Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154

User:Randy Kryn: refusal to respect WP:BURDEN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY

At the WP article Principia Discordia, I had removed what was WP:OR, unsourced (WP:BURDEN), sourced by non-RS (including WP:SPS), not supported by the refs given (WP:Fictitious references), what was only supported by a primary source, a very long quote (which may or may not be copyrighted), and a list of editions of the work (WP:NOTDIRECTORY).

Then, User:Randy Kryn completely restored the article from before my edits without caring about the specificities of any of my edits. They were then reverted by me and made aware of the policies they were breaking. They then reverted me and asked that I make an RfC or something (for what purpose, it is unclear to me) and accused me of unfairly making RfD for multiple redirects. I reverted the user and told the user to AGF and made them once again aware of the policies they were breaching and I told the user I would go to ANI if they persisted. They reverted me and claimed it was necessary all of my edits be discussed and that my edits were done without, it seems, knowing much about the religion (I have no idea what WP:BURDEN, using WP:RS, etc., has to do with the knowledge of such a niche topic).

The argument the user seems to make for their restoration is that all information related to the subject are WP:BLUESKY (public domain materials and information [1], the topic is well-known [2]), which is obviously false.

On the article Eris (mythology), I had removed the WP:TRIVIA section, 80% of which was about Ddiscordianism. Randy Kryn also reverted my removal here, stating that many of the claims were well-sourced. However, it is clear that all claims in the section partaining to Discordianism are only sourced from primary sources: the Principia Discordia and an interview from Robert Anton Wilson.

The user also messaged me, stating that the articles were adequate articles and that the information removed were public domain information across the entire spectrum of Wikipedia's Discordian collection. They have also stated that doing numerous RfDs on the week end was to be avoided. They then asked me to revert all my edits and RfD nominations related to Discordianism.

All in all, it seems the user is simply refusing the comply with WP:BURDEN and WP:RS for reasons I cannot understand, and appears to be WP:STONEWALLING. Veverve (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• The editor is taking a WikiHatchet to not only that one book page but to Wikipedia's Discordian collection and time sinking a swarm of literally hundreds of edits and nominations on a two-day run of edits to the topic. Please check their history page for the last couple of days (April 5, 6) to see what I mean. I'm asking for a pause in these edits for experienced page editors and others to be given the time to have a reasonable conversation with the editor who (looking at their deletion nominations for dozens of perfectly appropriate and relevant redirects) seems to have little or no knowledge of the topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• What are my rights here? Can I ping other editors who've worked on these pages to give testimony that the edits are very much over the line of both not knowing the topic and overt focusing on the topic to dilute it? Not everyone reads this page, but many do read the articles that are being both deleted and edited of essential and appropriate information. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: I do not know whether this can constitute WP:CANVASSING or not, so I advise you wait for an admin to reply to this question. Veverve (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Veverve, of course, but thanks for the reminder. I have mentioned this ANI attempt at one spot, don't know the fairness of putting up a topic such as this and then not discussing it at one of the relevant deletion attempts, but I'll restrain from further text mentions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Swarming the zone. Since you are using my message at your talkpage as a talking point here, I just left this one which seems relevant in this discussion: You've taken me to ANI using the above message as one of your talking points, without answering it and having a reasonable conversation? More time sinking of both the topic and, apparently, of editors who question your WikiHatcheding of the topic. With your hundreds of edits and deletions and deletion attempts over the last two days or so you seem to be trying to guarantee that your edits stand using swarming-the-zone tactics. Not the way most Wikipedians operate, although I've seen it done a couple times (not many, literally once or maybe twice over the years, this tactic is actually fairly rare on Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Has admitted by Randy Kryn above, they have now claimed on my talk page that my edits are not done in good faith. Veverve (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Admitted (Jesus Christ on a pogo stick). As I said, you have chopped into the topic with obviously keepable redirect deletion attempts (dozens), have nominated easily kept images (dozens), and taken a WikiHatchet to the main articles of the topic. All in two deays (an accidental combo of 'days' and 'delays', but seems to fit). You are probably operating in good faith as you see it, and good faith has to assume that you are flooding-the-zone in good faith, which I guess is a thing, but not the way I've seen done before to this extent. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours for edit warring to restore unsourced content. Also, there seem to be some issues related to article ownership and assuming bad faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh come on! Really? EEng 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Randy Kryn shouldn't have broken the 3RR, but, equally, it would have been nice to add "citation needed" tags before progressing to wholesale removal of material. Those tags exist precisely to avoid this sort of blow out.

