conduct issue. I'd like to hear the judgement of WP:ANI. I hope that it will be properly justified. Until then, I'll be posting my counter-arguments, in order to better inform the administrators at WP:ANI of my side of the argument. Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified. This seems quite a lot like a battleground mentality.

...didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright....which made me extremely suspicious. All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. Assuming good faith, however, is not optional. VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Pt41. User:Vquakr said: All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. Assuming good faith, however, is not optional.

OK. However, I argue that I had good reasons for being suspicious, due to the gravity (i.e. importance) of legal problems. I argue that I had the right to demand immediate clarification of the copyright problem, and that I had sufficient reasons for being suspicious. Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material. The issue of my conduct is a separate issue. I can't tell how much have I overstepped, as I am a newbie here. I have already agreed to accept the boomerang. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• can you quote a part of WP:TPO which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB?

Can't speak for Robert, but I do.

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself

Which OR always is, by definition.

Which I told you more than five weeks ago, on your talk page. You have hearing issues. Paradoctor (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Pt42. User:Paradoctor said: WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself

I think this is a repetition of the discussion on my talk page, in which you participated. I'll reply the same as I did there, but shorter : The deleted discussion is not a discussion about article's subject (the subject are the graphics modes), but about article content (images in the article are content). Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a repetition Uh, I literally said so. Let me repeat another bit of yours from slightly further down: Frankly, I can't see your side of the argument at all.

Me and everyone else. So, lots of not seeing on all sides. What are we to do? The fact is, for whatever reason, and whomever you wish to blame for that, you couldn't convince anyone to accept your position. Which means your position won't result in content.

You dislike this, sure. I understand. But it is clear that further discussion will not lead to conversions. Attempting to continue the campaign will only waste the time of other editors. So, unless you wish to be sanctioned, it is time to drop it now. Remember what Obi Wan said to Anakin on Mustafar. Paradoctor (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what's the best way to say this, but I want to say to you that you are, by your nature, quite an amusing person. You make me smile. I would like that to be understood in a positive way. So, I can't say that I dislike your comment.

That was a slight digression. On the serious side, your argument is just a version of a fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum. I would like to be given proper justifications, not fallacies. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You know, if you try to condescend to someone, at least make sure you're right. I never said consensus makes right. I said Wikipedia operates through consensus, and consensus is not with you here and now. Paradoctor (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I accept only the original trilogy, so Obi Wan on Mustafar didn't happen. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• And from WP:NOTFORUM: "Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... #4 Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia ... bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article"  // Timothy :: talk  18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Pt43. I have already discussed that in other forums. I argue that the deleted 26 KB is solely about improving the article. To verify it, you have to read the deleted 26 KB: this topic (at least the first post), and this part, which is about improving the "Colour palette" section of the article [201].

  Also, I would like to remind that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is your research: Let's compute this conversion of "theoretic" ZX Spectrum PAL colors into sRGB color space. They are "theoretic" because we are assuming the maximum possible saturation that a ZX Spectrum could possibly achieve on the PAL output. The real colors produced by a ZX Spectrum on the PAL output are probably less saturated. The real colors are currently unknown, and the only way to find them out is by an oscilloscope, via the UV voltages method (by measuring amplitude-phase shift of chroma sub-carrier).

  Where is the reliable source that says what you are saying there?

  What do you not understand about WP:V?

  content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. Paradoctor (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to remind that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OR does not apply to normal appropriate talk page discussions, this means discussing with reliable sources improvements to the article. This type of discussion is not original research. You however are not using the talk pages for discussion within these talk page guidelines, you are using talk pages to try and publish your own thoughts, this is original research and per WP:NOTFORUM is is not allowed.  // Timothy :: talk  02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, [WP:V], sorry, here you go: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, ... Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts, these cannot be WP:V and using talk pages to try and end run around WP:V won't work. I think this is why you are so desperate to have this content put back on a talk page instead of your userspace, you can't get your WP:OR in the article directly, so the talk page is the next choice.  // Timothy :: talk  02:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have replied below at the start of "Courtesy Break (1)". Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to clarify that I'm new to ANI, so forgive me if I miss any formalities. However, I wanted to chime in because like other editors here, I really don't see how this content dispute qualifies as a chronic, intractable problem. The dispute effectively amounts to a several month-old removal of talk page content, which has been dragged to death via various noticeboards. What exactly is the point of bringing this here? If it's content, this discussion does not belong here. I agree with the IP's suggestion for Z80Spectrum to withdraw this thread, before they continue to dig a hole for themselves, running the risk of potential sanctions. What I do find intractable, however, is Z80Spectrum's battleground mentality, which has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread, e.g users are trying to scare and silence me, (which is demonstrably false, since your own actions have led you to this point, not mine, nor anyone else's), and I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not. As @VQuakr succinctly put it, this isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. Irrespective of whether or not the removal was justified, I think Z80Spectrum needs to stop digging a hole for themselves. This really isn't a hill that one should die on. Bandit Heeler (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy Break (1)

After an approx. 15 hours break, I would like to continue the argumentation here. I'll skip the replies to all the argument so far where I estimate that they are either obviously false, fallacious, off-topic, irrelevant, or without sufficient substance.

As far as I can tell, that leaves only two posts unanswered, by User:TimothyBlue, where he talks about applicability of WP:OR and WP:V policies. User:TimothyBlue said: You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts ...

My answer is as follows. Generally speaking, Wikipedia talk pages contain thoughts of users. I estimate that user's thoughts form over 50% of the total Wikipedia talk page material. Wikipedia does not require user's thoughts published on talk pages to be verifiable. Upon reading the WP:V policy, it can be easily noticed that it speaks primarily about article content, and not about talk page material.

Additionally, most parts of the disputed 26 KiB material are actually easily verifiable. You just need to use a calculator, and you need some introductory knowledge in the topics covered.

Similar reasoning applies with regards to WP:OR, which explicitly and clearly states: This policy does not apply to talk pages... . If Wikipedia was to apply WP:OR to content of talk pages, it would imply that all the talk page discussions have to be just slight re-interpretations of material already published somewhere else. That would further imply the need to put inline references into all sentences published on talk pages. So, it is not any kind of a wonder that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages.

Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:PLAYPOLICY  // Timothy :: talk  19:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You have a right to state that opinion of yours. I argue that it is an undoubtable and obvious intention of WP:OR and WP:V to be applicable only to mainspace (i.e. to articles, and not to talk pages). Therefore, I'm not gaming the use of policies and guidelines. Instead, I'm providing a very obvious interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban

Given the above lengthy comment, which dismisses concerns as easily rebutted arguments and that users are trying to scare me and silence me, I can see no option besides the following:

• Topic ban Z80Spectrum from Sinclair Research and related articles. I chose this more broad topic ban (rather than just the Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes page) as I expect this will continue at those related pages otherwise. This is the only way to put this interminable argument to rest and bring focus back to improving these articles, rather than going in circles over a months-old WP:FORUM removal from the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: their area of interest/expertise is clearly linked to that subject area given their user name and editing history; topic banning them from that area rather than addressing the behavioral issues seems like an indef block by another name, and if they started editing in another area with the same behavior the same issues would arise. Put another way, this boils down to battleground mentality not the subject area so I don't think a topic ban is the right tool. As an alternative: what about a ban from arguing against or uncollapsing off-topic talk page posts, with a warning that future forum-like posts, synthetic talk page posts, or battleground behavior will likely result in a block? VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Z80Spectrum seems to have an interest in technology in general - a look at their contributions so far (once the talk page and ANI chaff is filtered out) shows a fairly wide breadth of computer related interests. A topic ban here would not restrict them as much as a block, indef or not. Additionally, they have made constructive edits to the ZX Spectrum article - here and here for example. I think a topic ban would work for just the ZX Spectrum graphic modes article & talk page. Not being a mop-holder, I'm also unaware, but I do - best will in the world - think that some kind of attitude warning or restriction based on the WP:STICK and battleground mentality is in order. As an involved (!) party, I'm not sure how much weight my observations carry though. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Indef block - Changed my mind based on this comment in Pt32. (answer to 2.): "Advice" will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Although it's abundantly clear he has no intention of stopping, this is where he categorically states and admits it. He's not going to stop and will keep filibustering until somebody stops him instead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

15 years, 37,619 edits, carries a bit of weight.  // Timothy :: talk  22:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a behavioral topic ban will suit, because that's just too vague to enforce. Either an article topic ban, or a CIR block, are the only solutions I can think of to end this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: They really have left everyone with few options. I suppose this comes down to how much more time needs to be wasted? Based on this I think the underlying problem will resurface in a different form. After looking at their userpage, I think they want to be blocked to prove what they think is a point. Wikipedia has flaws large and small, but their userpage rant is even more unhinged than this discussion. However the tban is crafted, it needs to be crystal clear that if the problem repeats a block will be fast in coming.  // Timothy :: talk  22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Topic ban for ZX Spectrum graphic modes. I think the crux is that this is about something they put a lot of work in, and the rejection of their work has them running a lot hotter than their usual self. Let's not forget they are new here. If I'm wrong, we'll learn soon enough, but I'm willing to give them a chance to cool down.
  Block indef Reassessed.
  Site ban, but will accept an indef block. I have begun to see the wisdom in Remsense's words below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) ; edited 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC); edited 10:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  However it turns out, I would like to say that I mostly enjoyed conversations with you. I'm saying this just in case that I'm banned and therefore unable to say it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Topic ban or just block indef. Based on the comment in this discussion: "Advice" will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. - it is obvious that some sort of sanction will be required. - MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Indef block: They just replied above (see [202]). They made it clear they have no intention of stopping.  // Timothy :: talk  00:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban from article space. The conduct issue here is the editor's filibustering in project space about an article talk page. I am not stating a position for or against an indefinite block or site ban, but those are not what is being considered here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Indef block even now, with this discussion open, they just can't help themselves. Hopeless case of WP:BATTLE. VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Indef - Given the new rants and declaration they will not stop until a "justification" which satisfies them is presented, I'm striking my topic ban suggestion and supporting an indef block. User is WP:NOTHERE to collaboratively edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban after the subject editor wrote: "Advice" will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me., since it is also apparent that they want to decide what is a "proper justification". That insistence may be good mathematical logic, but it is not collaborative work in an electronic office. They threw a boomerang at a kangaroo that wasn't there. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support site ban – In the course of human events, sometimes words simply fail. Here, they likely failed months ago. Z80 has been given months more time to adjust their behavior than I had initially expected—time during which they have been consistently afforded a wide variety of patient advice from fellow editors. At several points, it seemed to me that there may have been some getting through to them. Unfortunately, that no longer seems plausible. Beyond a very shallow threshold, Z80 is completely unreceptive to other editors' perspectives. This threshold is unacceptably shallow for Wikipedia. Remsense诉 07:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of deception

Just a heads up that Z80Spectrum is still engaging in battleground mentality, albeit on a much more low-key level over at the Talk:ZX Spectrum page, where everybody who he disagrees with is being deceptive - although it's probably an honest mistake, so he'll forgive them: (paraphrase, but also my sarcasm)

• I also estimate that I have been deceived by Paradoctor's and VQuakr's interpretation of the situation so far, but it was probably an honest mistake on their part, so at this moment I'm willing to just forget it
• This is Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...
• This is another Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...
• This is the VQuakr 's statement that I find slightly deceptive...

ending with:

• As I have said, I still consider those to be honest mistakes, provided in good faith

The last three (and honest mistake statement) were made directly after both Paradoctor and I asked him to stop making such comments - as Paradoctor said (I had a brain-freeze and couldn't think of the term!) they are at best condescending, and at worst insulting. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think at this point an admin really needs to take action here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens's comment is a relatively accurate description of an issue that happened in this very recent discussion [203]. Therefore I don't have much to add there. I think that the linked discussion is quite illustrative, and I think that it speaks for itself. So I don't need to say anything additional, except my advice to read the discussion from the start to the end.

I would like to correct myself regarding another issue here. In my reply numbered "Pt2.", I said No, it was not my fault. Reading it again, I think that the closure of the case at DRN might have been my fault, since my replies at User:Ritchie333's page do connect the DRN case with the copyright case. I must admit that, by the time I have posted on User:Ritchie333's page, I have probably already lost my faith in the DRN case and that I thought DRN has little chance of settling the issue. I think, as I always did, that User:Robert McClenon's decision to close the DRN case at that time was a correct decision. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have another correction (clarification) of another sentence of mine. In Pt41. (semicolon instead of the full-stop):

"Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material ; the issue of my conduct is a separate issue."

I.e. the issue of my conduct is an issue separate from the issue of the 26 KB disputed material.

Also, previously in this discussion I used the word "ironically" instead of "sarcastically" (I guess). Also, I used the word "consistence" instead of the word "uniformity". Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is battleground mentality and the inability of this editor to drop any WP:STICK, ever. I think the specific concern about the connotations of the word "deception" are less concerning given that English isn't the user's first language, but that's just my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to directly respond to VQuakr's accusation. Besides, I'm a newbie here, and I don't really know what are the accepted interpretations of Wikipedia policies. So I'll leave the judgement to others.

Related, I would like to point out a policy of WP:HARASS, which contains a section WP:HOUND. I have no idea whether that policy applies, and what is the accepted interpretation of that policy. I'll be leaving it to others to think about it, and to respond if they think it is appropriate. Similarly, there is a guideline WP:CANVASS, which might, or might not, apply in this dispute at WP:ANI. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

An editor named User:CodeTalker has just replied in the mentioned discussion [204]. I don't know whether that editor is an administrator here, and whether his answers are an official opinion from WP:ANI, or his own opinions. To be safe, at this moment I will refrain from any actions. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum: Administrators are not authorities that rule by decree. They are editors with extra buttons to allow technical actions. Whether they are an admin or not should have zero bearing on whether you WP:LISTEN to them. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I just figured out that better words for "deceived" and "deceptive" would have been "mislead" and "misleading". So, I appologize for that mistake. I can correct myself, by strike-outs, on the "ZX Spectrum" talk page, if the offended editors agree. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"Deceive" and "mislead" have the same negative connotations. There is no practical difference between them in this context. VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. I would also like to suggest "misguide", "misinform" and "misrepresent" as acceptable alternatives. If, at any later time you would like me to change it, just notify me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

All of which are synonyms. You appear unable or unwilling not to misjudge other editors. This given that your accusations have been refuted. Those against me by myself, and the one against VQakr by CodeTalker. What you should have done was to either concede your error, or offer an effective rebuttal. What we're getting instead is a concession that is not conceding anything. Paradoctor (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that I didn't use a word with an incorrect meaning. I was uncertain, that's all. Z80Spectrum (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

🤦 Paradoctor (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom? Probably not now

There is a Request for Arbitration currently open before ArbCom that is similar to this dispute, in that it is about the deletion of questionable material from article talk pages. The filing party was in the habit of restoring talk page posts by IP addresses that were deleted by other editors. The filing party was then blocked for seven days for disruptive editing for restoring the IP posts. Having come off block, they are asking for ArbCom action. Their request is unlikely to be accepted, because several arbitrators have already voted to Decline. However, I have made a statement saying that both cases, this case and the RFAR, illustrate that a poorly written and ambiguous guideline is problematic. I don't think that ArbCom considers poorly written policies to be within their scope, but have said that some sort of statement about the guideline would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not. The way it looks to me FTM, there is consensus for an indef block, at a minimum. As regards our guidelines, they are all badly written, and ambiguities are unavoidable, given WP:5P5. Z80Spectrum's issues are not caused by that. Paradoctor (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Paradoctor - I respectfully partly disagree. The original dispute, which I tried to mediate, was largely the result of an ambiguous guideline, which can be reasonably read either as saying that deletion is the most appropriate option for questionable talk page material, or that collapsing or archival are preferred. I think it should be clarified, in particular with regard to disputes over the deletion and restoration of material. Disputes over the deletion and restoration of material were both the original issue with Z80Spectrum, and the issue in the RFAR. The fact that there are two such disputes active at this time illustrates that the guideline is unclear. I agree that Z80Spectrum's current problem is mostly self-inflicted, the result of their stubbornness. There is a problematic guideline, and there is consensus for an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a separate topic. Sure, you can submit an ArbCom case about it if you'd like (I doubt they'll accept), but that doesn't preclude dealing with Z80's behavior here and now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:HandThatFeeds - Maybe I wasn't clear. An ArbCom case has already been submitted by another editor who was blocked for a week for disruptive editing for restoring off-topic IP posts. I have commented. It appears that ArbCom is in the process of declining that case. I have made a statement, but don't expect that ArbCom will hear the case. I have also provided my opinion here about the conduct of Z80. I think that the guideline should be revised, but I also think that we have enough evidence in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of said ArbCom case. Thanks for the clarification. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:48, 30 March 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.

Selo007 are using talk pages to attack BLPs

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.

---

Selo007 (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Comment

This does not contribute to the project--Trade (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Indef This person seems a key example of WP:NOTHERE - Wikipedia is not a place to obsess over microscopic details of photographs of BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I used Verifiability (V) and Neutral point of view (NPOV)

  unlike the editors

  Im currently requestion a second opinion based on bias Selo007 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  We used verifiability and NPOV. You used BLP violations. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Still not blocked--Trade (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Clearly and unambiguously WP:NOTHERE. Seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for Reddit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed for competency, IDHT, RGW, using WIkipedia as a forum, and imagining that Wikipedia evaluates sources based on close examination of someone's tattoos. This is a regular admin action, not an arbitration enforcement action. Acroterion (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor Rhain, Aquillion and Dumuzid missuing power to shut down peoples opinions.

Missuse of [[205]] and [[206]] On [[207]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selo007 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring fact given by other non elevated editors.
Using non verifiable information.
Using hearsay.
Taking one side.
Refuse to listen to other side.
Dont add factual information.
Locks talkpage so people cant dispute editors (not just me)

Would like a third opinion to check without relying on opinions from a newsarticle that is written by a arguably biased person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selo007 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Selo007, you are required to notify editors when you take them to ANI. I have done so for you. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, do you have any diffs that prove these editors have violated policies? Making a new section will not help with you potentially being blocked. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 01:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Its all covered by people in talkpage

Its very long to list all of them

Some things include adding that harrassment started with attacks from SBI against an individual called Kabrutus, with evidence.

And that the harrassmentclaims againt Kotaku can not be verified and instead added as facts. Selo007 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Instead they insist on using quotes from a journalist that has a questionable racist agenda (evidence) and that tries to harass and doxx people for writing hitpieces. Selo007 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you Selo007 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess I have so much power that I can't keep track of it all, because I don't recall being able to lock talk pages! I am pretty powerful when it comes to hearsay, though, if I do say so myself. The gravamen of the complaint here seems to be that I like to stick to Wikipedia's policies of preferring reliable secondary sources, and to that accusation, I admit my guilt. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I take the blame. I forgot to mention that to him Trade (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Trade, that's okay! They should've read the guidelines and huge banner anyways. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (reposting because I accidentally made half of ANI smalltext haha)

For the record, I am not an administrator and (obviously) was not the one who ECPed the talk page; although I queryed ArbCom to make sure it could happen, it occurred independently of that. --Aquillion (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing actionable here, and this report by Selo007 appears to be an abuse of process that frankly merits WP:BOOMERANG sanctioning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

At it's core there is an fundamental misunderstanding on how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work and how RS works on Wikipedia Trade (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, I've never interacted with Selo007 before directly, but I'd agree a boomerang of some sort (at least a topic-ban from this topic area) is called for based on their repeated BLP violations, eg. [208][209][210]; they seem to be basing this on YouTube videos (the second-to-last diff) and Twitter posts (the last diff). This isn't great either. --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to block me, im not that active anyways.

All i want is for third opinion to take a second look at that wikipedia page since its riddled with reliable sources (Kotaku is case to case and the one writing the article should be taken under consideration when the person its doxxing, harrassing, asking people for fights and is using questionable racist slurs)

• Using hearsay such as "Sweet Baby's employees faced harassment and attempted doxing in response to the backlash," when there is no evidence of such its a breach of NPOV and V.
• "Others who faced harassment included Kotaku's reporter who first highlighted the backlash" also hearsay and breach of NPOV and V.
• "Ash Parrish felt the Discord members were not attempting to "create meaningful change for their cause" but were "simply there for the vibes, rancid though they are" again, should be questioned if its a reliable source when Parrish ha admitted she writes articles based on the own agenda even if its not true, even going against her editors But i guess you will just use BPL to shut that down.
• "Bryant Francis urged Steam and Discord to clarify their policies to avoid similar incidents and further harassment." again, no evidence of harrassment.
• There’s no mention it started with Sweet Baby inc employee Chris Kindred starting an actual online harassment campaign to cancel the Steam Sweet Baby Inc. Detected group to get them shut down and attacking an individual to harm them.
• There is no mention of Chris Kindreds twitter account getting blocked by Twitter for said harrassment.

Selo007 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you, this noticeboard is well aware of the article. The examples you're referring to are not "hearsay", and they do have "evidence": the references. Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We don't need to see examples of harassment to determine if someone was actually harassed (that would be original research); if reliable sources say they were, then we say they were. The same goes for Kindred's activities: if they are detailed in reliable secondary sources, then they will likely be detailed on Wikipedia as well; until then, there is no place for that information here.

If you feel the article is unbalanced or incorrect, that's fine, but unless you can point to actionable changes based on policy and guidelines—and especially supported by reliable sources—then there's nothing to be done. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs; it is just here to report information as the sources do. If those sources are wrong, it's not our job to correct them. Nor is it our place to make claims about other people, no many how strongly you disagree with their tattoos or personal tweets. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your own page Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering

The writer of the Kotaku article is very biased.

Questionable sources also says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.

Any reliable sources that people try to add are shut down by the same editors of the page that is beeing critisized.

When one is added, they want another, moving the goalposts. Selo007 (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And where exactly, beyond some forum for drool-covered semi-literate conspiracy theorists, would we find evidence that Kotaku content is "widely acknowledged as extremist"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Isnt Kotaku supposed be "case by case" and not Kotaku as a whole.

The writer of the article is known for having extremist views.

WOuld like to be clear im not for extremism be it right or left. Selo007 (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Please either provide actual verifiable evidence, citing published reliable sources, that either Kotaku, or one of its contributors, is "widely acknowledged as extremist" or withdraw the allegation immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say saying "you cant be racist against white people" is quite an extreme opinion. 2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a "published reliable source". – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As Rhain, says, of course, but substantively, this is actually a known opinion, and often provokes outrage without full understanding. The basic concept is that while people can be racially prejudiced against white people, the lack of a systemic power structure means it is not 'racism.' No one has to agree with that, but I would not describe it as an extreme opinion. A fuller discussion can be found here:[211]. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• What power? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  With apologies to David Bowie, the power of voodoo! Dumuzid (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a necromancer myself. And you? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:14, 28 March 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.

Nonsensical edit summaries

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.

---

Polavarapu Mokshith Sai (talk · contribs · email): over 200+ nonsensical edit summaries like "cv bnbv hftzgrzdcrfdcgert drfycjg h" and "yjtttttttt". They were warned 2 days ago and proceeded with 30+ more edit summaries with keyboard smashes. Bonus: promotional edits. Northern Moonlight 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Polavarapu Mokshith Sai as not here to build an encyclopedia for overtly non-neutral promotional editing, and hundreds of instances of gibberish in edit summaries. A toxic combination. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 29 March 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.

Quick note that it seems he is trying to unblock himself in a silly manner. 14.162.178.188 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

MisteOsoTruth and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.

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.

---

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

MisteOsoTruth is a single purpose account dedicated to the recent controversy surrounding Sweet Baby Inc, an area covered under contentions topics restrictions. They have received notices about this. They have been filling the talk page there with personal attacks on other editors and BLP violations (by accusing named individuals of committing harassment). Personal attacks: [212][213][214] and BLP violations: [215][216][217][218][219]. Here's a personal attack (against someone else) repeated on my user talk in response to a warning I placed about personal attacks: [220]. And here is the response to my efforts to warn them about this on their user talk page, repeating the accusations: [221].

This has gone on long enough, I would suggest a block as this user is clearly not going to stop and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

They have been given more than sufficient rope. I concur WP:NOTHERE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Support a NOTHERE block, the repeated BLP violations make it clear they're not going to adhere to our rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

They have contacted me though email to also discuss the same points they argue for in the talk page. I have emailed them back advising them to focus on getting RSs instead of tweets, youtube videos and screenshots while trying to explain why those are disallowed. I hoped that as someone who hadn't been very involved in the talk page (having only made one comment) I could advice them without any feelings of hostility. Seeing them continue their old ways without taking my advise saddens me but does reinforce my feeling that they simply refuse to learn the policies of wikipedia, instead of simply being ignorant of it.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on this user being an SPA, creating a significant amount of heat and not much light around a contentious topic page that's been immensely disrupted over the past several weeks, and the demonstrated lack of competency and WP:NOTHERE concerns, I'm going to partial block MisteOsoTruth from the SBI article and talk page for 2 months. Because of the way the CTOPS appeals process works, and the fact that I'm editing on a laptop from out-of-town, I'm proactively giving my approval in advance for any uninvolved admin to modify or remove that block without needing to consult with me first. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Although I'm a bit late with this, I would also point out that this edit (and this one from above) targets User:Ryulong, who was blocked almost a decade ago as part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. It is simply implausible that a new editor could randomly decide to bear a grudge against someone who was indefinitely blocked nearly a decade ago. Their focus on him strongly suggests that this editor is either a sockpuppet or arrived here via one of the gamergate blogs or forums that still (to this day) regard Ryulong as something of a Bête noire; the nature of that focus suggests possible WP:MEAT / WP:CANVASS issues. --Aquillion (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would be reasonably convident that there is some WP:CANVAS going on with that article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 30 March 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.

Personal attacks by User: Versace1608

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: Versace1608 added the R&B genre to WizKid providing a source that says "his MIL album is a potent mix of Afrobeats and R&B", but that statement only implies that the album is an R&B album, not the singer Wizkid as a whole, as mentioned in WP: EXPLICITGENRE. I mentioned this in his talk page, and his response worried me as he was not discussing the edit itself, but he made a comment about me "not having anything better to do on Wikipedia" and threatened me to continue edit warring. But what was really offensive was what came afterwards, he left a message on Talk: Wizkid where he said "Find something else to do on here man. There are tons of South African-related articles that need to be improve.", which i found to be derogatory phrases based on me being South African. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like yet another Wizkid content dispute. How is "There are tons of South African-related articles that need to be improve" derogatory? Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It is derogatory, because making comments on my race has nothing to do with the edit discussion we're having: it's totally out of place DollysOnMyMind (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

He invited me to stop editing a page, and go edit some other ones, just because I am South African. That's pretty derogatory in my eyes DollysOnMyMind (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to notify the other editor of this conversation properly on their talk page (even though you mentioned it on your talk page). Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @DollysOnMyMind: As the text in the red box near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: thanks for pinging me to this. I am asking myself the same question. I don't know what's deragatory about what I said. @DollysOnMyMind: you're from SA and I feel like you can spend some of your time improving SA-related content on this site. I am not telling you that you are obligated to do this. I only made that comment because I believe there are more important edits you can be making instead of focusing on reverting the sourced genres I added to the article. For your info DollysOnMyMind, I am the one who created the Wizkid article and brought it to GA articles. Let me reitarte it here, you do not have a valid reason to undo my edit and I refuted the reason you gave for removing R&B from the genre field. I added additional genres to the infobox and you removed them without giving any reason.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

How does your edit not violate WP: EXPLICITGENRE? How does me being from South Africa matter to this content dispute? DollysOnMyMind (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You claimed that my addition of R&B to the infobox violates EXPLICITGENRE, but have not demonstrated how it does. Wizkid has been making R&B music ever since he dropped his debut studio album, which fuses Afrobeat, R&B, reggae, and hip-hop. Per this source, his music is a mixture of afrobeats, R&B, dancehall, and reggae. His fourth studio album, Made in Lagos, was primarily an Afrobeats and R&B record. His fifth studio album, More Love, Less Ego, is a blend of Afropop, Amapiano and R&B. The publication NME specifically wrote that his songs "Money & Love" and "Flower Pads" see elements of funky jazz and R&B being embedded into Wizkid’s brand of Afropop. Per this article, Wizkid won an R&B category at the BET Awards for his song "Essence". Per all of the sources I cited here, you can clearly see that Wizkid has been doing R&B music since the start of his career. Being South African has nothing to do with this dispute. You were the one who mentioned it here and accused me of insulting you.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason to bring up another editor's nationality, nor are you in any position to be dictating where another editor can or cannot edit. While not "derogatory" per se, it's definitely incivility and ownership behavior.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree SWATJester. Apologies for that. He is free to edit any article he chooses to. I only mentioned that because he can direct his energy to something more important instead of being hellbent on removing a sourced genre from the Wizkid article. Let me also that Wizkid's third studio album, Sounds from the Other Side, is a combination of Afrobeat, EDM, R&B, House and dancehall. Can DollysOnMyMind tell us how Wizkid is not a R&B artist even though R&B is a main genre in all his albums? DollysOnMyMind, do you have trustworthy references that dispute the classification of Wizkid's music as R&B?  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that Versace1608 has apologized, and the incivility was pretty mild in the first place, I don't think there's anything actionable for administrators to deal with here. Everything else is a content dispute. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Versace1608: I'm glad you apologized, my issue was mostly on that message. We can elaborate on the content dispute on the article's talk page DollysOnMyMind (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind: I don't have anything else to say to you regarding this "issue". I have provided sources to justify the addition of R&B and other genres to the infobox. You haven't provided any reliable sources to counter the sources I provided. If you still feel the need to remove the genres I added to the infobox, I recommend you take this to WP:DRN. Perhaps, an administrator here can move this discussion to the article's talk page.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Your sources don't justify the addition of those genres. WP: EXPLICITGENRES was written to avoid edits like the one you just did. I'm pretty sure I could find sources that would describe some Ed Sheeran albums as hip hop-influenced, that does not make Ed Sheeran a hip hop artist. It's that easy. You still have not addressed your violation of WP: EXPLICITGENRES DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we get this discussion closed so that any remaining issues can be brought to WP:DRN or a similar venue? At this point the conversation's devolved into a content dispute than anything pertaining to conduct. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Please close this discussion and move it to Talk:Wizkid. @DollysOnMyMind: This discussion isn't about Ed Sheeran, it is about the Wizkid article. You have failed to tell me or other admins here why Wizkid is not a R&B artist even though R&B is a main genre in all his albums. Do you have trustworthy references that dispute the classification of Wizkid's music as R&B? You do not want to address the two questions I posted above but feel the need to remove genres from the infobox. You absolutely have no justification for removing sourced genres from the infobox. I am done having this discussion with you. Someone should close this discussion, move it to Talk:Wizkid, and than you can proceed to opening a case at DRN.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:07, 31 March 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 promoting Black Hebrew Israelites theories

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 iser Wmcdonald19751975 (talk · contribs) is using articles and talk pages solely to add randomly placed comments that support a fringe theory about race and genetics, including that Jesus was Black and in haplogroup E-M2; and that Kenneth MacAlpin, the first king of Scotland, was known as Ken the Niger and was a Black Hebrew.

• 13:37–44, 11 July 2022 at Haplogroup E-M2
• 20:19, 14 July 2023 at Kenneth MacAlpin
• 22:24–27, 30 March 2024 at Russian icons
• 22:31, 30 March 2024 at Talk:Russian icons
• 23:41, 30 March 2024 at Talk:Yahya (name)
• 23:49, 30 March 2024 at Talk:Niger
• 23:51, 30 March 2024 at Talk:David
• 23:53, 30 March 2024 at Talk:Jesus
• 23:57, 30 March 2024 at Talk:Kenneth MacAlpin
• 23:59, 30 March 2024 at Talk:Adam

There are some older edits from 2021 regarding the presence of E-M2 in Scotland. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Propose indef. Hard to say if user is trolling or spamming outlandish fringe theories, but certainly not here to build an encyclopedia. Jeppiz (talk) 00:20, 31 March 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.

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.

---

Shanthoshist (talk · contribs) were adding unsourced content to Roll No 21 when I reverted their edited and warned them, they personally attacked me on their talk page and even on my talk page. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked Shanthoshist and Santhoshkaviyasre as socks. In addition to the diffs above, take a peek at the abuse filter log for the master account.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 31 March 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.

Villkomoses can't hear us

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

---

A new user, Villkomoses, is busy making grammatical changes and converting narratives from present to past tense.[222] They're making a lot of errors. I posted to their talk page, but also involved Drmies because of the number of articles that needed undoing. Drmies posted a further message and reverted a lot, but the problem hasn't stopped. I suspect Villkomoses is unaware that they have a talk-page. I don't want to be bitey, but wonder if a short block might be necessary to get their attention? Elemimele (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for 12 hours. I've linked their own talk page and this discussion in the block reason, so hopefully they might read at least one of them. Black Kite (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Elemimele (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  This can be closed, Villkomoses has found their talk page and is now communicating. Elemimele (talk) 15:52, 1 April 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.

MilkAndStrawberryPutin

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.

---

Could an administrator please review MilkAndStrawberryPutin's editing/behaviour here.

Note that their profile says "I love Jimmy "Barbecue" Chérizier. He's the greatest man that's ever lived. He's an Amazing leader revolting against the corruption of Western powers for the Haitian people. The reason I created this wikipedia account is so I can edit the page about Barbecue, that's why usually most of my edits are on his page or other related Haitian topics.", and that they've made similar comments in the discussion presented above.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Because I'm a massive fan of Jimmy Barbecue. I hate every other political figure, I hate Hitler, I hate trump, I hate Biden, I hate Putin. I love barbecue so much. It's my opinion he's the greatest man that's ever lived MilkAndStrawberryPutin (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The founders of several major religions say "Hold my drink of choice". Narky Blert (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Relevant talk page discussion here as well. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Username seems like it's right on the borderline of violating WP:IU. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I was preparing a report for WP:EW when this was reported, but despite their reverting four or five different editors, they seem to have just avoided 3RR...

• 02:53 26 March 2024,
• 22:04 26 March 2024,
• 12:50 27 March 2024,
• 12:52 27 March 2024,
• 11:11 28 March 2024,
• 00:32 29 March 2024 (likely: as IP),
• 00:44 29 March 2024,
• 23:36 29 March 2024,
• 01:48 30 March 2024,
• 18:15 31 March 2024,
• 18:23 31 March 2024,
• 18:49 31 March 2024

It appears this stems most fundamentally from their attachment to this 26 March addition, which has been disputed on the talk page. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

How is my username offensive when another wikipedia editor literally said having Putin in my name was ok. MilkAndStrawberryPutin (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That user quite literally states I stumbled across you because one of our bots picked up the "Putin" in your name and flagged it as a possible cause for concern. As I said, it's a borderline violation; that admin saying they thought it was "probably OK" is no more dispositive than my stance that it is "probably not". It's irrelevant though -- this user has (while I'm getting edit conflicted) since been indeffed for other reasons, which I support. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:50, 31 March 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.

Problematic user

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 RadiationRaptor insists with his edit at 2023–24 UEFA Champions League. See history page and user talk page.--Island92 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Both users have violated WP:3RR. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the OP means in this section, but they do not appear to have notified the other user about this thread. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I presume that rather than "your" Island92 meant to use the third person singular. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to notify him. He just kept insisting on his edit because he's convinced he's on the right. He started changing that practice. He is not on the right. Reason explained in his talk page. I only found lately this section to notify him to you, otherwise I would not have violated 3RR. Island92 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a big red box at the top of this page explaining how to do so, and a big yellow box every time you edit this page, also explaining how to do so. Please slow down and take the time to fully review the instructions on this page next time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I fixed in "his edit". Sorry for that.--Island92 (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I have notified RadiationRaptor. You managed to post other messages to his talk page, so why not this one? Anyway, both of you should have discussed the issue at Talk:2023–24 UEFA Champions League rather than carry on a futile edit war. And length of tenure or number of edits have nothing to do with whose opinion should prevail in a content dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take that for next time. Thanks. In any case, he doesn't seem to collaborate after warning him in his talk page first. Indeed, he kept insisting with his edit. Island92 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And what about you? Haven't you "insisted with your edit"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not insisted on anything. He started, and I reverted, because his edit is out of standard for that page. See history page. And he still keeps going with that. What a stubborn user this one... Island92 (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Only he still keeps going, not you, too? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I sent this to WP:RPPI without seeing the ANI thread. This is the most blatant 3RR violation I've seen in a while, and both parties (as well as Wolvesfan77) are in the wrong here because of that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked RadiationRaptor indefinitely, and Wolvesfan77 for 24 hours for edit warring + personal attacks, though maybe they should be indefinite as well - any admin should feel free to change the block duration. @Island92: your reverts were not in the scope of WP:3RRNO, and any further reverts will be met with a block. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

My reverts had a reason behind the scene. Reason explained in his talk page. He just kept going and ignored it, assuming write-only behavior. Next time I will come here directly before reverting multiple times as he forced me to do that. Island92 (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Island92: it doesn't work that way. There is no "reason behind the scene". Edit warring is edit warring, whether you think you're right or not, except for the specific exceptions listed at WP:3RRNO. I'm glad that you've promised not to do this again, but you need to also be aware that there was no excuse for you to do what you did. It seems from the comment above that this point hasn't quite hit home yet. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

user:Radiationraptor making repeated incorrect edits despite numerous requests not to

User:RadiationRaptor is making continual changes to 2023–24 EFL Championship which are factually inaccurate, and has been reverted multiple times by different users over the past 2 days. Two different users have asked them to stop doing so via their talk page and have been ignored. Every time a user reverts Radiationraptor’s edits they just revert it back. Here is latest change but see history in page for 30 and 31 March. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023%E2%80%9324_EFL_Championship&oldid=1216593822 Tedeff (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

See other section above: #Problematic user. – 2804:F14:8093:5F01:BD93:DDC2:7C48:C2EC (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I merged the two. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:17, 31 March 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.

Hugely disruptive editing

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.

---

• M5Ehistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User M5Ehistory has completely vandalised the page Al-Balushi and removed the sourced information that was there before, replacing the whole page with false information in the hopes of changing the origin of said subject. He then threatened me on my talk page telling me to 'shut the f*ck up' and 'go to hell'. Mteiritay (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Link to the mentioned talk page comment: diff – 2804:F1...48:C2EC (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked M5Ehistory indefinitely -- the linked diff above was not their only personal attack, and their history shows a pattern of battleground editing indicating that they're WP:NOTHERE to edit constructively. If any uninvolved administrator wants to modify or lift this block, please feel free to do so without any need to consult me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:34, 31 March 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:213.91.120.143 Editing

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.

---

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

Hello, hope this is the right place to post. It was difficult to determine.

User:213.91.120.143 has been editing articles that deal with the history and politics of Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Yugoslavia, etc. You can see the users contributions here. Obviously the topics of these articles are highly contentious. The user is continuously editing in a way that changes what the sourced material actually says. Sometimes the user just removes sourced contributions. Other editors have reverted the users edits as well.

I don't know if this rises to the level of a vandalism report/block, but it might? I am just requesting an admin take a look at the edits, because some of them are difficult to untangle. I do not have the time to sort through all the diffs and figure out what errors have been introduced.

Thanks for you attention to this matter. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward longterm vandalism. Blocked the IP for 6 months. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:00, 2 April 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.

TherealDPunk is being unnecessarily confrontational and potentially NOTHERE

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.

---

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

This user has been posting autobiographies and had them removed under WP:U5, their defence is that they want to get more traction on Spotify by having a Wikipedia article about themselves. They then swore directly at me, which I gave just a small warning for as I thought it was just in the heat of the moment. Nevertheless, they escalated the issue by calling me an asshole. A second and final warning was issued. Three days later, this user, again, has come onto my page and hurled further expletives at me with no provocation at all. I have yet to see a single constructive edit from this user so it's bordering on WP:NOTHERE territory imho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I was beaten to it! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 31 March 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.

Etc.

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.

---

Cfunster‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) drive-by trolling the Teahouse, should be taken care of before 2 edits becomes 3. Remsense诉 00:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Indeffed Clearly NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 1 April 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.

I am concerned about the negative behavior of some admins

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 the ip on this talk page and said ip was blocked. I was very appalled with the unprofessional way that the users on that talk page conducted themselves. So now that my ip block has been lifted, I want to file a complaint on the matter and call for the users involved to be sanctioned. All of the conduct I will cite below from these users can be found on that talk page.

My first complaint is that User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Yamla blatantly lied to me. My ip was banned from Wikipedia for 5 months, and yet both of them claimed that there was no block on my account. They were clearly on a power trip by making up this easy to debunk and obviously false lie. They clearly just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of that unjust block, so they tried to gaslight me. Shame on them. That behavior is unacceptable and is clearly worthy of sanction on its own.

Then User:Deepfriedokra made a comment on the talk page where they essentially admitted that I was blocked, and they said that I should not be unblocked because I had made bad edits on the Pewdiepie page. This was a complete lie, I had made no previous edits at all to the PewDiePie page, no such edits would have shown up on my account history. So I had 2 users claiming I was not blocked, and one other admitting that I was but saying I shouldn’t be unblocked for a completely fabricated reason. It was obvious that all 3 users involved just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of the block. They clearly viewed me, as an ip editor, to be inferior and not worth dealing with in good faith. This behavior was absolutely disgraceful on their parts.

Then User:Gaelan responded on the page and again falsely claimed that I was not blocked. I responded to them explaining how they were wrong. Then Yamla decided that they were just no longer interested in dealing with me at all. So he then claimed that although I “wasn’t blocked before” I now was due to my ip address apparently being a proxy. In reality, my ip was not a proxy. I was using regular mobile data on my phone. Sometimes mobile data connections can be false flagged as proxies on those online checkers, but that was of no concern to Gaelan. He just wanted me gone, so he made up a flimsy excuse to penalize me. He also claimed that my talk page was filled with rampant abuse and copyright violations. This was another extremely flimsy excuse. I had made some mistakes on the talk page, but all of those edits were already undone and I had apologized and stated I would not do that again. And it was all on my own talk page, I was not vandalizing anything. Since that issue was already resolved, it’s clear that was not a good reason to have me blocked and was just another flimsy excuse. Again, these admins just didn’t want to deal with an ip editor. They wanted me gone.