In discussion elsewhere, some of the points removed have proven easy to source, even for someone - like me - who knows nothing about the topic. Furius (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The deletions were precipitate and ill-considered, and RK didn't break 3RR. EEng 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have a different take. That was a whole lot of (mostly speculative looking) content to be completely unsourced. Frankly a lot of it has the tone of meandering WP:Original research, and to the extent that some of it can be supported by RS, the WP:ONUS t support inclusion with sourcing before restoring is on the supporting party. Was there a slower, potentially more diplomatic approach to these removals? Yes, I suppose. But neither was Veverve's approach out of process, and once the removals were made the edit warring to restore such a massive amount of unsourced content definitely was inappropriate. And Randy is plenty experienced enough in the sourcing standards (and the limitations one has to respect when editing on esoteric subjects one has a personal passion for) to know that--and I've seen them reminded about crossing that line previously. NPR could have done a warning here, but considering the WP:OWN / "I can't believe you took a hatchet to our beautiful work!" mentality on display in this very thread, I think it was a necessary reminder at the right moment. In other words: good (if unfortunate) block. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and if some other preventative will do the job, then that's what should be used. I'm sure a firm reminder from 3rd parties would have done the trick. EEng 17:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This type of behaviour regularly sees new or IP editors being blocked for short periods, I don't see how doing the same for a more seasoned editor is anything but a normal admin action.
I think it would be good if editors gave warnings to editors they have friendly relationships with when such things come up, but it's not possible to go back in time and do so in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention, they did just receive an edit warring notice for a different dispute mere days ago. Hard to believe a reminder would have done anything when it didn't days ago... Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm more suggesting that someone Randy Kryn respects giving them some advice, rather than a template. Anyone can get overheated and blinded to their own mistakes, a friendly word letting you know that you need to step back would likely be better received than a template.
But yes, at this point it's all a bit late. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you EEng but that isn't our policy. Wikipedia:Protection policy: Pages are protected when a specific damaging event has been identified that cannot be prevented through other means such as a block. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

other means (plural) such as a block. You seem to be saying blocks are the only means, or the preferred means; surely they're not. Anyway, why are you quoting a policy about when to protect pages, when what we're talking about is when to block an editor? But it's all water under the bridge now. EEng 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What does page protection have to do with the discussion? Grandpallama (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t looked into the actual events in detail but I’m going to be blunter: not only is this whole situation displaying content ownership tendencies, Randy and his fans’ response to this situation and subsequent block is both immature and screams “I [still] think I’m untouchable”. In other words, not only was the initial response bad, but I personally don’t think Randy et al even got the message: a a 15+ year top 200 veteran should not be getting blocked period, yet here we are Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

These are some of the sources that Vajzë Blu has added since this ANI and Randy's block. Here is the diff [3], here is the source:[4]. Another diff: [5] and the source produced [6]. Another diff [7] and here is the source: [8]. These are not WP:RS. Goodreads, and personally posted pages are not acceptable sources. So, how are we supposed to maintain quality on Wikipedia when other editors engage in the same kind of behavior? This is disregard for policies and principles. So, Randy gets blocked and someone else takes over who promotes unacceptable sourcing. Lastly, on Randy Kyrn's talk page they say that Discordianism seems to be under attack here right now... [9]---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I draw your attention first and formemost to Randy Kyrn's comment quoted above which appears to be a refusal to WP:AGF with me.