I then filed a long unblock request, where I thoroughly explained that I had learned my lessons with the talk page abuse and clearly stated that I would never do that again, and I explained that I was not using a proxy. User:Berean Hunter decided not to remotely engage with any of my arguments, and instead just said that “You are the disruptive editor on this range. Silence is golden and you need some quiet time to reflect on what you have done. TPA revoked.” So, after I gave a unblock request addressing every reason given for my block, Berean Hunter responded by just blocking me for longer and revoking my talk page access. For no reason at all. After the tpa restriction was lifted, I asked Berean Hunter clarifying questions about the block. They completely ignored me. Once again, I was a mere ip user they didn’t care about. Of course they had no desire to deal with me.

So, my request is that @OhNoitsJamie, Yamla, Deepfriedokra, Gaelan, and Berean Hunter: all be blocked from Wikipedia for 5 months, the same amount of time my ip was wrongly blocked for. They blatantly lied to me and ignored my fair reasoning and requests I gave. They showed utter contempt for ip editors in the way that treated me. Since they wanted me unfairly blocked for 5 months, it’s only fair that these people all be blocked for 5 months in return. I very much hope getting a taste of what they have subjected ip editors to will help them learn to treat ip editors with actual fairness and respect in the future. 174.126.129.226 (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have now supplied the needed notices to the users involved. 174.126.129.226 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The infamous troll IP. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Labeling a troll does not make any of my allegations incorrect. 174.126.129.226 (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your IP address was blocked once, for one month, from February 14 to March 14. Since blocks are not punitive, you are going to be disappointed by the conclusion of this thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I want a block to these admins to discourage them from treating ip editors poorly in the future, not for punitive reasons. 174.126.129.226 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 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.

I am concerned about the negative behavior of some trolls. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. All this verbiage and none of it is dedicated to the Navy SEAL copypasta. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I swear, they are never going to learn their lesson ever. I'm honestly ready for them to start creating more socks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX

I wanted to ask whether User:Newimpartial exceeded their editing restriction by participating in a BLPN discussion about Tim Hunt's alleged sexism or sexist comments about women in science and making more than two comments per day.[223][224][225][226] This particular controversy would seem to fall under GENSEX as raised earlier at ANI by another user.[227] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm missing a diff [228] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your last diff comes more than 24 hours after your first diff, though. Newimpartial (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but within 24 hours of the others. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, I don't know if this party is already over, but next time please include a diff to the actual restriction. No one here needs a link to policy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments

Your links appear to be specifically two comments left in that discussion. And then two short replies to responses from others to those original comments. That appears to be perfectly within the wording of their editing restriction. Silverseren^C 02:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What about the GENSEX topic ban, a separate restriction in itself? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't that GENSEX ban regarding LGBT topics, particularly transgender topics and gender? Was it really meant to cover anything involving women and sexism in addition? Would that also include literally anything involving women's or men's rights? Feminism? Ect? I don't believe it was meant to be that broad, unless I'm misreading the prior discussion. Silverseren^C 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why I asked. WP:GENSEX expressly references Gamergate (harassment campaign), which was about sexism in gaming. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

So it's...complicated. After doing some digging through the WP:ARCA archives, I came across a GamerGate clarification request from March 2015 about whether the topic of campus rape would fall under the then GamerGate discretionary sanctions. After reading the arbiter views from that request, and the two article revisions linked BLPN discussion I could see this content dispute plausibly being considered within the GENSEX content area, as it is dealing with remarks that were described as sexist, which would be considered a gender-related dispute.

However, despite the text of GENSEX stating that Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people are the scope of the sanction, it's not immediately obvious from the four listed clarifications in the motion to transfer GamerGate to the GENSEX shell case, nor my own personal experience editing within the content area that this would be in scope. Two of the clarifications (1 and 3) deal with transgender related disputes, and the other two (2 and 4) deal with disputes relating systemic bias and the Gender Gap Task Force, and it's not immediately obvious from skimming the text just how broadly we interpret the term gender-related dispute or controversy. By and large most of the disruption we see in GENSEX is restricted to content relating to trans and non-binary people and topics, with some spill-over to GamerGate and related articles. The last non-trans, non-GamerGate GENSEX sanction I can quickly spot in WP:AELOG was the semi-protection of Manosphere and Men Going Their Own Way in June and July 2020 respectively. If other editors agree with my reading of the 2015 clarification request, I'd say that this TBAN violation is a plausibly an accidental one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether this violates any specific editing restriction, but I think it would be odd to say that content related to debates about systemic sexism don't fall under gender-related disputes or controversies. Restricting the scope to the four clarifications would seem to open up a pretty big loophole in the topic, even if it's in a subsection that doesn't see a lot of admin action. CarringtonMist (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with CarringtonMist, I didn't participate in any arbcom case and as a non-admin I don't have to be that familiar with the details. But I've always understood that it was decided in the GamerGate arbcom case that because it was primarily about harassment arising due to commentary sexism and portrayal of cis-women in games with criticism over feminism etc; with a less focus on other issues like LGB, race etc and other so called social justice issues, arbcom wanted to ensure that if similar issues cropped up in other areas they would be covered.

I mention cis-women and LGB, because AFAIK at the time there was only very little focus on transgender and non binary characters. So I'm fairly sure the concern was about issues like misogyny, sexism and the portrayal of women etc with the gender related wording and little to do with transgender issues.

Eventually the GamerGate decision was merged with the Sexology one which had dealt with transgender issues since it was decided it would be simpler to deal with them with one DS area.

It does seem to be true there has been little dispute outside of transgender related issues recently, but that applies even when we consider GamerGate until the recent blowup with Sweet Baby. Note there was a recent case which dealt with the restriction on MGTOW [229] but outside of that from what I saw in 2023 until this year, the only non transgender related example was 3-5 stuff all to do with Brianna Wu.

Also I had a quick look at the comments here [230] seem to agree with my view about fears this sort of stuff would spread to other areas. I think the current extreme focus on transgender issues is sort of reflective of the modern world especially US-UK but Sweet Baby shows it's not the only possible area where stuff can happen. While Sweet Baby might be fairly tied to GamerGate, I don't think it's actually that easy to separate these sort of sexism issues even if the particular case of Tim Hunt is maybe somewhat disconnected. However it's the sort of thing where I suspect there could easily be a similar blow up especially if things had been different e.g. more recent, in the US and the person who made the comments had doubled down on them.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I looked again at the text of WP:GENSEX before posting, and didn't see anything relevant to the Tim Hunt discussion at WP:BLPN.

(Also, I don't know whether GoodDay intended an oblique reference to me by raising his question at ANI, but if he did, that seems to me to be worth discussing.) Newimpartial (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The question was for myself. As I was debating on whether or not to get involved in the content being discussed. GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is considered covered by GENSEX, I propose that rather than sanction NewImpartial we narrow their topic ban to "transgender issues, broadly defined". To the best of my knowledge, the issues that resulted in the topic ban did not extend beyond that, and I see no reason why they can’t participate in this debate and others like it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. "Transgender issues, broadly defined" is broad enough. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Support as well. The edits are plausibly in violation of the "GamerGate part" of GENSEX, but that's also clearly not what NewImpartial's topic ban was actually about. Endwise (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Support an explicit narrowing of the topic ban as described above. The conduct that warranted the ban was in a specific area, and it doesn't make sense to impose a rule more broad than that. Edit-warring and bludgeoning behavior on articles about trans or anti-trans activists should not disqualify an editor from, e.g., wiki-gnoming edits to biographies of long-dead cis women mathematicians. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Support narrowing the topic-ban. None of the discussion when the topic-ban was placed touched on any part of the topic area except transgender issues, so a ban that goes beyond that seems punitive. --Aquillion (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any action - I'm not certain if the page-in-question falls under the GenSex area. PS - My question was based on whether or not I wanted to get involved with the topic being discussed. GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, because the whole Tim Hunt discussion on Wikipedia has been a shambles dominated by forum-hopping, unpleasantness, bludgeoning, inability to listen, and attempts to get the other side banned. And to be clear I'm talking about behaviour on both sides of the argument. It has been so unpleasant that I dropped out, for fear of landing up here myself. Regardless of the good or bad motivation of the current ANI, it is vital that ANI is not permitted to become a weapon in a content dispute. Elemimele (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Elemimele, I shouldn't have peeked, I am on a break mainly because of this toxic environment. Though I did wonder myself whether perhaps a warning was warranted that this was a violation of the topic ban, albeit inadvertent. As I note above, ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition. Intervention is badly needed to fix this toxic editing before it results in an arbcom case. WCM_email 13:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose action except for Support narrowing of topic ban. I voted against imposing this topic ban in the first place but if it's going to exist it should at least be targeted a little more narrowly than this. Loki (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose action except for Support narrowing of topic ban. There's enough ambiguity here that if there is a TBAN violation, it's an entirely unintentional one. I also would support narrowing Newimpartial's topic ban to just "transgender issues, broadly construed" as that is more representative of the specific issues raised in the discussion that lead to it being placed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that participating in a discussion about Tim Hunt's sexism allegations fall squarely within Gender-related disputes or controversies. That's been the scope of the topic area as far back as the Gamergate arbcom case, which included any gender-related dispute or controversy as a separate item from Gamergate itself, along with people associated with either of them. There's also a 2022 ARCA initiated by Sideswipe9th that confirms the scope includes non-trans/nonbinary people, and those four numbered points are only there to preserve previous clarifications rather than being the whole scope. That said, I agree it seems plausible that this was a misunderstanding by Newimpartial. Absent any evidence of further violations, or that the edits themselves were disruptive, I don't think any sanction stronger than a reminder/warning is needed. As a side note, if Newimpartial would like to appeal part or all of their sanction, they should make a specific request in it's own discussion thread. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with others that this discussion is inside the locus of the CTOP, but also I think Newimpartial's behavior in the discussion has been exemplary and I think that the natural response to this pair of facts is the narrowing of the topic-ban. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Support reminder/warning at most. Oppose narrowing of the topic ban. Broadly per the rationale provided by The Wordsmith, above. Clearly within scope of the topic ban; and reasonably expected to be understood to be so. Unconvinced that skirting the fringes (from the inside) should result in reducing the scope. Behaviour in the linked diffs is verging towards that which resulted in the ban. Not particularly enamoured of the tone nor personal focus of this diff. But do not believe that the evidence presented warrants sanctions beyond a reminder/warning. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Rotary Engine. I have pasted the entirety of the diff you cite into the collapsed section here:

content of diff Rotary Engine linked juat above

Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that "Hunt is not sexist" beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here. I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the straw goat question whether Hunt has "hindered any female scientist in her career" - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell. Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of WP:NPOV and also WP:BLP. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the WP:BALANCE of WP:HQRS, and the current article appears to so so.

I would appreciate, as a neurodivergent editor, if someone could explain to me what about the tone or personal focus of the diff seems problematic. Is it the use of the second person in the first two paragraph, for example? Or my word choice at There simply isn't a reason? I am here to learn and to do better. Newimpartial (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your tone was proportionate, I think I would tone it similarly if I were you. People should be confronted over disruptive editing if softer means fail to carry the point across, which certainly has been the case here. NicolausPrime (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a stretch to put Tin Hunt's topic under a topic ban on GENSEX that was born from trans related topics. It seems that most here feel that the edits in question were not a violation of the tban and I suspect it's because most editors, like I do, see a big gap between the topics that resulted in the tban and the Tim Hunt topic. My proposed solution would be to say the GENSEX topic doesn't cover the Tim Hunt discussion. Alternatively perhaps the GENSEX topic should be split up a bit. Denying an accusation of sexism is quite a bit different than arguing if someone/thing is transphobic. Springee (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that GENSEX should be split up just in general. Disruption about feminism, feminist issues, and sexism is not the same thing as disruption about LGBT issues. Editors with a history of disruption in one area can certainly contribute productively to the other. Loki (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Springee I don't think the whole of Tim Hunt falls under GENSEX; just the bits that relate to a gender-related dispute or controversy. And, for mine, arguing if someone is sexist is very similar to arguing if someone is transphobic.

@LokiTheLiar A well phrased request at ARCA might result in such a split; though I would consider that on more than a few occasions, editors disruptive w.r.t. the feminism aspects are also disruptive w.r.t. the sexuality aspects. Rotary Engine ^talk 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Warning I've always considered based on the wording that contentious topic restriction is intended to apply to stuff like this, and so would think any topic ban from the whole area is the same. I have no comment on whether it's need, and if someone wants to ask arbcom to clarify/limit it to only the Gamergate style stuff I have no problem with that. Likewise I agree it might have made sense to limit NewImpartial's topic ban to only gender-identity and sexuality related issues, but that wasn't what we did. So until any of this happens, NewImpartial needs to stay away from the dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced content to List of religious texts

Multiple different IP's, likely the same person with User:178.52.160.35 being the most recent. They continue to make unsourced edits about a apparent 'secretive' religion called 'Murshidyiah' on this page. I couldn't really find anything to back this existing, and this religion is likely a WP:HOAX. Consequently, I am requesting a range block of IP and maybe a semiprotect to prevent this from reoccurring. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

i didn't bother notifying the IP, since they hopped IP's while I was attempting to rollback one set of there edits, and have done several times now. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence that the IPs have been disruptively editing other articles, I see no need for a range block. I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Jolly73881 is WP:NOTHERE

Jolly73881 is a new editor here (account created 10 February 2024; under 150 edits). Since joining Wikipedia, they have engaged in edit-warring and incivility. Between March 18-20, another editor (Griboski) attempted to inform them about proper source use on their user page, with Jolly eventually responding, "Bro it's pixels chill out weirdo" ([231]). On March 30, Jolly received a 24-hour block for edit warring, then received a secondary warning on 26 March, to which they responded, "I'm not reading all of that :)" ([232]). March 30, Jolly reached out to me regarding a maintenance tag I placed on a page they created, Vratnica Attack, which used unreliable sources. I reviewed the page, then explained why the sources provided are unreliable ([233]). I also noticed a copyright violation, so I left the CV new message on their page, to which they responded, "What did I do to you bro" ([234]). As I was on their page, I noticed the responses to other editors, so I provided information about incivility ([235]). I later learned that the page they had created was previously deleted via discussion, so I tagged the page for CSD G4. Jolly responded to this by leaving a personal attack on my user page ([236]). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is in violation of no personal attacks I think Maestrofin (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not defending this editor but they are acting exactly like an editor whose been editing a month would act when their talk page starts filling up with warnings about policies they know nothing about and that the person they are trying to communicate with just tagged an article they created for speedy deletion. They left an immature comment on your talk page but it seems more childish than a personal attack.

I think you underestimate how, as a very, very experienced editor, you hold the seat of power over a newbie editor like this one. You know how Wikipedia works, if you held an RFA, you very well could become an administrator. You are knowledgeable, they are not. This editor knows very little about Wikipedia procedures, processes and policies. They likely don't know what a noticeboard like ANI even is. Experienced editors that I respect know when to not be bothered by missteps by a new editor and when to be truly concerned over behavior that could damage the project. If I had been the target here, I would ignore the comments and keep an eye on this editor. If they did something truly egregious, like continued copyright mistakes or vandalism, then I think it might be time to consider a block. But I know that I was a clumsy new editor myself and if another editor had chosen to make a case against me on ANI, I could very well have received a NOTHERE block because, honestly, most of us don't know what the hell we are doing when we start as off as editors. I guess I'm asking you to be the bigger person and shrug off the small stuff. If this editor is truly a problem case (I'm more worried here about possible POV pushing) we will find out soon enough and an admin will probably issue a block. But I don't think we should block new editors over ignorance and indifference. Give them some rope, they will either learn to swim or screw up in a major way in the future. Just my two cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Liz! Thank you for your response. If this was merely an issue of what this editor had said to me, I would ignore it, as you have mentioned. I completely understand their frustration about reaching out to an experienced editor for help, then ending up getting a speedy deletion tag placed on their article. My larger concern is that they have continued to respond to editors who are trying to help in similar manners (as seen in the diffs), explicitly stating that they aren't concerned about learning more about good practices on Wikipedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats at Talk:Richard Huckle

Richard Huckle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2600:1700:3EC7:4150:CDF5:ECBA:20AF:BA6F making legal threats against the site. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And I can't say I'm particularly surprised, when you see that someone had vandalised the article repeatedly to change the name of the article subject (a convicted serial child abuser) to the name of another individual - quite possibly the IPs. It is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone in that situation to engage in deep research into Wikipedia policy on what is or isn't permitted on article talk pages before responding. See Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Following this, is there any real benefit to letting IP users edit this article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Not particularly, though one could say the same about the many other biographical articles that see similar vandalism. The problem needs fixing properly: i.e. pending changes for all BLPs at minimum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The benefit to letting IP users edit this article was demonstrated here. An IP user removed the serious WP:BLP violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that there's much more that we can reasonably do about this specific threat, given what AndyTheGrump says and that this is an unregistered user. I get the impression that the editor simply wanted to correct an egregious fault on Wikipedia. I have left them a note explaining WP:NLT in case they come back. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why? We have absolutely no reason not to assume that the contributor had a legitimate complaint about the content. Do you really expect individuals in such a situation to read through the entire corpus of Wikipedia guidelines and policies before responding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, that does seem a little thoughtless and heavy-handed. Surely some information about legal threats would have been better than a block in the circumstances. The originator of the threat, who seemed to be acting in good faith and for the good of Wikipedia, did not have a chance to retract it.Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• The legal threat has been retracted. I hope that this editor is unblocked now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just unblocked them a few minutes ago. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The block was a good block -- it does not matter whether the issuer of a legal threat is in the right or not. The threat itself is against policy; it creates a chilling effect on editors; and prevents the assumption of good faith. That's not an opinion -- that's explicitly what our policy states. And the policy describes exactly how to handle this situation -- block them for the duration of the legal threat, and unblock them without prejudice or ill-will once they rescind it. We should also, if it hasn't been done, sanction the editor who made the offending statement in the first place. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester: Policy also requires that you ask my consent before unblocking an editor I blocked. You didn't even give me a heads-up after the unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: My apologies, that was a mistake not to have given you a notification after the fact; however I've never interpreted policy to require a *prior* notification before unblocking someone for a legal threat, as the policy has always been that they're blocked for the duration of the threat and unblocked once it's concluded. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester: The policy requiring consent from the blocking admin is not dependent on the basis of the block. Additionally, although generally an editor is unblocked once they unequivocally retract the legal threat, it is not automatic as the retraction may not be credible or there may be other reasons to keep the editor blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And those reasons aren't applicable in this case; there's no allegation that the retraction wasn't credible, nor other claimed reasons for keeping them blocked. And to restate the relevant part of the policy, Blocks for making legal threats should be undone once the threats are confirmed as permanently withdrawn and no longer outstanding. The threat was confirmed to be withdrawn and no longer outstanding.

Additionally, the policy on contacting the blocking admin states Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended. In this case, my conclusion was that there was a significant change in the circumstances (the threat was withdrawn) combined with a discussion on AN. Again, I regret not informing you after the fact, but I disagree that a prior notification was necessary here. Keeping this user blocked for a longer period of time would not have been beneficial to the project. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Your conduct in this matter is disappointing, and IMO your interpretation of policy is wrong, but I don't intend to pursue the matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The actual policy appears to have been misunderstood here. From Wikipedia:No legal threats:

This page in a nutshell: If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely

Users who post legal threats are typically blocked while the threats are outstanding

Neither a statement that a block is 'likely' to happen nor that it 'typically' does amounts to an assertion that blocking is compulsory. The threat (that you shall get a call from my solicitor) was the consequence of an article being vandalised in a manner that the IP seems to have entirely legitimate grounds to be concerned about. The rationale for blocking those that make legal threats - Posting legal threats on Wikipedia is uncivil and can cause problems...It inhibits free editing, risking one side of a dispute intimidating the other and causing a systemic bias.. It creates bad feelings and lack of trust, making it difficult to assume good faith - clearly does not apply when the only person who might be 'intimidated' is someone grossly vandalising Wikipedia in order to defame an innocent individual.

To me it seems common sense that nothing of any benefit to Wikipedia was going to be achieved by blocking the IP in such circumstances. Certainly, they should be informed of the policy regarding legal threats, but only in the context of (a) making it absolutely clear that they were fully entitled to revert the vandalism, and (b) advising them of the preferred way to deal with such issues in future. It is difficult to see this particular block as anything but punishment for not being aware of one particular facet of Wikipedia policy. A facet of policy that it is utterly unreasonable to expect the average non-contributor to be aware of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Talkadu engaging in disruptive edits and abusing other editors.

User:Talkadu has been engaging in disruptive edits on the Mamta Sagar page, as can be seen here: [237], and leaving abusive messages on my talk page, despite having been previously blocked. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not. Check the date when it was done. What I did yesterday or day before yesterday was I was asking a citation for whether the person is a Professor or not. Also I put a template which you deleted immediately without explaining.You are a liar. You are abusing me. I doubt you understand what democracy stands for. The words I used are not abusive words. Talkadu (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Talkasu: I would suggest you refrain from calling others "a liar" "a jerk" and making unsupported accusations of abuse otherwise you may be on the receiving end of a block for exactly the reasons stated in this request. Amortias (T)(C) 16:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Liar or jerk are normal words.He himself calls others ridiculous. What is the difference? He says one thing and does another thing.n

He says some thing and does something.

I have seen he has been instructing others not to delete Templets whereas he is engaged in deleting templates set by others. Is it fair? In addition he uses words like "Ridiculous" etc. at others. Check it and be fair.

I am sure one day Wikipedia will be a dumpster rental place if people like you to continue to work like this. Talkadu (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Calling someone a liar or jerk is considered a personal attack, particularly when you don't provide diffs. If you're concerned about the use of "ridiculous" as it pertains to a person or the situation at hand, you would do well to do readers a courtesy and provide diffs of that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Talkadu for 72 hours for personal attacks. The editor needs to learn that "liar" and "jerk" are not normal words when used against fellow editors. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Vauban Books

From WP:BLPN. Vauban Books (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): This page, and particularly its first paragraph, is gross libel [...] Failing to properly edit may well invite legal action.[238]. Does this post violate or come close enough to violating WP:NLT? Does the OP's username violate our WP:CORPNAME, WP:COI or other policies? I'll note, this is apparently a publisher of the subject, Renaud Camus. See here for the identically named publisher promoting the subject for commercial purposes. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:NLT is not appropriate here. It's just someone wanting to correct what they regard as inappropriate wording in Renaud Camus and, as is typical for someone new to Wikipedia, they have no idea about how to phrase their thoughts. They need guidance. The user name is a problem but please let's not get hung up about that either. Their thoughts should be considered at Talk:Renaud Camus if they respond there. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to reply. Yes, I write on behalf of the American publisher of Renaud Camus. Our interest in editing his page is not "promotional" and still less financial; rather, we wish to correct what we see as a major errors of fact. I understand if you do not wish to allow us to make these changes given our relationship with the author but at the very least we ask that you update your sources and acknowledge that a number of more recent ones run directly counter to the claims posted in your article. I will attempt to respond per your protocol in Talk: Renaud Camus 24.177.76.98 (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Vandal only account

Vandal only account (User:EditingGiant23) edits reverted -- some dicey stuff like purported image of The Prophet (see [239]). Nirva20 (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No previous warnings issued. I suspect a NOTHERE situation, but FWIW I have issued a level III warning. Any further disruption should result in an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack by ජපස

I believe that I should be able to discuss the reliability of sources without being called an ideologically-driven antiwokist. Please do something about it. Zero^talk 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be the upshot of your argument. I look at impact of your rhetoric and cannot judge the intent. I have no way to judge what your mindset is. Shall I add something to that effect? jps (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I shall! [240]. jps (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That's scarcely any better. Frankly, any accusation related to "wokeness" (supposedly for or against) is inappropriate and poisons a topic. On any culture war-adjacent topic where it might be invoked, it could be hurled against any participant (again, supposedly for or against). As WP:NPA#WHATIS says, 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. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So jps decided to double down on his attack. Jps argues against the reliability of an academic journal mostly based on his own opinion of what he thinks is the ideology of the journal. This includes sweeping assertions about 60 academics: "the members of this editorial board really are proponents of fringe theories", BLP be damned. My argument is that the reliability of a journal doesn't depend on whether jps or myself like what it publishes. I should be able to take that position without being accused of being a supporter of the ideology that jps abhors. I would take the same position if the ideology of the journal was the opposite. The fact is that jps doesn't have a clue what my ideological position is and I shouldn't have to take his ignorant insults. Zero^talk 04:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@jps: There are times to go hard and pour buckets on opponents, but this is not one of them. The entire Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Journal of Controversial Ideas discussion is a waste of space because there is no actionable proposal. Is someone saying that journal can never be used as a source? Surely people know that explicit examples must be discussed before assessing whether something is reliable. Zero0000 is not playing a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game—it's actually you who are missing what Zero0000 has written. I am sympathetic to the view that some philosophers struggle to find interesting topics to discuss and they offer opinions on topics outside their expertise. We could chat about that but again it would be a waste of space. Please stop arguing there and wait until something actionable arises (should a particular claim in a particular article be sourced to the Journal of Controversial Ideas?). And stop insulting valid comments. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked ජපස 1 week (as an Arbitration Enforcement action) for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There's a long history of warnings, sanctions and blocks for incivility in pseudoscience-related matters, dating back to at least 2006 with an Arbcom "Caution" at WP:ARBPSCI#ScienceApologist is uncivil up through a 2023 Arbitration Enforcement report where he was reminded to report pro-fringe disruption to administrators rather than being uncivil to them. Most recently, he was asked just a week ago to tone down the language and informed about WP:BRIE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Although I consider myself a wikifriend of jps, and I tend to agree with his views on content matters, The Wordsmith accurately points to my warning about BRIE as part of that recent discussion at jps' talk page, and I endorse what The Wordsmith did. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Good block. I encountered JPS here at ANI and through the Ammonihah page linked below. I'll add that JPS's behavior extends beyond the above thread. In this past month, he has repeatedly chosen to express himself uncivilly on multiple pages (diffs provided below). As The Wordsmith points out, editors encouraged JPS to be more civil at his talk page (permanent link) preceding the behavior at WP:FTN. JPS's acknowledgment that the thread had presented a fair critique apparently wasn't an indicator he would change his behavior.

On user talk pages:

• are you being petty? I don't see any substantive argument, just sour grapes
• profoundly weird sources you are demanding

In tags for Second Nephi

• What in the actual fuck does THAT mean?; You kidding me? Who wrote this? They need to be stopped.

At Talk:Massacre of the Innocents:

• that's just nonsense.
• ::rolleyes:: This isn't serious
• His bullshit needs to go too.
• Lol.
• Grow a thicker skin, and If that offends a believer, then they need to leave this project.
• Are you kidding?
• a charlatan. A hack. A biblical literalist who wants to play with the real scholars but can't because his faith requires him to believe absolute absurdities.
• It looks like you are WP:POVPUSHing for your religious beliefs at this point.

In edit summaries for Massacre of the Innocents:

• This is not Sunday School. Take your biblical literalist whining elsewhere. (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)
• bullshit
• Stating that other editors are promoting lies in the encyclopedia
• ideology that is quite bizarre

At Talk:Ammonihah

• why the hell did Joseph Smith bother to make up this silly story? Y'know?
• these threetwo-and-a-half Mormons
• They seem to say that, yes. That makes them Mormon apologists. Yep! (said of Laurie Maffly-Kipp and Penguin Books)
• LOL, WP:NOR isn't a suicide pact.
• This is Wikipedia. We don't play stupid games like this.
• When I asked if he meant to say that Scholarship published in academic venues constitutes "stupid games, referring in large part to an article from a secular academic journal published by the University of Pennsylvania Press that I was linking on the talk page, JPS answered, In most cases, absolutely.
• When I asked if JPS meant to imply "Lunatic charlatans" like professors of literature? Is that the implication? (literature professors like Elizabeth Fenton, whose research was cited for explanatory purposes on the talk page, a living person), JPS answered, Well, we had about a big long discussion about blacklisting those words, but it came up "no consensus". Whachagonnado?
• Does it hurt your feelings or something?
• A bit sloppy there, old Joey S.

In edit summaries, body text, and tags for Ammonihah:

• Inserted ??? into the body text
• This isn't Sunday School (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)
• Removing this section. It's a flight of fancy
• some nonsensical readings
• Removing this paragraph. I really hate it. (a human editor wrote that paragraph; we can criticize with less hostile language)

Here at ANI:

• This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical
• a complete clusterfuck.
• I think people like you are to blame
• cult-like behaviors.
• absolutely atrocious edits
• Forget it. At this point, you're running interference.
• I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places

I understand there's been a lot of ferment about articles in Mormon studies topic areas. I can accept if how I or others have contributed isn't what the community wants; I can accept articles like Ammonihah being revised, even drastically. But I'm unconvinced that JPS's behavior is necessary to accomplish that (to use the Ammonihah page as an example, other editors have been able to talk about revising the article without similar behavior; Ghosts of Europa, Steve Quinn). As Zero0000 said, editors shouldn't have to take JPS's insults. And this behavior is not limited to Mormon studies (as FTN and Massacre of the Innocents demonstrate). Maybe a one-week block will be enough to remind JPS of the ArbCom caution. But when this has apparently been going on for so long, and when JPS seems to react to concerns about his behavior with relative indifference (even when he invites discussion on his talk page about his behavior, he says, You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things), I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary to prevent more uncivil behavior in the future. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

For record, I actually agree with much of jps's effort in keeping bible literalism out of the encyclopedia. He could do it with a lot less incivility though, as some but not all of these examples illustrate. Also, these examples don't sufficiently distinguish between robust discussion of sources (which is allowed and necessary within BLP limits) and insults and insinuations against editors which are not allowed. Zero^talk 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, discussion of sources is allowed within BLP limits. The diffs pertaining to source discussion that I chose to include affect discussion and other editors in a way that I think is well characterized by this quote from the talk thread page that The Wordsmith linked above (diff): I'm [Tryptofish] not worried that you [JPS] hurt the sources' feelings. But when you say these things about sources in a way that causes bad feelings among other editors, it's not necessarily those other editors' fault that they feel bad. If you think it's a source of pride to hurt other editors' feelings, well, that's both bullshit and baloney. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think this is a good example of "it's not what you say, it's how you say it". I don't like to see jps blocked as I feel he's a tremendous resource when it comes to astronomy, astrophysics, and matters related to skepticism and paranormal nonsense. But when it comes to some topics, particularly religious topics, jps can get into a kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation, and his demeanor rapidly changes and he can get nasty. I can completely understand his approach because I have myself been there (as my block log can attest), particularly when it comes to political topics. I think what helped me loosen up and calm down a little bit was to remember two things: try to remember the human on the other side, and to acknowledge the coincidentia oppositorum—that we can't have the black without the white, the light without the dark, and the religious without the non-religious. My goal is to try and remain civil within that tension of the opposites. I hope jps can do the same in the future as he's a valuable contributor. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  If JPS's pattern of incivility crops up in certain topic areas, would focusing JPS's editorial efforts on other topic areas be a reasonable preventative measure to take going forward, in light of the long duration of this recurring behavior? Focusing on astrophysics and astronomy, for example, and avoiding religious studies. (Or, so as to also encompass the topic area of the thread at FTN—apparently about a philosophy periodical—avoiding the humanities?) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was merely providing an example, but my guess is that the intersection between fringe theories, scientific skepticism, and other topics is quite large, so it can’t really be reduced to a single topic area. The best thing jps can do is to limit their replies (avoid bludgeoning) and allow their opponents to have the last word. This is something I’ve tried to bring to the table with my own contributions, and while I haven’t always been successful, it has personally helped me become more civil in my approach. In the relevant example, jps already had his say and didn’t need to keep replying to Zero. I think we have to try to avoid protracted discussions that have a tendency to become personal. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's good advice for all of us and could be a good thing for JPS to do. I do wonder, with this behavior having such a long history (nearly 18 years), wide breadth (multiple topic areas), and vitriolic depth (visible in multiple examples), whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures designed to help JPS to do so and to avoid incivility and personal attacks. As much as his goal is to help the project, JPS has received warnings, cautions, advice, and blocks about this for more than a decade and a half, and he has evidently nevertheless kept resuming this pattern of behavior. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Hydrangeans you write "I do wonder ... whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures" and you write above "I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary". The read of the room here, for me, is that the current block is warranted but that further sanctions are not. Are you going to propose "further formal measures" or are you content to be left wondering? I am slightly concerned about what might amount to a desire to take an opponent off the board, so to speak. Bon courage (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was wondering, because the pattern of behavior seemed long-term and serious but there hadn't been clear expression about further sanctions. Now that you put into words the read of the room I'm seeing what you're saying. I admit I'm a little surprised. I guess having been on the receiving end of JPS's behavior and how miserable the experience was I was concerned more than the average in this thread about the same happening again to more editors in the future. I've tried to keep content disagreements elsewhere separate from the act of reporting behavior in this thread; that said, feelings can run hot at ANI, so as much as what you're concerned about isn't my goal I won't begrudge you your concern when it's such a natural one.

  In any event, even if the room did have a read supportive of further action—which you're right, it doesn't right now—it dawns on me that any action would probably be premature anyway, when the present action is still in its duration and the results are still forthcoming. All that to say, I'm content right now to be left wondering, and with your input I'm wondering less anyhow. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  My own personal take, is that jps should voluntarily remove himself from the noticeboards for an indefinite period, as that is where most of the issues seem to be arising, with the fringe theories noticeboard highlighted in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  As another editor who has been on the receiving end of some of the behavior that spurred this action, I also agree that further sanctions are probably unwarranted but that jps needs to be on alert that their actions have been inappropriate. Additionally, I think there's a case to be made that this is less about the noticeboards and more about religious subject matters broadly construed. If jps's behavior continues to be excessively hostile post-block, further sanctions should be imposed. However, I'm optimistic that the latest talk page response and jps's experience will lead cause this to be one-time event. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Based on recent span the activity (the month of March) in which the FTN thread was the topically exceptional incident, I agree with the sense that the behavior spreads to religious tropics more broadly. The behavior isn't limited to discussing fringe claims, or fringe claims in religious topics, or sources that make religious claims; the behavior also came up in discussions about non-fringe statements by scholars about religious topics (e. g. calling secular professors lunatic charlatans and saying that citing them is stupid games). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Administrator note ජපස has asked that the his statement be copied over here, so I've done that below The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC):

Please copy my statement to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I do apologize for personal attack offense. I tried to redact and am always amenable to discussion. jps (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) jps (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Dialmayo

Unfunny April Fools joke. Spicy (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dialmayo has been completely uncivil and has gone against everything the founding Wikifathers intended for this site. Dialmayo has wreaked havoc on this site that can only be corrected by an immediate indef block. Let's take a look at this diff. Dialmayo has clearly stated that spending precious time and effort on the Wikipedia namespace is less important than "building an encyclopedia"? What the hell does that even mean?? We all came here to watch editor drama in this here noticeboard! this diff shows she's lost sight of Wikipedia's goals entirely! Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of utmost seriousness. She even reported herself to ANI! Secondly, let's take a look at Dialmayo's violent personal attacks. First, look at this violent edit. Dialmayo brutally attacks the poor, innocent IP. Then, after getting the IP blocked, she follows up with this, clearly a gravedance! This editor is wildly disrespectful. Just look at her userpage, humiliating Chris Troutman! Dialmayo?? More like Devilmayo!!!!! Look at all the mistakes she's made! Clearly, she's proud of these, and would do it again! I hope you get this wasteful, inconsiderate, useless Dialmayo off of Wikipedia immediately! Sincerely, Dialmayo 09:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism slipped through

Announcing that several IP accounts such as 2001:9E8:6CF7:E100:210A:D00C:2AC1:5D78 (talk · contribs), 2001:9E8:6CC3:8F00:DD4D:7522:FF18:8EDB (talk · contribs), 2001:9E8:6CC3:8F00:C8C3:70F9:2EF0:ED46 (talk · contribs) and 2001:9E8:6CC3:8F00:3547:52AD:FC0:64FB (talk · contribs) (Sorry I'm not proficient in identifying parent ranges) have been involved in inserting WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX edits in Years by Country articles involving irrelevant Netflix and Nickelodeon shows. Despite being inserted a month ago, no one else noticed that these edits were murky until I happened to stumble upon them by chance today. Raising the alarm for editors to start searching if other cases of vandalism have passed through related to these accounts. These start with 2016 articles and end in 2024.

PS: they appear to have been active only once, last month. Borgenland (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This is spam. All the edits you reported come from the IP range Special:Contributions/2001:9E8:6CC3:8F00::/42. The changes don't continue after Feb. 24th, so the problem is stale for now. If this kind of thing resumes, let an admin know because a rangeblock should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Potentially disruptive behavior from user pabloescomar

pabloescomar

A recently created user has been re-inserting disputed content and not engaging in talk page discussions regarding the material.

The material in question was removed under WP:EXCEPTIONAL with directions to look at the Talk Page.

This was restored by pabloescomar on March 4, with no edit summary. I removed on March 18, with the same edit summary pointing towards WP:EXCEPTIONAL and directing to the talk page discussion, which was restored again. I removed once more, again directing towards the talk page as well as pointing towards WP:ONUS that not all information needing to be included.

On March 24, the user restored the information without discussing on the talk page or providing an edit summary. I removed again but left a post on their talk page trying to WP:AGF and show them relevant policies and guidelines more in depth, since I realized that as a new user they may not understand or know about several of them. I also noted Ignoring the consensus building process while inserting or re-inserting disputed material can be seen as disruptive and can lead to sanctions; please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS for further info on what actions can be seen as disruptive. with the hopes that the user would refrain from restoring disputed material without discussion. It didn't seem to have any effect, and the material was restored with a blank edit summary on March 31.

Since the material in question relates to accusations that a rapper who died a few years ago was a serial killer according to a YouTube 'documentary', I figured it needed better sources that covered it in depth. However, I understand this may at least in part be considered a content dispute but wanted to address it on ANI due to the unwillingness of the individual to participate in discussions or acknowledge policies and guidelines. Rather than revert it again I wanted to address the behavior here, since I don't want to engage in a long term edit war and am unsure if I am or not but would rather seek outside guidance. Thank you.

Awshort (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the section has been removed again. If King Von were alive, I would argue that we'd need top-tier sources to support this claim. But that shouldn't mean that we'll accept just about anything after he died. It probably couldn't hurt to take the sources to WP:RSN for a consensus on their reliability.

As for User:Pabloescomar, I would support an article topic ban to nudge the editor towards Talk:King Von. Woodroar (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Username seems close to Pablo Escobar, so possible username violation alongside this. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"Cliff Cash" vandal keeps trying to log in as me

Hello. I was encouraged to post a complaint here by 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. There has been a persistent attempt by a sockpuppet creator to fake my identity and log in as me. His original account was called User:Liamb2011 but he has created many sockuppets that have been shut down already for repeated incidents of bad editing. This person has two incidents on the administrators' noticeboard already for this behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Persistent_block_evasion_at_Cliff_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Persistent_block_evasion%2C_disruption_by_Cliff_Cash_vandal

For several months now, his behavior has included trying to log in as me, both by creating sockpuppet accounts with names that are close to mine, such as "Mehendri Solon 2nd Account" and "Mehendri Parsons", and by repeatedly attempting to log in under my username. He has never succeeded, and I don't really think that he will, but it has been annoying. I asked him to stop, but it has kept going. I have tried to just ignore it. I had hoped that he would lose interest and go away, but it's been continuing for at least a couple of months. This morning, he attempted to reset my password. I would really like him to stop. Mehendri Solon (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is probably something a Checkuser should opine on and handle discreetly, since the quickest solution would be the privacy-implicating IP block. Password reset emails will not get sent to someone behind a blocked IP, and they can also be set to disallow account creation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Relevant block(s) appear to be in place to deal with the account creation and editing, though I'm open to hearing about any recent accounts not already visited by a checkuser. I'm pretty sure there's not much we can do about people trying to log in. I expect someone from the security team could do something about it if it's extreme, I probably wouldn't say it rises to that level, but someone at WP:T&S may be able to advise further. I would advise: make sure the account is secure, turn off the relevant notification, and spam-bin unexpected password reset emails. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree that it probably is not an extreme issue, just an annoyance, at least for now. The person in question has left enough clues to his real identity that I've been able to track him down on social media, and he appears to be a high-school student with too much time on his hands. I do hope that the blocks on him can remain in place indefinitely, since he shows no signs of stopping. Mehendri Solon (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

ACE Money Transfer

I've reviewed at AfC a draft, User:MTanveer512/sandbox, which IMO has red flags all over it, but I don't know where to take it so I brought it here. It's about a business called ACE Money Transfer. This has been created at ACE Money Transfer, Draft:ACE Money Transfer, Aftab Currency Exchange Ltd and possibly other titles, to the point where some of those are protected (probably why this is in a sandbox?). A number of users associated with this have been blocked, eg. Acesocialmedia and Ace.shahzad.ashraf, but all the ones I could find go back many years and are long since stale, hence no point (?) in taking them to SPI.

The user who created this draft is a brand new SPA (so far at least), who claims not to have edited before, but creating such a well-formed draft as one's first edit seems remarkable. They also claim to have no association with the business in question, although I've found off-WP evidence (inconclusive, but still) which suggests otherwise. AGF notwithstanding, I don't really buy any of this. Whether we're looking at socking or UPE or both, I can't be sure, but I'm pretty convinced it's something. Could an admin please take a look? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)--

After a quick look, I'm inclined to agree with the OP. This looks highly suspicious. I don't have check user rights, but I'd suggest that as the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If the accounts are very old CU wouldn't be able to do much beyond behavioural analysis. That data is only retained for, at most, a few months. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Check for copyright violations, that usually helps tell whether or not it’s an UPE group as they have a tendency to copy and paste the corporate line into the article with little or no revisions. I’ve been able to pounce on a a]handful of COI/UPE editors in this way and block them before they could dig in. Otherwise, it may be worth discretely notifying spi checkusers who are familiar with the case to see what they think about the account(s) and/or article(s) in question. 2600:1011:B13F:5382:6420:ADFE:2A66:F322 (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

User:مشرا and WP:competence is required

Many of the pages this user (who specializes in Pakistani history) has created have been deleted or redirected as duplicate topics, and the ones that have not all have outstanding maintenance tags. The most serious issue with their writing is false verification; they may write a paragraph and add two citations at the end, neither of which actually state anything claimed in the paragraph. Two of their creations, Baral Agreement, and Sikh Soudhan Wars, were deleted for having supposed article topics tangential to real life events but never actually discussed in any sources. Communication with them is difficult, as they appear to have a poor grasp of English.