As a sidenote, Vajzë Blu's behaviour as described above is also not so great, so maybe an admin explaining this relatively new user what a RS is would be a good idea. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I obviously already saw that because I left a warning. If people can't behave civilly and assume good faith in some topic area, the community can always choose to topic ban them. However, it would take evidence of extensive disruptive. General sanctions are another possibility for topic areas that have long-running disruptive behavior in them. "Long-running" is months, I guess? I don't know, maybe you could get away with weeks. Don't jump the gun, is my point. Also, the secondary point is that I don't have to be the Discordianism Admin. The community can deal with long-running problems, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, this is far from the first time Randy Kryn obstructed editing of esoteric topics. See the excessive discussions here (Randy and now-blocked user @.Raven were insisting, against broad consensus, that esoteric woo was not subject to FRINGE and that Wilson et al were mainstream secondary independent sources rather than in-universe fringe adherents). JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and @JoelleJay. And here is a discussion [10] related to the discussion that JolleJay links to: (Eight-circuit model of consciousness talk page). This discussion takes place on my talk page. I invited Randy over to my talk page to keep the discussion at Eight-circuit model of consciousness from getting bogged down, or something like that. Anyway, this gives you an added view of Randy's views toward sources and maybe other things. I am afraid these views have not changed since that time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I will add, regarding the first source I mentioned: [11]. It was written by Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, Pvt., USMC (Ret.) on January 23, 1991 (see the bottom of the page). This is not a recognized expert who is able to g3ve a qualified critique of Discordia. Also, to me this seems like rambling about what ever comes to their mind. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: That's actually the introduction to the Fifth Edition written by one of the co-authors: it is certainly reliable as an author's statement about the history and makeup of the book after four previous editions were published. The article, if you would actually read it, has already established that Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst is a pseudonym of Kerry Thornley in the first paragraph, so it is concerning to me that this seems to have escaped your attention. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise:, I find it disconcerting that you are concerned ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Where or in what publications is this person discussed regarding their opinions or points of view? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Quite a few, actually. More than I would care to list here. This person in discussed in all of the academic sources covering Discordianism. Of course, they are actually cited on the article as references or further reading, so I guess you could go count them yourself. Skyerise (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

OK I will take a look. Also, still I think the author of that rambling ramble can be deemed as affiliated. They are saying, "Perhaps the chief difference between the Discordian Society and Sump's outfit is one of style. We got it. They don't." and " We solicit no donations, demand no tithes, charge no admission..." So, he is a part of whatever this is. He is not offering an objective view or any kind of critique. He is one of the boys, so to speak. So, this is concerning to me that you didn't notice that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Please also see WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field." He is one of the authors of the work, which means we are allowed to source things about his creative process - which is what the citation you object to is covering - even if it was self-published on his own website! In the same spirit, Introductions, Prologues and Afterwords to a work may be used support any information about the creative process which they happen to contain. This also falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. Skyerise (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