It's ok for a new user to make mistakes, or for someone for whom English is not their first language to contribute, but after nearly a year on this project this person doesn't appear to have learned any lessons. False verification issues can last for many years before being spotted, and this user is still adding problematic material to existing articles. As such, I propose an indefinite block from mainspace in addition to a review of all their edits. Hopefully, they will improve their writing and successfully appeal their block, but in the meantime the harm they are causing to the encyclopedia is too great to ignore. Cheers, Mach61 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You tell me what I should do? I am ready to follow your words, God willing مشرا (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@مشرا Thank you for being receptive. I would recommend that you submit any new pages you create as drafts through the Articles for creation process. That way, an experienced editor will review what you have written and decide if it is suitable for the encyclopedia or not. I would also ask that you discuss any major changes (such as your edits on Sudhan) on the talk page of the article or a relevant WikiProject (in this case Wt:WikiProject Pakistan).

Again, the primary issue with your contributions have been that they do not always match the sources. Consider using the |quote= parameter of citation templates, so that statements in the article can be connected to specific statements in the source. Cheers, Mach61 02:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok I will follow your suggestion from today. To give your valuable time. And thank you so much for the guide مشرا (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

EnterpriseyBot not updating Vandalism information

For the past week, EnterpriseyBot (talk · contribs) has not updated {{Vandalism information}} whenever a vandalism level changes (Task 5). The root cause of the problem appears to be shown on Revert Visualizer, as the page continuously shows 0 RPM, an inaccuracy given RedWarn still shows reverts per minute correctly. Enterprisey has been inactive since 10 February, rendering an attempt to bring this to his attention moot. Luckily, in the last 24 hours, Philipnelson99 and I have managed to provide a few updates using RedWarn's tools. While any and all assistance to keep this up to date is appreciated, I would like to see if Enterprisey could possibly be reached outside of Wikipedia or if an alternative bot can be used to resume automated updates. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 08:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the bot uses that website, it seems that it just uses Wikipedia's /w/api.php - the website one isn't working because the revisions feed it would have used is returning errors (CORS and 404), those you can see if you open the browser console and refresh the page. Not that this observation helps solve the problem in any way. – 2804:F1...75:A125 (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@JalenFolf I've been able to get the defcon script script that the bot runs on working locally too[241], I'm assuming Enterprisey's cron job is failing or something. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Someone add this as spam

Please block https://www.surahyaseenpdf.info/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berak Al Bukhori (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to SurahYaseen111? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems you two have engaged in an edit war over adding the above link in Ya-Sin. Strange that you request the link YOU added in the first place to get blacklisted, but I'll leave more experienced users to this. (sorry that the diff is broken, at least on my end) The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing entire section of feudalism pages due to lack of understanding

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.

---

• Feudalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alwaysaspiring30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Remsense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remsense) is going at a "edit war" by removing an entire section on feudalism due to lack of understanding instead of constructively attempting to make changes to the topic at hand. They are deducting the article to sections that instead state "need clarification" compared to leaving as is or adding to it constructively. Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added pagelinks and userlinks to the head of this report and notified User:Remsense of the complaint. There have also been discussions at User talk:Alwaysaspiring30#April 2024 and at Talk:Feudalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've already said all I feel I need to say on either Talk:Feudalism, the user talk page, or (regrettably, sorry) in edit summaries. I've linked several policy pages and explained my precise concerns, and wouldn't otherwise know what to say. If anyone has any questions, let me know. Remsense诉 03:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alwaysaspiring30, this is not the correct forum for this dispute. These are fundamentally editorial concerns; they should be hammered out at Talk:Feudalism, not here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not really seem like they will be receptive to discussion in any venue, as suggestion to rework and move content to a more appropriate section is taken as judgement that the content isn't important, despite my emphasizing several times that I think it should be included in the article in some form. However, in its present state it is a glaring net negative in a very important article—ultimately I think it'll probably be the least disruptive outcome if someone else irons this out, I'm not sure how to approach or work with this in a way that will be acceptable to them. Remsense诉 03:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You added content another editor objected in some way and reverted, and you repeatedly reverted to your version. I suggest reading the advice at WP:BRD and discussing it on the articles talk page. There are many suggestions at WP: Dispute resolution before coming here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:41, 2 April 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.

Personal Attacks Policy Violations WP:NPA False Request for Removal of Articles by Saqib - Requesting Ban

Dear Concern Admins,

How are you doing,

I truly appreciate work of admins in Wikipedia as you guys work hard to solve issues.

I would like to report a complain against a user Saqib He has been very unreasonable to me, he has been insulting me again and again which is against wikipedia WP:NPA policy.

He requested two articles for deletion which was written about two famous journalist Faysal Aziz Khan - A veteran journalist from Pakistan and also Ovais Mangalwala another senior journalist. He has been very unreasonable and he has doing personal attacks.

Most of @Saqib contributions are on others talk pages he just created articles with no sufficient information and data. He has been violating WP:NPA policy with all users.

We are all here to contribute Wikipedia give our precious time to make this place a better place and do the research to improve each other and he also allege me for creating paid articles, which is truly unacceptable. As editors we should take responsibility of each article we create as its our responsibility to continuously improving thus I keep improving my articles I give each day to improve my articles and if I get time I edit or improve or create new article.

Whatever he reported as per policy I improved but he has being very unreasonable and continuedly disrespecting please your kind action is required.

He should be reported even I tried to send message on his personal talk page to resolve the issue between us, I am very peaceful person I am here to improve quality of Wikipedia and improve articles in South Asian Region.

As per Wikipedia WP:DRR policy. I hope you will assist me I do not know him personally being from same country he suppose to be supportive and improve articles together, if you review his profile he has doing personal attacks to everyone in his contribution history its mostly these maters. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 20:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#User:Faizanalivarya_reported_by_User:Saqib_(Result:_Declined). @Bbb23: WP:BOOMERANG? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If the target didn't reply to this already I would've reminded you of the text in the red box near the top of the page to notify an editor directly on their user talk page.

He requested two articles for deletion which was written about two famous journalist Faysal Aziz Khan - A veteran journalist from Pakistan and also Ovais Mangalwala another senior journalist. He has been very unreasonable and he has doing personal attacks.

Most of @Saqib contributions are on others talk pages he just created articles with no sufficient information and data. He has been violating WP:NPA policy with all users.
— User:Faizanalivarya 20:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs for admins to review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

So lets just break down your statements here

• He requested two articles for deletion - which they are more than entitled to do so. A discussion will be held to determine the articles outcomes, they have made no summary decision they are asking for community input.
• He has been very unreasonable and he has doing personal attacks - Where, provide diffs or links as evidence otherwise these claims are baseless.
• Most of @Saqib contributions are on others talk pages - mine are probably 80% user talk pages or non-article space. This isn't a problem.
• He has been violating WP:NPA policy with all users - Again where?
• Whatever he reported as per policy I improved - that's what your meant to do.
• But he has being very unreasonable and continuedly disrespecting, for the third time. Where you must evidence your claims.
• If you review his profile he has doing personal attacks to everyone in his contribution history - And for the forth time. Where?

Your repeated accusations without the evidence to back it up do seem to fall quite squarely into the region of exactly what no personal attacks is for. You may want to consider providing evidence for the claims your making as the case is yours to prove and at the minute the only personal attacks we can see are yours in your original statement and there's nothing to prevent your own behaviour being investigated. Amortias (T)(C) 21:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I would note diff [242] which seems to be a reasonably obvious unproven claim of bias would probably fall foul of NPA. Amortias (T)(C) 21:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Infact, I propose revoking their autopatrolled and pending changes review privileges for two reasons: Firstly, they've created BLPs of non-notable individuals. Secondly, they've been repeatedly inserting OR and promotional material into BLPs such as this, and this --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 22:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Amortias: I cannot make sense of your dif 327, I'm afraid. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

To quote - "He does full fill the WP:NOTNEWS the editor has nominated this article for personal grudge towards the creator of article he is being victim of WP:PA which is against Wikipedia policy"

Faizanalivarya is accusing Saqib of having a grudge towards themself and repeating his unsupported claims of NPA being breeched. Amortias (T)(C) 22:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I was confused too. It would have been easier to understand what you were saying if you had actually linked a diff (such as [243]) rather than the whole page. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

My bad, must've misclicked the link I was after. Amortias (T)(C) 22:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Amortias: Not only that, but he's also personally attacking me (see this) and instead, falsely accusing me of personal attacks. He has yet to provide any diffs where I've attacked him, apart from nominating his BLPs for deletion, which he perceives as a personal attack. He seeks friendship with me to turn a blind eye to the violations he's committing on BLPs. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting to think this entry might merit a WP:BOOMERANG warning toward Faizan. The Kip 21:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Is admin @JPxG making a false accusation alleging I was involved in doxxing someone else admin abuse?

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.

---

As they did here to me and also falsely accused me of applauding someone else of doxxing someone: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216801902&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1

This was later refuted as being completely false by many other editors (including other admins), and another admin has now redacted JPxG’s false statement, and warned others to not reinstate this false accusation.

Here is an example of another editor confirming that this allegation was completely false, saying I can't see that TheSpacebook was involved in any doxxing. WPO member Vigilant did the doxxing. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216812696&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1)

However, later seemingly clarified that I wasn’t “explicitly” involved with doxxing someone, which suggests I may have implicitly involved. Should admins be throwing around these covert-semantics which are extremely serious and damaging allegations to make about someone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216918024&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1

Due to the serious nature of the allegation that was made about me, and the possible covert suggestion that I implicitly did it, question is this: Is this how admins are expected to behave, is it in line with their responsibilities to publicly make false accusations about other editors? TheSpacebook (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not say that. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Anybody who wants to see what this is about is invited to read the AN thread. jp×g🗯️ 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have amended the title to accurately reflect what you said. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that when a new thread at ANI is created about an ongoing, active thread at AN, that it is almost always an indication that the entire subject has jumped the shark. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The thread has since died down and become inactive, and this is an extremely serious allegation warranting its own incident. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Inactive? There have been like 20 posts in the last hour or two. (Admittedly half are probably by you editing your own comments...) Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Guilty as charged… But I have since exclusively drafted in my notes app, so they’ll be less of that going forward TheSpacebook (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to say but this is on you, Floq. You unblocked them, you now own their subsequent disruption. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Boomerang per WP:BOOMERANG. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• (EC)Support boomerang, although advised multiple that they were going to far and were well into bludgeoning territory here we are... At ANI... For an issue that as far as I can tell is done and dusted (JPxG has already retracted the claim [244]) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 2 April 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.

@28bytes: Not to be an asinine pedant, but regarding the "accusation that you applauded doxxing", the post I made was "some guy did this, and TheSpacebook's reaction seems to have been to post a clapping emoji" [sic], which I clarified later was precisely two posts after the dox post in the discussion thread, and formatted as a direct quote-response to a separate post -- they obviously did not dox GN, they just exhibited a shocking lack of taste by participating gladly in the thread where some other guy did. I have offered to write additional bold-text clarifying notes to give more precision (to a statement which already seemed somewhat clear to me), but I am somewhat concerned by the idea that I just completely made shit up, seemingly on the basis that somebody said I did a bunch of times, rather than the actual text of the post. jp×g🗯️ 21:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m kindly asking you to stop making false accusations about me. There was mass condemnation when the doxxing happened in the thread. And I clearly applauded the post saying I was unblocked. And I am against doxxing, as my original issue was that Wikipedia was displaying notable figures addresses. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: If my closing wording is imprecise, I apologize. Hopefully people reading the relevant threads will be able to reach their own conclusions about the issue. That said, my 2¢ would be to just let this one go, as I recommended to TheSpacebook on their talk page. @TheSpacebook: Please re-read my friendly suggestion on your talk page that you take a break from posting here. I am trying to prevent this from unnecessarily escalating further. 28bytes (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. jp×g🗯️ 22:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible impersonation of Max Lugavere

Max Lugavere is a low-carb/paleo diet promoter who published a book promoting a low-carb paleo diet [245], he has also defended the carnivore diet. On Social Media (Twitter/X), Max a few weeks ago complained that his Wikipedia page was been targeted by "vegan activists". His tweet got about 16K views, so people would have seen this but he has since not commented about the page. He seems unaware of the article talk-page. In his tweet he was requesting for his followers to go over and edit his article.

A user claiming to be Max turned up on his talk-page [246] (he never edited the article). The user has since abandoned this account and is using an IP address [247].

I am not entirely convinced that the account Vinestreet97 is Max. The account and IP have made unfounded claims that Max is not low-carb. This is quite bizarre considering Max is a well known low-carb diet influencer who has spent in total about 8 years online promoting low-carb and paleo diets over all his social media accounts and wrote an entire book on it. Right now, Max, Mark Hyman, Steven Gundry are some of the most famous social media influencers promoting low-carb. I suspect the account is an impersonation or troll attempt.

New accounts are editing the article removing specific wording, I believe there is a possible case of WP:MEATPUPPET behaviour and the article should be semi-protected if this continues. I also believe that the Vinestreet97 account should be locked until that account is officially verified to be Max as it may be an impersonation. There have been various impersonations from users editing nonsense on the carnivore diet article in the past, it may be the same user behind this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say a block pending verification is warranted, since this just seems to be garden variety self-promotion if accurate, and impersonation if not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Which IP? 76.50.244.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) geolocates to Santa Monica, California, and 100.35.27.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to Newark, New Jersey; and they use different ISPs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

76.50.244.14 [248] is the same user as Vinestreet97, an account which claims to be Max. They use exactly the same writing style and cite the same links. Max says he resides in both Los Angeles and New York [249] so it is possible the account is him but the denial that is he low-carb is just very odd like I said as he has published a book promoting this type of diet and is very open on social media about promoting this. Without verification the account should at least be soft blocked. It's impossible to know if it is really him or not without confirmation. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Poor sources

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.

---

@Ravens-wing if Wikipedia has rules then you should adhere to such using un scholarly sources is not on. Do you want to defend why you are doing such? 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:A1E5:867F:3AF1:BCE8 (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello can you please show me diffs on what you mean by un scholarly sources, and did you notify ravens wing with the big red box at the top because they may not know because pinging is not enough,

and also have you tried dispute resolution Maestrofin (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This is Habesha212 editing logged out and is just a continuation of the #Kingdom of Aksum pags section above (it's the same /64 as they used before) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok Maestrofin (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to tell me what the blazes you're talking about? Ravenswing 10:54, 3 April 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:SergeWoodzing repeated incivility at Talk:Where is Kate?

I've stopped editing this topic area, but I can't help notice SergeWoodzing's comments at Talk:Where is Kate? are breaching civility policy and have been downright rude and unconstructive. SergeWoodzing has not edited the article once, but has posted several talkpage comments including:

1. Shame on all of you who have tried to exert your own prissy importance over the Princess of Wales...The article must be deleted if you all have a single bone of decency and propriety in your bodies. With this article, English Wikedia descended to the level of the tackiest, sleaziest, most deplorable and digusting tabloid press. Shame on you who did that! (source, a comment later repeated in the DRV discussion)
2. Oppose all of this. Delete this article! One brief paragraph in the article on the princess will suffice, rather than all this shameful disrespectful gossip fanaticism. (source, in reply to a requested move)
3. The existence of this article is a horrifying embarrassment to Wikipedia! The question has been answered. The article title is obsolete and reads like some sort of nasty BLP harrassment, a persecution of the ill woman covered. WAKE UP PEOPLE and change this NOW! (source)

The emphases are in the original. Were it not for the third comment having been posted today, suggesting continued disruption, I would not have felt compelled to file this ANI.

I respect that SergeWoodzing is a highly experienced editor. Their concerns with the article are not only valid, but have been expressed several times in different venues by a broad cross-section of editors. The article is currently pending deletion review, after which it will most likely return to AfD. Nonetheless, these repeated comments feel unnecessarily uncivil and disruptive to editors working on the article in good faith.

Insofar as this topic area is concerned, SergeWoodzing is WP:NOTHERE. Consider, for example, the second comment above: saying 'delete' in an RM discussion is just unhelpful, and also doesn't square with their third comment on the article's title. SergeWoodzing is experienced enough to know that these comments are best expressed at AfD, and general shaming isn't constructive, let alone when it is repeated multiple times. To that effect, I'd like to suggest a topic ban on Where is Kate? and the article talk page, while encouraging the editor to contribute, in a civil manner, to any future AfD or related process concerning the article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Kind of hesitant to get on someone for being too vocal about raising valid BLP concerns, but SergeWoodzing's outbursts are becoming unhelpful WP:OWNership. That said, I'm not sure a topic ban is super necessary while the deletion discussions are ongoing. Others may disagree with my take here, but I don't get the feeling that the impact of his actions is actually disrupting the process in any significant way other than perhaps being annoying to read. @SergeWoodzing: -- you've made your position sufficiently clear. Please tone it down and maintain civility. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I never could have dreamed of experiencing anything so embarrassing and disagreeable and shameful, after all these years of being a proud contributor, as the way English Wikipedia has adopted the same methods and tone as the sleaziest tabloids in dealing - with the utmost disrespect - with the Princess of Wales and continuing intentionally to do so after she disclosed that she is seriously ill. To my knowledge I have never attacked any user by name, having given my opinion about shame to be taken at will by whomever chooses to to feel targeted and ignored by anyone who feels faultless. I believe that any article like Where is Kate? about a living person, no matter whom, is clearly denigrating and must be deleted without further delay. Aware of stretching text guidelines with capital letters and bold type, in my desparation to get all the many good users to react and act, I am willing to apologize sincerely for that part of it. I feel no need to comment again on those articles beyond these words. Whatever more I might have to say can never have a more constructive effect that what I already have tried to do. If it can be considered disruptive to object as vehemently as possible (i.e. without personal attacks or foul language) to very serious BLP problems, that is beyond my comprehension of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's most important rules. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

PS the fact that I have not otherwise participated on these articles or talk pages, not even read most it all, has only been due to my abject fear, if seeing more than I already had, that I would be driven even more crazy than this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Just so that I don't come across as sneaky or underhanded, I wish to put on the record that I thanked SergeWoodzing for edit number 3 above. I am no royalist (my genuine first reaction on seeing this article was to ask, "Kate who?"), but I too am embarrassed to be associated with an encyclopedia that has such an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Question Is this a pattern or an isolated incident? Paradoctor (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Talk:Where is Kate? has a total of six comments by SergeWoodzing. None of them violate WP:CIVIL or anything else. I understand that it might be upsetting to know that someone on the internet disagrees with you, but six comments is pretty reasonable by comparison with many cases reported here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Given that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the 'Where is Kate?' article is both a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy and an unmitigated crock of shite, it would be grossly improper to sanction anyone who points this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps they should get a Royal barnstar? Bon courage (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• And I really don't get this obsession with British royalty by Americans, which is the only thing I can think of that both led to this article being created and to it being kept at AfD. Surely you/they got rid of kings about 250 years ago, and we Brits should be the only ones bothered about them? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) P. S. I remember visiting America when the dispute between Charles and Diana came to light and those few people who believed me when I said that I didn't know either of them personally thought that I must have an opinion about the issue.