On the matter of the initial post, it seems to me that User:Veverve should also have been blocked per WP:BRD. After their (B)old edit was (R)everted, they should have allowed the article to stand while engaging in (D)iscussion on the talk page and allowing editors time to add third-party citations and discuss why copyright really wasn't an issue. They should also be reminded that WP:BURDEN does not include the word "immediately", while WP:IAR is policy and allows an editor to temporarily violate said guideline if in their opinion it will lead to improving Wikipedia. They should also be reminded that WP:BEFORE applies to deletion of article content as well as to article deletion. In point of fact, there are nearly a dozen recent books that directly cover Discordianism in depth, as well as a few journal articles. While they may take a bit of Google Foo to find among the in-universe books, I suspect no effort was made at all, and it should have been. I've added many of these sources to the article, and I'm sure that Randy would have if WP:BRD had been respected. Skyerise (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start. WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Nobody is obligated to follow it. WP:BURDEN, on the other hand, is a policy, and I will block people who don't follow it. WP:IAR is not a "get out jail free" card that you can use to violate policy, and I find it odd that you're demanding that people follow your favorite essays while saying that you don't have to follow literal policy. WP:BEFORE is neither a policy not a guideline. However, it is best practices. If you continually burden the rest of the encyclopedia with poor deletion requests, it's likely the community's patience will fray, and you'll end up topic banned from AfD. But if you're lazy and make one or two bad deletion requests, that's OK. Finally, it has nothing to do with article content. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:PRESERVE, which does say to fix problems rather than delete content. However, if someone chooses to delete unsourced content, you must add citations before restoring it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BURDEN explicitly says "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." In other words, not only does WP:BURDEN not say that it has to be done before restoring it (i.e. it doesn't say "immediately"), it goes on to suggest tagging and allowing the reverting editor time as an acceptable, if not preferred, option to starting an edit-war when someone reverts a removal. The article in question is not a BLP, and its content while uncited is not in serious doubt or likely to be a source of harm to anyone, so it is not unreasonable to take the details of WP:BURDEN into account and not just cherry-pick that part that lets one editor (ab)use it in such a way as to bully another editor. Skyerise (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but... BURDEN does say: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution. and it says: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. It doesn't say anything about starting an edit war via this process. If someone decides to edit war over this, then they are responsible. So, who is cherry picking? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring is choice and it can be avoided. One strategy for avoidance is avoiding ownership isues and trying to keep a preferred version intact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are suggestions that only apply before the first deletion. As the content had already been deleted once, the burden was now squarely shifted to anyone seeking to restore it to provide RS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the person removing material who then reverts to keep it removed loses the edit war and should be the one blocked. The reason is that any removal is a revert of one or more previous editors who added the content. Thus the removing editor's fourth revert is the the third one after another editor restores the material. RK may have broken 3RR by making a fourth revert, but so did Veverve. Counting things this way used to be common practice and both editors would have been blocked. Intentionally driving or provoking an editor to a block under the assumption that your first edit isn't in itself a revert has in the past been considered a blockable offense, due to the fact that technically both editors have broken 3RR at that point. Skyerise (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Uh what?! No, removal of any content is not "technically a revert"; if that was true then we could never delete anything from 0RR topics. Sometimes removal can constitute a revert, if the removal is temporally close to and effectively nullifies a specific addition. That is not what happened here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Tell that to the admins who blocked me during the previous decade using exactly that argument, which was done several times, until I internalized it and always count my initial removals as a revert; this does not apply to additions. This is not a new thing I am making up, it's an old one that has been neglected and forgotten. Any removal is necessarily a revert. It takes two to tango, and Veverve was as much in the wrong as Randy. Skyerise (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if Veverve actually did revert as many times as Randy, their actions are decidedly backed by policy while Randy's are not.

And I don't see anywhere in your most recent edit warring blocks that an admin has said your removal of material, well after it was added, constituted a revert. Instead I see you getting blocked for the combination of incivility, harassment, fringe canvassing, and filing spurious SPIs, while edit warring. And remember that EW is not defined only as 4 reverts in 24 hours, so being blocked for edit warring after <4 reverts/day does not mean some other edit is being "counted" as a revert. JoelleJay (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I did say last decade. I am specifically talking about the blocks in 2013, 2014, and 2015. At least two of them counted a first removal as a revert. You'd have to find the actual 3RR reports to verify that, but I assure you that it is true. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the above is somewhat convoluted. Trying to change the focus on who made what edit and then saying one editor intentionally provoked or drove another editor to a block is deflecting responsibly here. Also, accusing another editor of intentionally leading another into an edit war is not AGF. I know that is what you intend by posting that. So, most likely what you have, is two editors with two different editing standards. One edits according to P & G and the other is much less concerned with P & G. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Bottom line is: it takes two to tango and they both should have been blocked. An editor may be deemed to have edit-warred even if they have not technically crossed 3RR, especially when multiple articles are involved. Consideration should be taken as to what's going on across multiple articles, and nominating more than a dozen redirects for deletion after gutting an article of the material that supports the redirects is in my opinion edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing poorly-sourced dubious material from multiple pages is not edit-warring, even when someone reverts three times per page. Reinserting that material without improving the sourcing is tendentious and is definitionally edit warring at four reverts, and will frequently be considered EW even before that. JoelleJay (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. 3RR is very clear that edit-warring is disruptive editing, and it applies even when the editor in question is technically "right" - it's a simple count, not a judgment call: Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive editing even when you're right, which is why I said it was not a violation of the three-revert rule to make only three reverts, while it is at four reverts; and that this is compounded by the four-revert editor also being tendentious. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This again? Randy Kryn tendentiously disrupted removal of trivia/non-reliably sourced content at another Robert Anton Wilson-adjacent page last year. I think @Snow Rise and @Steve Quinn were also involved in that one. Are we approaching a need for a t-ban from esoteric stuff? JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