  Yes it's certainly the Americans' fault when your favorite family acts suspiciously and your tabloid culture subsequently makes a spectacle of it. They should really know better than to pay attention to you. The untold death wreaked in the name of that family really was all so long ago, it's just terrible they're now being gossiped about on the internet. 2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865 (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Gossip about them all you like on the Internet, but that doesn't make what you are gossiping about a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. And, as I said above, they are far from my favourite family. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• SergeWoodzing is being vocal but is not being disruptive and no action is needed.—Alalch E. 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• The remarks complained about all seem to be fair comment to me. The proper place for an article such as this is in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. All that is displayed by SergeWoodzing is a bit of passion for maintaining some sort of quality standards in Wikipedia – which is surely a desirable quality in any editor. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• In my experience, Serge has a history of histrionics, especially regarding royalty. I'd be a lot more tolerant if Serge was a newcomer, but he's a seasoned veteran. Being passioned about something is not an excuse to blast away with accusations implying other editors of spiteful intentions. I'm not arguing against the relevance of the complaint as such, but the tone of the criticism is anything but constructive and is an open invitation to drama. I would really appreciate if Serge could try to tone down his approach overall. Peter ^Isotalo 16:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In my experience the user and I have disagreed on article content issues a few times, where to my knowledge I have not been aggressive, insulting (such as "a history of histrionics") nor unreasonable, whereas this user has hardly been willing to complain about anything else but me in those discussions. We have also agreed at times. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Would Wikipedia be a better place without the quoted hyperbolic histrionics? Yes. Is there a breach of policy or is otherwise sanctionable? No. (Or at least, provided it doesn't carry on.) DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
• We should remain calm and carry on - but SergeWoodzing is absolutely correct as far as I can see. The Kate article is rife with Wiki violations, starting with the very title - or heck the concept! Broken policies include WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. I'm not sure what's to be gained here. At the same time - not here? Look at even their recent constructive editing history. Why is User:IgnatiusofLondon making this claim? FYI there's now a discussion under place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination). Nfitz (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  As my complaint here said, WP:NOTHERE applies only [i]nsofar as this topic area is concerned, which is why I requested a ban on Where is Kate? and its talkpage (but not any deletion-associated discussions, where the editor has made and can continue to make valuable contributions). I'm sorry: I should have been clearer what I meant by "topic area", which really just concerns this article and its talkpage. The tone of the editor's complaints over several days on the article's talkpage, combined with the fact that they have not edited the article itself, has, in my view, been unconstructive and disruptive to editors working in good faith on improving the article. In my view, this behaviour, if continued, would be harrassment. Still, SergeWoodzing seems to have heeded warnings from other users to tone it down/rest assured they were heard the first, second, and third times. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

However, I have not received, deleted, archived nor otherwise hidden any warning about this on my talk page. If there have been what could be called "warnings" from other users, I'd certainly like to know. My comment above (beginning "Thank you! ...") covers my attitude now. Enough? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think @Serial Number 54129 may have been attempting to warn you with this comment, though it wasn't clear if this nonsensical crackpottery referred to your comment (which is how I interpreted it) or Where is Kate? (which is how you interpreted it). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, not what they were saying, but rather how it was being said. A stream of hysterical histrionics is clearly not the right approach to AfD, and as noted by others, serves only to heighten rather than decrease the temperature—in an already overheated kitchen. ——Serial Number 54129 14:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@IgnatiusofLondon: And, looking back, it seems they carried on the hysterical histrionics a few days later. Rather bizarre and hard to take seriously. ——Serial Number 54129 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that was the edit that prompted me to come to ANI. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Basically, per Mackensen, who also notes temperatures... apologies for forward copying (?) of your post! I had this tab open a couple of hours but forgot to reply! ——Serial Number 54129 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

And thanks to IgnatiusofLondon for the ping. ——Serial Number 54129 14:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My observation here is simply this: impassioned rhetoric raises the temperature of the debate instead of lowering it, and leads to sideshows such as this ANI thread. I doubt if such rhetoric convinces the unconverted. Since there's some confusion about whether SergeWoodzing has been "warned" or not, let me remove all doubt, though this is less a warning than well-intentioned advice. Being correct isn't enough. Raising the temperature does nothing to help resolve the underlying issue. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78's forum shopping and IDHT

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.

---

After seeing Thinker78's responses to comments regarding their behavior, it has become painfully clear to me that this needs to be escalated to AN/I where the behavior can actually be examined. I was uninvolved with Thinker78 prior to my comments yesterday but feel I must take action to protect the encyclopedia from further disruption. An editor made a rather convincing argument here that Thinker78 was indeed forum shopping back in January and then they are blocked for the same behavior in February by ScottishFinnishRadish. Thinker78 then proceeds to wikilawyer the admins considering the appeals by posting long quotes of policies rather than reflecting on their own actions. Over half a dozen people told Thinker78 that their actions were wrong, but they refused to listen. In the same vein, they filed this arbitration request which was rightfully declined. They again refused to reflect on their actions. Myself and others attempted to intervene at Thinker's talk page to educate and help them correct their behaviors only to have policies thrown at us and be ignored. I honestly believe that Thinker78 thinks they are doing the right thing, but as I have said before, following individual policies to the letter while ignoring their spirits and how they interact with each other is a disaster waiting to happen. Thinker78's behavior has been disrupting others from improving the encyclopedia and wasting the time of the community. I really don't know how to deal with this other than sanctions. Noah, AA^Talk 12:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thinker78 should voluntarily commit to take a several months-long break from editing to reflect on everything and rethink his approach.—Alalch E. 12:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Clear forum shopping. They didn't get the answer they wanted in their unblock requests, but persisted until their talk page access was revoked. When the block expired they went to Arbcom. When that was declined they went to XRV, where the original block and the talk page revocation are being soundly endorsed, and Thinker78 is only surviving that discussion unblocked because of some rule some editors seem to have invented that we can't discuss the reporter's behaviour there. Well, I disagree: there is no parliamentary privilege on Wikipedia. Administrators are bound to accountability for their actions, but that does not extend to being endlessly pestered about an action that the community has soundly endorsed. Thinker78's campaign against ScottishFinnishRadish now amounts to harassment, and they will stop immediately, if not voluntarily then by being blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Courtesy link: the XRV discussion that Ivanvector mentions, and Hurricane Noah also refers obliquely to, where Thinker's original block is being soundly endorsed, is at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Bishonen | tålk 13:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC).

  It's also relevant to mention there was a picture of a penis on Thinker's page until today. [250] Noah, AA^Talk 13:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for community ban

• Support. While the original reversal[251] of an admin's action, to restore a trolling/unhelpful comment might have been a minor infraction, edit warring to repeat[252] this was already over the line, and (given this was not a first offence) rightly attracted a block. The wikilawyering that followed, on Thinker's user page, at arbcom (as a case request), and most recently at WP:AARV has been characterised by Thinker's cast iron certitude in their own righteousness, and patronising dismissal of any and all advice they might be in error. This has caused a huge time sink. The revelation they've been rocking a dick pic[253] on their user page, and their invocation[254] of Guatemalan death squads as a group parallel to admins, completes the case that this is not an editor likely to be a net benefit to the Project. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Slight clarification, I reverted the original IP's trolling, but not as an administrator's action, it was just a revert that anyone could have done. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support It's quite clear from all their behavior that Thinker is just not going to change and I feel this would solve the issue of future disruption and wasting of the community's time. While one instance of reverting the removal trolling and forum shopping and canvassing a discussion would have been okay had they learned from it and moved on, it's now clear they aren't going to learn and this will keep reoccurring. Not to mention the harassment of ScottishFinnishRadish and the WP:PA comparing an editor to a Guatemalan death squad is just too far. A community ban seems to be the only solution to ending this madness. Noah, AA^Talk 13:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support Their judgement is now so far out it's straight down. Borrowing my comment from XRV, Thinker78 is basically just trolling by now. They are clearly deaf to advice and blind to the consequence that CIR must be a concern. The sheer amount of volunteer time and effort that has by now been devoted to his 'case' is bad enough. But dick pics on user pages? WTAF. Sound judgment? Forum shopping on multiple admin noticeboards. Sound judgement? It's all about as sound as the restoration of troll comments that started this whole saga originally. ——Serial Number 54129 13:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support This entire episode is bizarre. A veteran editor with 20k+ edits should know better. I hope everything is okay with this person, but it's clear the recent behavior is disruptive and a time sink for the community. Nemov (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• I think I can predict the immutable future here, but on the slim chance I can alter it: some people at arbcom suggested AARV would have been more appropriate; going to AARV is a very poor reading of the room, but not insane. How about we just treat the AARV on the merits (i.e. I expect a landslide support for the block and talk page removal), tell Thinker78 that they cannot expect much respect if they start using Guatemalan death squad imagery and to stop it, let Thinker78 see that they are in the extreme minority, and at the end of that, they can decide either to abide by some norms that are different than theirs, or leave voluntarily? If, after the AARV, they keep doing something that is clearly against consensus, then somebody indef blocks them, no additional discussion needed. While disruptive, they are certainly not NOTHERE. This will take only slightly longer than Votes For Banning, and the actual disruption would not be much larger (as long as we don't let it be). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I support this idea. —Alalch E. 14:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I just don't see this as working, sadly. They were told multiple times by many editors over the last few months that their edits were problematic in multiple venues and it made no difference whatsoever. They know many people view their edits as problematic but they have still persisted despite that. Noah, AA^Talk 14:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think giving this last chance is reasonable. It should be crystal clear at this point that the consensus for how to interpret these PAGs is firmly against their position, and that their view on where it is appropriate to discuss or provide a notification about editor behavior is far outside what community consensus allows. If they express an understanding that their reading and interpretations are out of line with the community's reading and interpretations then hopefully we can move past this disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can't seem to find any mention of AARV/XRV/Administrative Action Review on the case request.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• 0xDeadbeef Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review#Undue_7_day_block_by_ScottishFinnishRadish_against_Thinker78. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Implicit if not explicit in the case request is that they should take their concerns to community. As such, XRV was a reasonable next step. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The way I read ARC is that some of the admins that commented probably wouldn't have blocked but it was fairly unanimous that the block was reasonable, as well as the subsequent talk page revocation, and that Thinker78 ought to take their concerns about what they call censorship to the community, not that they should continue pursuing their vendetta against ScottishFinnishRadish. XRV is more strongly reflecting that view. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

While I happen to be in the (evidently rather small) contingent of people who think the by-now-ancient original question of "should editors persist over reverts in removing talk page comments pertaining to the improvement of a Wikipedia article merely for being stupid?" has an answer of "no", I think that Thinker's conduct since the original incident has been increasingly wild to the point of now being utterly out-of-pocket and incompatible with working on a collaborative encyclopedia. I think that something needs to be done to prevent them from continuing to do stupid crap that wastes everybody's time, so I concur here with Floq and SFR. jp×g🗯️ 20:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Propose a ban on restoring talk page posts. I agree with Floquenbeam above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  And I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  One thing that came to mind to me, Deepfriedokra, was a ban from the project talk space so the forum shopping there would cease. If they aren't outright banned, something along these lines in addition to what you suggested may be appropriate. Noah, AA^Talk 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't like that idea per se, but the tendentious battle ground behavior must cease. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  A ban on posting invitations to comment in discussions, broadly construed? I think something should be done in regards to the forum shopping and canvassing. Noah, AA^Talk 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Switch to CBAN. User really is a "bad fit." And per all the rest of the CBAN supports, particularly Schazjmd -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I think I will agree with User:Floquenbeam. I only became aware of the full extent of the long lectures being directed by User:Thinker78 at administrators about a day ago. I made a statement in response to their Request for Arbitration, agreeing with them that the guidelines on the editing of talk page posts by others are poorly worded and should be revised. However, I also thought that their restoration of troll posts was mistaken and disruptive. My concern about the talk page guidelines had been focused on another editor, User:Z80Spectrum, whose conduct came to resemble that of Thinker78. Z80Spectrum had posted a large amount of material to an article talk page, which was removed. I tried to mediate the question of whether to restore the material, but I failed the mediation. Z80Spectrum then made a long post to WP:ANI, and then lectured the community, and was indefinitely blocked. The conduct of Thinker78 is almost identical to that of Z80Spectrum, lecturing the community. I provided one more warning to Thinker78 on their user talk page, less than 24 hours ago, and maybe it was too late. I am not, at this time, supporting or opposing the ban proposal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban on restoration of deleted talk page material. I think that the guidelines on deletion of talk page material are poorly written, but that does not justify or excuse the restoration of trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support a ban on restoring removed talk page posts. This is a no-brainer at this point. Noah, AA^Talk 16:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support community ban per Bon courage, who summarizes matters well. The dick pic is outlandish misconduct. I would probably have blocked myself if not for the fact that I am traveling and would be unable to discuss it for many hours. Cullen328 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think that, barring a radical, immediate change in behavior, bans from various bits and pieces will just invite more wiki-litigant conduct and result in even more time sinks. The dick pic on their user page was an egregious affront that would earn any editor an indefinite block on the spot. Thinker78 just thinks it was "controversial" according to their edit summary. I quote from my note at XRV: "Placing dick pics anywhere but in articles concerning penises is invariably grounds for an immediate indefinite block, no matter how long it is before somebody notices, the more so when it's a tone-deaf and weirdly un-self-aware allusion to "don't be a dick." ... There is a fundamental incompatibility with the community, manifested by boundary-pushing, a lack of self-reflection, and a objectivist conviction of their own destiny. ... T78's fundamental mistake is to place themself above the community, which has given them more than enough feedback.... Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have been more specific, I support a community ban. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support full CBAN per Acroterion (whose support I read as being for the CBAN rather than the TBAN). DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment isn't this going to get confusing? Some of the Supports are for the TBAN in opposition to the CBAN and some are vice versa. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I should have given it a full level three header. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is it TPO-permissible to do that now and divide the existing supports accordingly? Not sure myself. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is what happens when I take a nap. 😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be opposed to my comments on the matter being moved. Noah, AA^Talk 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support community ban. I wanted to support Floquenbeam's suggestion and was hoping this recent conduct by Thinker78 was a recent aberration (perhaps triggered by some dispute), so I started going through Thinker78's talk page. Unfortunately, their 2024 behavior is merely a continuation of the same behavior they've been exhibiting for a long time: July 2022, (misuse of admin-help template) August 2022, June 2023, September 2023, (misuse of admin-help template) October 2023, similar issue with SFR about removal of an IP comment/block. Despite their constructive contributions, Thinker78's persistent wikilawyering (such as [255][256]) when someone disagrees with them creates a black hole in discussions, devouring all light and energy in the vicinity. Helpful criticism is responded to with a link to WP:CIVILITY. Warning him gets an accusation of "misuse of administrative powers". The contradiction between him repeatedly lecturing other editors about consensus, civility, and assuming good faith when he fails to demonstrate those in his own interactions with them honestly baffles me. Thinker78 has made a lot of constructive edits (I went through the most recent 2000), which I appreciate, but in discussions, too often he refuses to drop the stick. When he filed at arbcom, he was prepared for a boomerang, so he realizes that his approach is likely counter-productive but doesn't care. Enough is enough. Schazjmd (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Opposed. I'm disappointed that there is talk to get me kicked out of the project. It would be more fair and objective to not emphasize only controversies in talk page posts but also analyze the context and check my positive talk pages contributions. In addition, as you stated, I have thousands of positive mainspace and WP contributions that should also be weighed.

  Y July 2022. I agree that I should have discussed in a more collegial way and in a less rash way.

  Y Misuse of admin-help template. I had spent hours analyzing, researching, and preparing my replies. I was emotional, pained because my hard work only resulted in accusations. I guess for a subconscious desire of being comforted I reached out, but on hindsight, yes, you are right, I should not have used that template.

  N June 2023. An editor came accusing me of vandalism for making good faith changes of a guideline page. An admin responded and said,First, I want to thank you both for trying to talk this out per WP:BRD and WP:CON. Thinker78, I think your edits there were well-meant (and clearly not vandalsm). Admin proceeded to advise me and I followed their advise. Also, another editor said, "@Carchasm: this edit didn't show that Thinker78 wasn't reading the WP:SMALLCAT policy. Rather, it showed that they had read my comment above and those of others in the discussions.

  N September 2023. An editor didn't like I shared an article in a talk page discussion (according to your standard wasn't that wikilawyering on their part?). Here is the relevant discussion Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#New claims involving the CIA, which was closed by ScottishFinnishRadish without issue.

  N October 2023. In this case I believe it was proper to get the attention of an admin due to civility policy issues. Here is the relevant discussion that generated this request (and dispute) Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Question about RfC sections. I think you may agree that telling an editor that they "left crap" and they are being "pathetic" are gross violations of the civility policy.

  N Wikilawyering (two diffs). In the first, an editor (JayBeeEll) was accusing me in an article talk page then I reached out to them in their talk page.

  • In the second, i inquired about the block of an ip and had a discussion about it with ScottishFinnishRadish.

  N A warning by an admin intervening in a content dispute should be preceded by using the consensus process or letting the consensus process run its proper course.

  Example of positive talk page contributions,

  • Revisions to Infobox, Introduction and History, which lead to my adding contributions in the COI policy page,[257]
  • Talk:MSNBC#Proposed edit to lead paragraph concerning acronym for which I was thanked[258]
  • Talk:World War II#Why there is no photo of atomic bombing in info box? Implemented request of ip, resulting in an infobox pic that it is still in the page today after more than a year in a heavily visited page.
  • Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal#The current first sentence is irrelevant In this August 2022 RfC I tried standardizing the boxes per WP:TALK and implementing a change, but because criticism I learned to ask other editors before implementing a change after a discussion. Enthusiasm simply made short work of me. But I apologized in that same thread.
  • Talk:Tudor Dixon#Restoration of contentious info in place of neutral language In this November 2022, after initial contention and hiccups, we reached consensus 3 weeks later. Notice how in this discussion I asked participating editors about implementing an edit before doing it, learning from my mistake in the Savile discussion.
  • The Great War. This other discussion took a long time but went even better. It was collegial and very smooth. Notice also how I asked participants about edits before making any mainspace edit. I took time to repeatedly analyze each one of the comments the participants made, after which I made the respective proposals. At the end there was consensus for my proposal, which still stands today in a very high visited page. I was thanked for my efforts [259]

  I have to point out that I am sensitive to undue censorship and lack of objectivity because of my experiences in life, including the fact the government in Guatemala used to kill people for disagreeing with it or for criticizing it or for reading the wrong book and I lived for a part of that period of time. I would expect a proper measure of empathy. I am not perfect but I believe I have improved as an editor with time and I am willing to keep improving. Thinker78 (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  My diffs were examples of behavior on your part similar to what has happened this year, not claims that you were necessarily wrong in those discussions. You don't seem to be grasping that this is about how you approach disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  If I was not wrong in those discussions, why list them as examples where I was wrong? The key word is that you stated that unfortunately I had engaged in that behavior, behavior that you make the case was wrong. In the first two, I agree with you that I should have approached things better, but in the others where I cross, why do you think I approached the discussions in a wrong way that justify kicking me out of the project? Thinker78 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  When everyone says you are wrong, you almost certainly are. Your cumulative behavior is what justifies a community ban. One individual action would not justify it, but when taken together, these collectively warrant a ban. The reason for this is simple. Your approach to handling situations disrupts others from contributing to improving the encyclopedia and wastes the time and effort of the community. You have long been asked to cease your battleground stance in discussions and you have ignored this advice time and time again. Everyone here has simply said enough is enough. Noah, AA^Talk 23:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  then I reached out to them in their talk page A more accurate description was that you engaged in tedious, whiny wikilawyering on my talk-page. --JBL (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Passerby comment: Thinker78, note that one of the very few comments not to !vote for a sanction was Floquenbeam, who suggested instead that you perhaps resolve not to compare people who disagree with you to Guatemalan death squads. Rather than take one of the few people on your side's advice, you have elected to instead... resume talking about Guatemalan death squads. I would recommend noticing the response your current approach has gotten, thinking your plea for understanding through more carefully, and trying a radically different tack here. SnowFire (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think Thinker78 continues to lack insight and continues the same behavior that has brought us here. Yes, he's made good edits. That's why I at first sought a TBAN. All the good is negated by the continuing behavior issues. Clearly, he's left us with no other recourse. And this is not Guatemala. Treating other users as if they are Guatemalan death squads is not acceptable. Maybe Thinker78 will learn to leave that baggage behind. There's no room for it on Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  And cries of censorship! and free speech! are out of place in a curated encyclopedia with rules about content. If one disagrees with the curation of content, one should calmly discuss the difference of opinion without making personal attacks or ridiculous comparisons. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I've been around for some of the longstanding issues that Schazjmd linked. Willingness to drop sticks and take feedback is critical to participation in a collaborative project. Thinker78 has repeatedly demonstrated his unwillingness or inability to do so. I have a thick skin when it comes to editors comparing me to the agents of a murderous military autocracy, as T78 did yesterday, but our volunteers in general should be protected from those who promote such absurdities. For the record, I support the project-space ban and discussion invitation ban as second and third choices. I hope T78 gets a clue and comes back with a solid unblock request, but I can't support a half-measure here after years of warnings and a temporary block were insufficient. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support CBAN On their talk page, this user says "But I guess that is irrelevant because it appears editors can be blocked just because admins feel like it." they are almost correct in this, and them saying this as if it's a surprising discovery reflects the exact misunderstanding that got them into this mess. I'll expand: Wikipedia does not operate by policy, it operates by consensus. There are plenty of non-policy pages that we treat as more important than the actual policy as it is written down. Several of our valid reasons to ban someone are technically only written down as an essay or in an RFC somewhere, or only exist as a previous, similar case at ANI. Wikipedia administrators are occasionally allowed to get ahead of the rules in order to stop behaviour that is patently obnoxious and disruptive to the community but not technically explicitly forbidden. The understanding around administrator's power to ban is that they only use this power when the community agrees it is needed. Not that they only use it when the rules say it is allowed. And this goes everything on the 'pedia. When an admin or experienced user warns you about something that is not in the rules, it's usually because the "rule" is a previously established consensus to do something a certain way, which isn't necessarily to be found on a policy page. Most editors cotton on to this, but Thinker78 hasn't, and is refusing to adapt, making it impossible for them to edit cooperatively. Aditionally, forumshopping and canvassing are both listed explicitly in policy, and those policies are being ignored in favour of more canvassing and forumshopping, so I think it's safe to say this user is too far down the IDONTHEARIT hole to change their ways. I say, let them come back when they've dug their way out. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support a CBAN. I've had the strong impression for some time now that Thinker78 is either unable or unwilling to collaborate effectively with other editors, and the events of the last couple weeks have only crystallized it (per Bon courage, SN54129, and others). This is one of those unfortunate times when we have to tell someone "thank you for your contributions, but we can't go on like this". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support full CBAN per Acroterion. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Thinker78 has perhaps the thinnest skin of any long-term editor I've ever come across, and the least ability to constructively receive criticism or guidance. This is combined with some astonishing incompetence regarding appropriate venues for pursuing grievances. Among the inappropriate things they do on their user-page is keeping records of these grievances, part of their pattern of long-term disruption (example but you have to look through the history for more). Other examples in which they have pursued petty vendettas in inappropriate venues, wasting community time and harrassing quality contributors, include [260][261], [262][263] and [264]. Also people keep talking about all their good contributions but it seems to me like it's all fiddling with categories, the most pointless kind of pseudo-editing. The sooner they go away, the better. --JBL (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support full CBAN per my comments at XRV (1 2). Daniel (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support full CBAN - Just from what I grokked from the Arbitration request, Thinker strikes me more as someone who is more interested in adherence to a process, rather than adherence to consensus. Policy wonks such as that tend to run into friction on Wikipedia one way or another, as they tend to be unable to fathom why we discourage following our own written policies to the letter, especially if the decision in question tends to go against them. This is most obvious with their comments on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, which read more as him desperately trying to convince non-Arbitrators to try and put pressure on the Arbitrators to accept his case request. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  To grok in fullness, you can read the XRV thread.... -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I read the first few paragraphs of it just now and that only reinforces my argument for a community ban. It's a very bad look when someone who's coming in with no context roughly around the middle of The Battle of the Pelennor Fields is able to tell from that chapter alone that Frodo left Bag End and later takes a boat to the Uttermost West. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support CBAN Unable to edit collaboratively. They are absolutely convinced they are right, wil not listen to advice, continue to lecture more experienced editors by quoting verbatim chunks of policy at them whilst being utterly unable to grasp those policies themselves. The level of disruption they are causing can only be stopped by an indef. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support site ban - The only interaction this user has with me is this message seven years ago, that now I see is rules lawyering attempt to defend a user blocked by Floquenbeam whose only contributions is attempting to add images to a school article from a video game website. Very disappointed to see that obsessive behavior from 2017 continuing now to the year 2024. My response then; they didn't write back. This impending ban will hopefully stop them from disrupting the morale of other users and that they will spend their time away from the internet on something else better for their mind rather than quarrel with random contributors on the slightest implications of their "wrongdoing". theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support siteban: I have seen issues with this user in a series of CfD's concerning politicians by cause of death, with only minimal improvement:
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_13#Category:Politicians'_deaths_from_disease: At the time of nomination, this contained only a few articles despite its broad scope, some about people who didn't die in office. They responded extensively against every comment.
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_30#Category:Assassinated_heads_of_state_by_time: This category tree was abandoned by Thinker78 after adding a single article, and some categories in the tree were empty and got speedy deleted per C1. The context in which the tree was created is against consensus. Althoug, I'm not aware of Thinker78 repeating this issue in later CfDs.
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_4#Category:Assassinated_politicians_by_method: Detailed arguments by Thinker78 about the WP:OC guidelines.
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_5#Category:Assassinated_politicians_by_political_orientation: Similar as above. Unlike an as-yet-nonexistent category tree about people assassinated because of their ideology, this was a trivial intersection of ideology and having been assassinated.
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_26#Category:Assassinated_Burundian_monarchs (still pending): They have attempted to argue that WP:ITSUSEFUL because the category is a narrow intersection category of interest, despite that it cannot be expanded beyond one article (Ntare V of Burundi); and that the inclusion of this article in both the nominated category and its parents is an exception the WP:PARENTCAT rule that a page should not be in both a parent and a subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Prefer indef block, cban would be 2nd choice per my comments at XRV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support Site ban after having read the posts at the ArbCom talk page, which illustrate that this is an editor who is unable or unwilling to accept anything less than their way, and should unfortunately be given the highway. I didn't view the pornographic picture and don't want to view it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, you do not. (It's in my brain.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support siteban - Thinker78 only seems to be able to respond to criticism by quoting guidelines and insisting that their actions are justified because they are technically right, so I'm going to respond in kind. This is excerpted from Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads, subsection "You can't argue Wikipedia into capitulation":

Wikipedia's administrative processes are entirely geared to protecting project stability, not toward individual "justice", a "fair hearing", or "proving who is technically in the right". [...] Anyone who approaches Wikipedia administration and dispute resolution from a "justice" perspective will be disappointed and may make their circumstances worse, quite quickly, and sometimes irreparably. [...] You will be sanctioned for habitually badgering others to satisfy your petty demands, being excessively individualistic at the expense of others, excuse-making or finger-pointing at others, nit-picking, clearly trying to just "win" at all costs, stubbornly "not getting it", dragging out conflict just to make a point, or waging a petty "righting great wrongs" micro-crusade for personal honor that no one else cares about.

Administrative enforcement on WP necessarily takes this approach to recalcitrant hotheads, because the very act of arguing ad nauseam, to defy the collective peer pressure of the editorial community telling one to change one's ways, is considered disruptive in and of itself. The community, and in particular the administrative and arbitration corps, care primarily about the functioning of the Wikipedia "organs", like content creation and source checking; any individual cell (i.e., you) causing inflammation, for whatever reason, is a cancer to be removed. It can take a long time for some editors to internalize this and adjust, especially if they're used to rancorous debate on online forums. Some never do, and get indefinitely blocked or site-banned, or get in so much perennial trouble (repeated short-term blocks, topic- and interaction-bans, etc.) that they "quit in disgust". Inability to recognize that Wikipedia is not the Internet and is not academia or any other fully public sphere, but is akin to a closed game with a specific set of player-conduct rules, is in the end a working-with-others competence failure. Either one gets it, eventually, or one is shown the door.

If Thinker78 cannot see themselves in this, there's nothing more that we can do to help, nor are we obligated to continue trying. The standard offer is always available if they manage to internalize any of this, but right now it's time to show them the door. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposals for a topic ban related to forum shopping and canvassing

There are two different proposals listed here that attempt to provide a solution to the forum shopping and canvassing issues based on feedback I have received. Noah, AA^Talk 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that I support a C-ban above any other proposal, however, something along these lines could work as an alternative to a C-ban or as a condition for an unblock. Noah, AA^Talk 18:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Canvassing,

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

I only publicized the discussion in an objective manner to seek more uninvolved and objective input because my talk page has very limited views. In no way I ever sought to influence the discussion in a particular way. Thinker78 (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Will you please stop trying to teach experienced editors already familiar with policies such as this one? Noah, AA^Talk 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Thinker78, please read the room. I think that unless you *try* to take other people's perspectives and reflect on what brought you here, this is going to end with you being banned from the project. Mason (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison I read the room. I think the rough consensus so far is to give me a community ban, which I think means kicking me out of the project. It is very similar to experiences I have lived in other companies for things as little as requesting eye protection or for trying to follow company policy despite threats of getting fired. Yeah, I am usually and chronically accused of causing trouble. And many times it is groupthink like here. It reminds me of the Inquisition, where the accused was forced to confess their sins or face punishment.

Right now I am in a situation outside Wikipedia where I have received death threats and threats of torture for various undue reasons. More recently, I stopped a robbery in the street and gang members did not like it. Who knows how long I have left to live but I have lived a honest and principled life.

I have had a headache for most of the day reading many comments that lack proper contextual and objective analysis and it is affecting my health. I already had a few months ago what may have been a stroke. I had an intense headache; the next morning I had my left arm numb and I had my hand numb for a week or two. I collaborated in this encyclopedia for more than 20 years and well it is rather painful to depart in this way, in what I perceive is an editorial lynching. My heart is not in good shape either, mainly for the loss of my loved ones.

All I can say is that despite our initial differences, I enjoyed categorizing with you and the other editors. I bid you so long. I think my time will be better spent in other projects. In the unlikely case I am not banned, I would follow advice and take a break for several months, if I live that long. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Thinker78:, you don't seem to understand that policy. There was no with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus as you were posting discussion threads about a user talk discussion that wasn't about achieving consensus for an article. CONACHIEVE explains how consensus is defined in relation to Canvassing. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Inadequate as does not fully address the problem.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion invitation ban

I figured I might as well propose these. Thinker78 should be topic banned from inviting others to comment in discussions, broadly construed, as a result of the canvassing and repeated forum shopping that has taken place. Noah, AA^Talk 16:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• No. Far too niche and easy to (attempt to) game. Your first suggestion is much the best... ——Serial Number 54129 17:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: Dont want to delete it since it was expressed above that the first was too much, but I added the original proposal below. Noah, AA^Talk 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Inadequate as does not fully address the problem.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ban from project talk space

Thinker78 is banned from editing the project talk space altogether due to canvassing and repeated forum shopping. Noah, AA^Talk 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as too narrow. The only remedy short of a CBAN that would come close to working is a flat-out ban from Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk:, and User talk: namespaces, with a carveout for his own user talk space. (You forget a lot of discussions - most importantly deletion, Arbitration, most dispute resolution, and BLP discussions - are done in Wikipedia: space and most on-wiki canvassing is done on user talk pages or in WP: space, so a ban from WT: space alone has a loophole big enough to fit a blue whale through.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• 'Inadequate as does not fully address the problem.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 3 April 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.

Editor aggressively labeling edits as "vandalism"

The Doom Patrol, having already reverted 3 times, is aggressively labeling other's edits as "vandalism"[265][266][267] in order to continue imposing his thoroughly unclear write-up, even after warning.[268] He is not stopping here, but even posting warnings on other editors talk pages against "vandalism" that never took place.[269]

By falsely accusing me of violating "WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL" with this edit, it is clear that his falsification is certainly not limited to accusing others of vandalism. Clearly this user is having WP:CIR issues. Rzvas (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The Doom Patrol has made 3 reverts also on Enforcement Directorate[270][271][272] by removing reliably sourced content only because finds the content to be "misusing Wikipedia for propaganda". Ratnahastin (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all, this report bypasses several necessary steps expected from a responsible editor, such as discussion on the talk page, seeking dispute resolution, third opinion etc. Besides, ANI is not the venue for dispute resolution or reporting edit wars. This report constitutes harassment and evasion of the aforementioned processes. But it's asking too much from those who don't even follow H:FIES.

These two have been edit warring as a tag team. Starting at Katchatheevu by Ratnahastin [273] (no explanation). Told to explain in talk before further reverting. Rzvas entered without explanation but a personal attack. Asked to explain in talk and warned with a message, but response was [274]. Here comes Ratnahastin [275], again no explanation, warned with same message. At this point, Ratnahastin also initiated revert war at ED by wikihounding me, reinstating fake propaganda figures/challenged material without clear explanation [276], warned but no use. Cycle continued by Rzvas [277][278], switching roles.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You edited this article much later and people do check your edits when they find you disruptive. It is not surprising. Rzvas (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Doom Patrol has now made 4th revert and he is still calling constructive edits a "vandalism" and warning against vandalism on talk page when vandalism never happened.[279][280] Rzvas (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Even if all their reverts were in the past 24 hours (which they aren't), The Doom Patrol did not violate the three reverts rule, since consecutive reverts, uninterrupted by another editor, count as one. I have no opinion whether they are right about propaganda. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked TDP for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

User:86.130.91.119 is editing to push an agenda

Please see the list of edits at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.130.91.119 (86.130.91.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). 100% of their edits are to specifically push an agenda:

• Edits to systemd pushing the POV that systemd integration is at fault for the recent XZ backdoor. (Edits have been reverted.)
• Edits to GNOME claiming that GNOME "was also instrumental in getting Linux distributions to adopt systemd and thus making the Linux platform as a whole more susceptible to severe security vulnerabilities". (Edits have been reverted.)
• Edits to XZ Utils backdoor: "The service manager systemd is also implicated, as its sprawling complexity and large number of dependencies significantly increased the Linux platform attack surface."
• A post on Talk:Freedesktop.org: "Someone should add a criticism section regarding the poor code quality and sprawling complexity of some freedesktop.org projects such as systemd which was recently implicated in the extremely serious XZ Utils backdoor."

This seems clearly like someone with an axe to grind against systemd, GNOME, freedesktop.org, etc, and editing Wikipedia opportunistically to that end.

(Thank you to User:QuickyWithTheWiki who reverted some of these edits.)

Please note: I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor and am not versed in current Wikipedia policy, so apologies if I've found the wrong process. I'd really like to hand this off and let others evaluate it, rather than being involved with an ongoing process. Thank you.

--Josh Triplett (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to them? Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:AGF you should talk to the IP or warn them via their talk page before coming here. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani and User:Khonsuhorus

• Khonsuhorus (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Repeatedly creating Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani under different names and has a history of warnings from April 2022‎.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsin Hani (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsin Hani
• Mohsin Al-Bahrani
• Mohsin Al Bahrani
• Mohsin Hani Al-Bahrani
• Mohsin Bahrani

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wicked Sunnnnnyyyyy

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 we get a block on User:Wicked Sunnnnnyyyyy for WP:NPA and WP:NOTHERE? One revert made him go on a string of abuses (in Hindi) in the edit summary [281], on my talk page [282] and user page [283]. Not the correct temperament for editing wikipedia and following what he said on my talk page it looks like he has a strong partisan interest which caused this reaction. MrMkG (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Kyu re bhadwe? tere baap ka website hai re. Teri kyu itni maa chud rhi hai Teri maa ko choot Wicked Sunnnnnyyyyy (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Live example above. Plus in response to the notice he has gone on another string of abuses on his talk page [284] and my user page [285] [286] [287]. MrMkG (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wicked sunnnnnyyyyy said,

Why you idiot? This is your father's website. Why is your mother fucking so much? Leave your mother free.

ps This is not meant to be an attack this is a translation of what the user said above Maestrofin (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I use Google translate Maestrofin (talk) 10:13, 3 April 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.

Firefly, stwalkerster. I've removed talk page access as well. I see no point in giving them a platform. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was expecting them to continue almost immediately after I declined the unblock, at which point I was planning to do the same. I'm slightly surprised they didn't tbh. stwalkerster (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Black Sea slave trade

AzaqQara (talk · contribs) self-identified as Someone Qırımlı (talk · contribs) who was given a host of warning templates is going off at Black Sea slave trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), using fake edit summaries to protect their fork of the article and making strange edits to the article. I think we need some help over here. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

AzaqQara should be blocked per WP:SOCK and WP:DISRUPTIVE. They are making false claims of "Fake, discrimination and hate speech" [288], [289], [290] which is generally disruptive. They have made the same type of edits on their other account Someone Qırımlı on the same article Black Sea slave trade. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to add, that this user may e a sock puppet of User:Someone Qırımlı (currently under investigation:[291] ), who have used these two accounts as well as at least 2-3 IP-adresses to delete referenced information about the Crimean slavery and slave trade from the Black Sea slave trade article, and replace it with information that presents this particular slavery and slave trade in a benevolent way. The have also created an entire article: Draft: The Crimean slave trade, to forward these opinions. --Aciram (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting lock persistent IP-vandalism. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

They have vandalised the page again, the time it took you to write the above.--Aciram (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The ip-adress of this user is still vandalising the article: [292]--Aciram (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

AzaqQara/ Someone Qırımlı / [293], [294] are all the same user claiming the article is "fake" [295], [296]. The article should be semi-protected. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Page protection was requested six hours ago, but there's a bit of a backlog at the moment. Wikishovel (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking one of the IP-adresses used for the edit war, but we can expect the user to try to continue their agenda with the rest of the IP-adresses and their two registered accounts, particularly since their bias-article Draft:The Crimean slave trade has not been deleted.--Aciram (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

So Black Sea slave trade semi-protected for two weeks. AzaqQara blocked as a sockpuppet. Someone Qırımlı blocked from the Black Sea slave trade page for a year or until they can convince other editors on Talk:Black Sea slave trade that they can be a productive editor. If they become disruptive on the talk page then let me know and I'll block them from there as well. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Behavior by User:Forward.ops

• Battle of Pyliavtsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Siege of Suceava (1653) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Forward.ops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm here to start a discussion about user @Forward.ops for two reasons. First reason is his Uncivility in a discussion over here:[297]. Second reason is that he unexplainably removed the "page needed" templates here:[298] and here[299] . Olek Novy (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick

About a month ago, as an outcome of an ANI thread, User:Thomas B was page-blocked with strong consensus from pages Tim Hunt, Talk:Tim Hunt, Online shaming, Talk:Online shaming for edit warring, stonewalling, bludgeoning, battleground behavior, and forum shopping over the topic of Tim Hunt's 2015 controversy.

Unfortunately, after the blocking and a monthly hiatus, the first edit Thomas B made to Wikipedia was the creation of yet another thread about Tim Hunt, for the second time on WP:BLPN already. The thread resulted in another editor getting reported to ANI.

Comments made by Thomas B indicate an intention to continue participation and failure to understand why own behavior is disruptive. Here's two examples: [300] "I won't be participating too actively in any further discussion." and [301] "I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually perfectly fine." (boldings mine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolausPrime (talk • contribs) 20:04 27 March 2024 (UTC)

He wasn't banned, he was blocked from 4 pages. Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Article_ban_or_page_ban uses the term "page ban", but I may be missing something so I changed this as you suggested. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You may have missed the blocking policy. Note that the notice on his talk page says "blocked", not "banned". Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get around his block. As such, both the quotes supplied seem reasonable to me. How is his participating in the discussion at BLPN disruptive? Has he reverted anyone (or was accusing him of edit warring a mistake)? Could you elaborate on the forum shopping accusation?

I can see an argument for bludgeoning, however; Thomas B had 20 replies out of 60 comments at the time of this post. More to the point, in his opening statement to the BLPN thread, he writes, For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this [change], I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.. That sounds to me like it's very close to WP:PROXYING. Combined with their refusal to listen to other editors telling them that what they're doing is bad, I think an argument could be made for their editing being disruptive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. The original proposal was for a topic page ban, explicitly, with at my count 9 !votes in support and 3 in opposition. When the discussion was closed, however, it was closed as a "block", despite the proposal having been for a ban and seemingly gained limited consensus for doing so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something. The section you linked was for a page ban. To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence. (Bolding mine.) Which, granted, means confusing a block and a ban is more understandable, but 1) the only talk of topic bans I see in that discussion is opposing, and 2) even if the close was improper, I hardly think we can sanction an editor for violating a restriction that was never formally imposed, could we? EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's my mistake -- I said topic, but meant page (edited to fix). Regardless, I agree with your point.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B is forum-shopping because: first, after an edit war, there was an WP:NPOVN discussion started by User:LokiTheLiar. After this discussion and Talk:Tim Hunt reached a consensus Thomas B didn't agree with, Thomas B started a new thread on WP:BLPN. In the meanwhile Thomas B was reported to WP:ANI, which prompted an RfC about the contentious section's content and later also the page ban (or however this should be called, I'm lost). The RfC later concluded. However Thomas B, instead of accepting the now-RfC-backed consensus, created a second WP:BLPN thread. As far as my knowledge goes, this should constitute forum shopping. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate you making things clearer for me. I can see where you're coming from re: Forum Shopping. I still feel like, unless it's been done many times, the better first step is to tell the editor, "Hey, this is Forum Shopping, don't do it." The solution that allows productive editing with the minimum of administrative intervention is often the best one, after all. If he continues to forum shop, then there's a solid case (with a warning!) to point to. That said, in the context of the other issues in that BLPN thread, it does make a compelling reason for a topic ban. Thanks again for elaborating! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B was warned about own behavior multiple times, including after the page ban, and the previous ANI thread should have sent a strong signal that raising the same issue over and over again in multiple threads across multiple pages is sanctionable. The page ban vote was without consensus at first, until it changed because the disruption continued. It was all gradual, there definitely were many occassions for Thomas B to change course. I can try to be more eager to post warnings to user talk pages next time something like this happens, but this comes with its own set of problems. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Thomas B

I thought that S Marshall's close of the RfC was sensible. I interpreted it as requiring ("In practice the only way that I can see to do this...") a proportionate expansion of the rest of the article. Since I had by then already been blocked, I could not myself contribute to this work, but watched on the sidelines.

After about a week, it seemed clear that the editors working on the article were ignoring Marshall's advice and had settled on a version in which the event would occupy over 20% of the article. I then checked whether a page block implies a topic ban, found it did not, and therefore raised the issue on BLPN. Since then, I have posted only in response to other editors, in many cases because they asked questions or wanted sources.

While I'm happy to grant that this could have happened in any case, the immediate effect of my intervention appears to be to have brought the controversy section down to under 15% of the total word count, at least for the time being, with some editors adding material outside the section and others trimming it a little. It has certainly not led to any disruption of the article or its talk page (i.e., it has not attracted disruptive editors nor stoked up controversy there). While I still think the content decisions are unwise and contrary to BLP policy, work there seems to be proceeding in a calm and orderly manner.

Editors who simply want to improve the article are entirely free to ignore me. I do not contact them on their talk pages and I have not appealed my block. The only nuisance I'm causing seems to be mediated by actions like this proposal for a topic-ban and (remarkably) a site-ban. Obviously, I would appeal any such action, leading to more time wasted by administrators, perhaps even arbitration. As in the case of the original block, this all seems very over-the-top to me.

Finally, I want to say that part of the problem is that I've been away from protracted controversies here for a long time, and there appears to have been a change in the way content disputes are resolved now. In particular, I was suprised to be blocked not by policy but by consensus.[302] Most of the people who contributed to that consensus were also involved in the content dispute. It does really seem like a group of editors showed up on an article to which I have made substantial contributions[303] over many years[304], took it over and forced me out, because there was one thing they wanted to make sure the article said. I don't remember it working that way in the past.

Anyway, thanks for hearing my side. I hope it is clear that my aim here is, not to be annoying, but to ensure the intergrity of Wikipedia's BLP article on Tim Hunt and, of course, in line with our policy, to prevent its subject any unnecessary pain. Best,--Thomas B (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban

I propose for Thomas B to be topic-banned from the subjects of Tim Hunt and Online shaming, broadly construed, replacing the previously mentioned page bans. The purpose of this ban is to prevent any further skirting around the page ban.

• Support as proposer. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my above comment. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a topicpage ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: the interaction here is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as "consensus for" if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. Springee (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  We had extensive discussions on WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, Talk:Tim Hunt, WP:ANI, the RfC, and now yet another one on WP:BLPN. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: a single subsubsection in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is WP:STICK. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is WP:BLUDGEONING.

  This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as counter productive? NicolausPrime (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of Bludgeoning [305] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards WP:FORUMSHOPPING, this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [306] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at WP:BLPN once before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. WCM_email 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked."

This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [307] [308] [309] [310] [311].

"He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false."

The very discussion that you link, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt, immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.

"we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly"

This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to post diffs demonstrating that Thomas B raised the issue at multiple forums. You can't because he didn't. He raised it once at WP:BLPN, which was the appropriate forum. What would you call it when the same group of editors are the same ones on multiple threads all calling for someone's head? The same group of editors complaining loudly that he was forum shopping for raising it in one forum. WCM_email 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support This is clearly what the original consensus intended and Thomas B's behavior since then is a clear example of WP:GAMING. Loki (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Seems the only way to prevent this (part of the) disruption continuing. Bon courage (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about WP:BLP policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at WP:BLPN. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with Newimpartial e.g. [312]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an WP:ANI thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. @EducatedRedneck: I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that WP:FORUMSHOPPING is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. WCM_email 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [313] [314] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as was noted by SilverSeren above).

  No other editor in "my" section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).

  You also imply (when you refer to an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.

  Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? WCM_email 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).

If you still do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to this. Please take the hint. WCM_email 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're not going to report it, then stop bringing it up. This is staring to look like WP:HOUNDing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't. WCM_email 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether you think you are bringing it up or not, your repeated insistence on your unique view that I transgressed my anti-bludgeon restriction - which you do in an irrelevant section, and without any kind of evidence - is pretty clearly the kind of WP:ASPERSION that CIVIL tells editors not to make. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You literally fucking did, right there, which is why I responded. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B's contribution history is quite clear, you're welcome to check it for yourself. Before he was brought to ANI, he raised it at WP:BLPN and that was the appropriate forum. He hadn't forum shopped. WCM_email 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see the disagreement. It's true that Thomas B did not open the first BLPN topic on Tim Hunt, though he was the first respondent and contributed extensively. Also in his defense, there wasn't a crystal-clear consensus from that one, so him subsequently starting a discussion on the article talk was likewise appropriate. Subsequently raising it at BLPN could also be interpreted as part of WP:DR, seeking outside opinions.

So, on the whole, I agree forum shopping is not a valid reason for sanctions. However, I'd assert that disruptive editing, evidencing WP:IDHT in this very thread, is a valid reason. Whether his behavior counts as disruptive is a judgement call. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You're linking to the NPOVN discussion, which was started by User:LokiTheLiar during the initial edit war with Thomas B (at that moment it was a 1 vs. many, where the 1 was Thomas B). Both BLPN threads ([315] and [316]) were later started by Thomas B. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You claimed he forum shopped to WP:NPOVN, which you now acknowledge was done by another editor. Prior to the page ban, he'd only raised it in one forum. As a BLP, WP:BLPN was the correct forum and where it should have been raised in the first place. 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose; Springee put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the "wrong" opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. Elemimele (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. Nemov (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any "chilling effect" on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. XOR'easter (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Though i agree with Springee and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration without Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the "wrong" opinion, it's a ban for being utterly and completely unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that he should stop digging after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? Thomas B (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  a quite tame posting You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have "dropped the stick" and ignored their direct questions? Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're still digging... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --JBL (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. Thomas B (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support This is a transparent refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK combined with WP:IDHT. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and WP:AGF (saying things like they want to paint Hunt as a sexist when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been mainly answer[ing] their questions. See for example: [317] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [318] (continuing to double down) and [319] (no one asked any question here either) and [320] (example of WP:IDHT, editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [321] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. (also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything) CambrianCrab (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  "I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people" ok then. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2).
  Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting WP:IDHT? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. Thomas B has made 20. --JBL (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. Thomas B (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  if it has become the general view at WP

  This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence WP:BLUDGEON, which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose By the time the post was made to BLPN Hemiauchenia had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. Firefangledfeathers trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. S Marshall was providing some valuable comments. Morbidthoughts and Hemiauchenia started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. fiveby(zero) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[322] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. Thomas B (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thomas B, you may wish to reread WP:IDHT. I feel encompasses why this amount of annoyance is being had from your conduct. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK, his WP:IDHT response to months of discussion and attempts to WP:FORUMSHOP the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he still doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support We are passed the point where consensus is clear around the Tim Hunt issue, the continued bludgeoning and forumshopping is disruptive. Enough is enough. T-ban. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia

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

---

I propose for Thomas B to be banned from the English Wikipedia for two months, independently and additionally to the above topic ban. The purpose of this ban is to act as a deterrent from any further gaming of the sanctions.

• Support as proposer. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary and punitive. With a topic ban in place, escalating blocks may be imposed as necessary. Let's extend more WP:ROPE so they can contribute helpfully to other areas. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose premature. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't seen any indication of disruption outside of this topic area. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly unnecessary. It also would be easy for editors to presume the motive in suggesting this block was to be punitive. As I said above, if Thomas B's arguments aren't shifting consensus then why worry? If they are shifting consensus then this sort of block looks more like gaming than protective. Springee (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue seems to be contained to the topics proposed to be banned for the accused, and this proposal goes beyond reasonable prevention. If the topic ban above becomes enforced, a block can be imposed if it gets contravened. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not necessary or warranted. Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems punitive. Grandpallama (talk) 13:58, 28 March 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

I note there are now 3 threads related to issues surrounding the Tim Hunt article, making 4 in less than a month. I like @Elemimele: and @Fiveby: are concerned about the toxic nature of the discussion surrounding that article. I am no longer editing there like those two editors and don't intend to return. I suggest @Thomas B: stops as well, not because he is wrong but for his own well being and mental health. Rather than being guided by sources, looking at what the prevailing views are in the literature, the discussions have descended into editors looking for sources to validate their own opinions. ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents in the discussion rather than addressing urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Notably, accusations of disruptive behaviour are unsupported by evidence, scratch the surface of what little is offered as evidence and it crumples. I haven't called for any sanctions, I opposed a proposal yesterday and still urge that as S Marshall suggested that an intervention by an uninvolved SySop may be required to stave off an arbcom case. WCM_email 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that you started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague WP:FORUM manner? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Aside from posting evidence of this happening at WP:ANI with supporting diffs? For example, [323],[324]. I've taken the page off my watch list, took a break, the thread dropped off the page with no action and its being resurrected seeking sanctions when there are no urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I've already demonstrated the accusation of misconduct are unfounded. Fling enough mud, often enough, eventually it sticks. WCM_email 18:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, file a formal request for sanctions, which you repeatedly avoid doing. You're casting aspersions and hounding by not actually requesting action, but still making accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that it's actually a bad idea for WCM to file such a request as it would be baseless and retaliatory. It would only expend even more of what is remaining of WCM's rope. I'm not the best in Wikipedia's policy, but I can imagine this backfiring even to a WP:CBAN, which we should try to avoid. So WCM just needs to stop casting aspersions, stop bringing all this in user talk pages, and move on. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an "us vs them" situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.

I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive and offensive edits by User: 163.5.175.192

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.

---

Resolved

 – /24 blocked for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive and offensive edits and reverts made by User: 163.5.175.192. Have a look at the edits made by them [325]. This looks like possible sock of User: Wayfarer Pacifist who was also involved in similar edit warring and multiple reverts. Uzumaki787 (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• 163.5.175.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 163.5.175.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 163.5.175.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possible socks of User: Wayfarer Pacifist are continuously reverting edits in the Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire page and personally attacking editors. Also similar reverts are made in pages linked to Salaar. Admins can you have a look at this. Uzumaki787 (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked 163.5.175.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP hopper

An IP hopper is constantly appearing at the Rape of males article attempting to add the {{fringe}} and {{fringe theories}} templates numerous times. I noticed them today since I reverted them. But these edits are clearly disruptive and date back to at least late 2022. Is there something that should be done to prevent this? Maybe increasing the article's protection level should do the trick, but I'm not quite sure. I would appreciate some feedback. Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi protected indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we list that at CTOPS? Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Upon looking at the history of this IP hopper, I have found an almost uninterrupted history of similar blatant POV edit warring in other articles within the GENSEX topic area, almost all invariably sounding the same theme of contesting that any sort of hardship for males exists, for almost the last four years. Many of the IPs used to make those edits have been blocked, some more than once.

I have therefore blocked the Belarus-based 176.60.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a year, and will log this at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

HD86

• HD86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aleppo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On 21 March, HD86 (talk · contribs) attempted to insert unreferenced info to Aleppo. My revert elicited a very vulgar response from them. Even when they were reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:VERIFY, they continued asserting self-created Wikipedia rules that linking Wikipedia articles is enough of a reference (despite WP:CIRCULAR) and accused me of vandalism: [326] Yet, when it comes to other editors, HD86 understands that adding references is necessary and their rule is not perfect: [327] They have lectured me and Kansas Bear about what constitutes a better use of our time, that is adding sources for their unsourced additions. Even though I have backed away from this dispute, no admin has taken action, and the unresolved issue remanifested with the same personal attacks and WP:LAWYERING towards Wikaviani: [328][329][330] Violations of WP:CIR, WP:CIVIL, WP:EW, and so on. Aintabli (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the only thing wrong that I did was calling him lazy and dumb. The sentence containing the word idiot was posted by accident. I wanted to delete it before it was sent. In any case, I did accept the warning for using those words.HD86 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

HD86, you're actually edit warring to add unsourced content and then arguing on the talk page that other editors should clean up your sloppy work. And then following that up with a statement that you've added refs before but refuse to this time because you're being told to. There are seriously better things for all of us to spend our time on than this. Schazjmd (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It took 13 days, several warnings, and a report at ANI for HD86 to admit fault for the most obvious of a series of personal attacks, which are only a portion of the problem. However, right after their comment above, HD86 left another personal attack on Talk:Aleppo that disputing editors just can't respect the efforts of others. They think of themselves as bosses. Aintabli (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

HD86 has become a WP:TIMESINK. HD86, instead of supplying a reference(which would have cost them 1 edit), has made over 12 edits insulting fellow editors, expecting other editors to provide a source for their edit, and then making a false statement of how 3 editors have reverted their edit on Aleppo! I'm unconvinced they understand how to contribute to a community encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This behavior pretty straightforwardly violates our policies prohibiting personal attacks and obliging civility. That HD86 persisted with incivility toward editors even after posting in here at ANI, as Aintabli links above, is discouraging. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems as though User:HD86 is not familiar with how Wikipedia works. He has made up an alternate policy in his own mind and and is insisting that others follow his made-up policy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, can you care to elaborate? What is exactly the thing that I said which made you say that? You think the Wikipedia rules allow you to automatically delete unreferenced material? I remember that they had that system on the Arabic Wikipedia but not the English one.HD86 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

All people on Wikipedia must learn to respect the efforts of others. Everybody's time is valuable. When someone spends time to contribute something to an article, you can't erase their contribution without some collaborative, due process. This is rude and incompatible with the notion of Wikipedia being a collaborative work. A person who does that shouldn't be on Wikipedia in my opinion. Perhaps you should create a blog where you can have full control.

As part of respecting other people's work, you must learn to build on other people's work. If you see that a citation is missing, you should add the citation yourself instead of starting an edit war and then accusing the original contributer of being the reason behind the edit war. It is natural for the original contributer to get upset in this case when they see that their contribution is being met with hostility by people acting like they own the article or like they have authority over other people.

There are cases where the lack of citation is a genuine issue, but in this case the "lack of citation" is obviously a fake issue that is being used to justify the arrogant and disrespectful behavior.

After I made the first edit, I was met with unjustified hostility and disrespect. I feel that you are only looking for some made up reason to delete my contribution and possibly ban my account.

I am kindly asking one of you to add the necessary citation from the Ali Janbulad page in order to prove your good faith and that you believe in collaborative work. I will thank that person for doing that.

Perhaps Schazjmd (talk · contribs) can do it. Thanks in advance.HD86 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, I need one of you to add the citation because that is the only way to prove that you respect my effort to improve the article and that you believe in collaborative work. If you can't prove that, then what is the point of me doing anything here? I am not here to fight with people who don't like what I do.HD86 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If User:HD86 refuses to get the message, it may be time for an administrator to block his account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@HD86, after personal attacks, edit warring, and general obstructionism, it seems to me that you are the one who needs to prove to the community that you intend to work collaboratively. You could do that by citing the source for the content you added. You might also apologize to the editors you've treated uncivilly and agree to comply with the norms of wikipedia going forward. Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok I can accept a compromise. I will apologize to Aintabli for the personal attack and I will add the citation myself, but I need an apology from Aintabli and the other guy for repeatedly deleting my contribution, which was unwarranted to say the least.

I also need a statement from one of the administrators that deleting my contribution was wrong. Otherwise, what is the point of me doing anything here if my contributions will be deleted? I am not here to fight with people.HD86 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit wouldn't have been reverted if you'd cited it. Editors often find unsourced information in articles and tag it as source-needed, but new content should indicate its source. If we allow all new unsourced content to remain unchallenged by nothing more than a tag, pretty soon articles will consist of more source-needed tags than refs. There are tons of source-needed tags in articles already that need to be addressed, we don't need to add to the backlog. There's an excuse for new editors who don't know the ins-and-outs of editing wikipedia, but you do know better; you just chose not to cite your edit. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, I didn't cite it because the linked Wikipedia page had references and I expected someone (e.g. an administrator) to volunteer and add a citation from the other page. In my mind, this is the only acceptable thing that a user can do in this case. Using a source-needed tag would have been unwarranted and non-constructive editing.

Several people, including administrators, have insisted to delete what I wrote despite knowing that it is correct and referenced in Wikipedia itself.

To me, this is not constructive editing but a message to me saying that people here don't appreciate my contribution.

Since I feel I am unwelcome, I won't be active here.HD86 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Obstructing the core policies of Wikipedia by forcing reciprocal apology appears to avoid recognizing the problems that have been repeatedly underlined here: incivility, edit-warring, bad-faith, etc. I don't need a long overdue apology that HD86 wants to trade with one for a simple revert, long after 6 different editors pointed out the wrongdoing multiple times each. It is also worrying that HD86 expects an apology from Wikaviani but did not mention an apology for them, who they accused of bossy behavior that has to do only with ego and arrogance among countless other personal attacks both here and on Talk:Aleppo. I believe the very last solution should be to just cite their own addition with a source that actually verifies it and nothing else. Aintabli (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe HD86 is assuming bad faith once again. Their comment above is ornamented with words such as kindly, but they have again accused others of arrogant and disrespectful behavior, another personal attack among many in the comment above. They are also now asking Schazjmd, another editor (4th this time!), to take responsibility for their own additions. Aintabli (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment I wanted to file a report about HD86 but Aintabli was faster than me. Despite having been editing here for more than a decade, HD86 seems to ignore our guidelines and keeps edit warring against multiple experienced editors, attacking almost every user they disagree with and so on .... Apologies from them might be a good start, but let's be clear about it, I won't apology for reverting unsourced additions. To be honest, this kind of editors waste the community's time and I'm not convinced they're improving this project.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

user:Untitled740 Tag-bombing football articles despite talk page warnings

This user went through a spree of tag-bombing football articles in February and January, and was warned about it on their talk-page by @Sgubaldo:, @Govvy:, @Jfire: and @Syvä-äksy:.

I recently went through the tags they left on Inter Milan, which was an hour and a half's work which resulted in only a tiny improvement in the text (with the exception of the removal of the tags, which was a considerable improvement). Most of the valid tags (and most were not valid) could easily have been avoided by the user simply changing the text themselves. To be fair, their edits on Inter predate the warning, however, they edited Tranmere Rovers and Bristol Rovers after the above linked discussion, with even worse consequences, including many entirely incorrect "close paraphrase" tags.

The user has not edited a football page for a month, but I would ask for a six month tban from football articles, as their edits on this topic create massive amounts of work for others. Football articles are edited very regularly during the season, so reverts are rarely possible. --Boynamedsue (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Boynamedsue, requests like this for a topic ban generally require substantial evidence provided of disruption. Do you have diffs of this occurring? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of substantial, Untitled740 would almost certainly have tagged that word as . Apart from the three pages mentioned, Inter Milan, Tranmere Rovers and Bristol Rovers the same has occurred at Hull City, FC Bayern Munich, FSB Zwickau, SPAL, Piacenza Calcio 1919, LFA Reggio Calabria, AC Reggiana 1919, Chemnitzer FC, FC Erzgerbirge Aue, SV Sandhausen, FC Saarbrucken, TSG 1890 Hoffenheim, 1860 Munich and potentially another 37 clubs in the period since the 26th of January, when other users had already made their concerns clear on the user's talkpage. I haven't looked at the edits to football stadiums which occurred during the same period, I was frightened to. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's disruptive, but why bring it up now, the guy hasn't edited wikipedia in over a month! :/ Govvy (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The user goes through periods of incredibly prolific editing, and is capable of tagbombing very large numbers of pages in a very short period. I would strongly recommend taking the tban step as a preventative measure. Given the damage they can do, better not to take the risk. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I always thought he was a continuation of a banned editor, when the account was created it went on the created new categories, which really is not normal editing behaviour for a new user. I personally find the editing behaviour bizarre and annoying. But unless the editing starts up again I don't see what to do at present, it's possible it's jumped to another account to hide the workload he is doing, but that requires a sock puppet investigation. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

They created their account and made their first edit on 13 December last year, and have made nearly 5,300 edits since – of which over 4,300 were in January. They have gone through a single very prolific period, and not edited for nearly a month; there's no indication of when (or even if) they are likely to return to editing. I can't see that sanctions are required at all given that this is clearly not an ongoing problem, but assuming arguendo that they really are so disruptive that they need sanctioning a month after their last edit, why propose a sanction which might time out before they even resume the disruption? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair question. It took me an hour and a half to resolve the problems they created on a single page, they have edited at least 50 pages in a similar way AFTER being warned about their editing style. Their last day of editing was on the 3rd/4th of March and included spam-tagging of the articles of Girona FC and Juventus (including tagging to ask whether "the fifties" referred to the 1950s, tagging to ask what the meaning of "a research" might be, and various other almost wilful failures to understand what sentences written by non-native speakers might mean). There is no reason to think that they have resolved their problem, despite their editing having either been paused or stopped.

I am assuming the user is not a troll, therefore a notification of a topic ban will register with them in a way that the advice of other users wouldn't and will stop this activity. The cost in users' time of them returning and editing, say, 5 more pages merits a topic ban. The tban costs next to nothing in time and is a useful insurance policy against them returning and deleteriously affecting more pages.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Makks2010

Makks2010 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
I just spent a good deal of my afternoon and evening in Talk:India, following and responding to the user's queries and arguments. It is getting very tendentious now and they are admant on not understanding the guidelines and policies. I take it now as there's no point in continuing further discussion and leave it here to see if they need a topic ban or something. They were banned yesterday for editwarring and they still havent understood the reason for the ban. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Am I seeing this right? .....some weird nationality bigotry about sources? That said the editor is clearly overwhelming the talk page making it impossible to deal with all these points being raised. I suggest they slow down.... let's see if this is something they agree to. Moxy🍁 17:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• We're rapidly approaching indef territory here. Category spam that's been reverted, spamming the use of IABot on far too many pages, completely ignoring all the warnings they've been given, blatantly inaccurate posts on Talk:India (the claim, for instance, that the article doesn't discuss culture); edit-warring, for which they've already been blocked; and copyright violation. I don't believe this user is capable of editing productively or collaboratively. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a WP:NOTHERE case IMO. And they aren't taking it easy either. [331] and [332]. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree, see this edit[333] changing " According to Hindu nationalists, Baqi destroyed " to " According to Hindu, Baqi destroyed " with the edit summar "unnecessary use of word nationalists, 'According to Hindu' is okay." As a proper sentence, we are attributing the quote to someone named Hindu! I'm blocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted it. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Without comment on any other behaviours or edits. "Hindu" in this context is a reasonable demonym in some English variants; where other variants might prefer the plural "Hindus". The editor is essentially saying, "not just nationalists". No comment on whether that's an acceptable edit aligned to the sources, but it's not necessarily incorrect linguistically. Rotary Engine ^talk 06:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced additions continue.The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Any updates? Topic ban could be a plausible step. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald Topic banned. Sorry it took a while Doug Weller talk 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

And they immediately asked why they can still edit pages while topic banned. They haven't tried yet though and I warned them about it. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)