JoelleJay, I have been thinking about that same thing that happened last year. It is deja vu all over again. I think a t-ban is reasonable given the current circumstances---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I was kind of trying to avoid bringing that up because I felt that since Randy had been blocked here, that anything that might lead to a second sanction was unwarranted. But yes, since the matter has been broached, there is a connecting theme here.

Mind you, I don't contribute to articles in this subject matter really. As with the present case, the issue last year was something I stumbled upon at ANI, and my joining the talk page discussion was an effort at trying to find a consensus between the two sides. If I recall correctly, the same was true of Steve (and others). Randy was not really the most problematic participant in the discussion that lead to the ANI (that I could tell, anyway), but he did have a specific issue that is present again here, and which, unfortunately, I have seen previously when bot-summoned to RfCs on other articles.

Said issue is that Randy, by his own disclosure, knew some of the people whom are the subjects of some of the BLP-adjacent articles he has himself developed, and he considers himself an amateur expert in the lives of some of these figures, and the mid-twentieth century counter-culture mysticism that they developed. Now, he may very well be every bit the expert he believes he is, and could potentially be an invaluable asset to work on these subjects, but he's not a published expert in this area, and thus his first hand knowledge and original analysis and detailed (but often unverified) descriptions drift deep into WP:OR in places.

In short, Randy is way too close to the subject matter in question, problematically laissez-faire about sourcing standards when generating content about them, and then far too attached to his own prose after he has created it, often challenging large edits that cut out the significant amount of unsourced original research as if it is "hacking all his hard work to bits" (paraphrasing his general sentiment in each case) and initially edit warring to keep it in, until admins or uninvolved parties from ANI/RfC step in to stop it, rather than acknowledging that the issues was with his approach to the articles in question from the start.

Now, all of that said, I don't fancy a tban here yet. Mind you, I have never been a participant in any of these edit wars or even an original party to the disputes (each time I experienced one of this scenarios, I was present via an FRS notice for an RfC, or an ANI thread like this one). So maybe I'm more patient than others might be inclined to be who do work in these areas. But I think the block was valid, was served, and should suffice at this time. I've only written out the exhaustive observations above because I hope Randy will grant that there might be something to them. I don't have skin in the game, so to speak, when it comes to any of the affected articles, I have sometimes supported elements of his arguments as a third party opinion when I arrived on the talk pages, and I am not advocating for a sanction. But I do want him to recognize he has a blind spot for certain subject matter when it comes to straying into original research. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So, what I hear Snow saying is that Randy doesn't know how to edit according to policies and guidelines or that he simply ignores policies and guidelines. And either way, the text or article he creates ends up being original research, which is then problematic. And here we are. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, sort of. I do think it's worth noting that Randy does tend to drop the stick when confronted with enough pushback. In my limited experience, Randy's not the sort to become super disruptive or hostile. He can be a little reactive to efforts to scale back his work, initially, but he's rarely what I would call tendentious. Mind you, all of my experience with him comes from some brief interactions via RfC and this and the Eight Circle ANI/talk page matter. But from those few interactions, I have the impression of someone who is not hostile in disputes. Just a little less cautious about sourcing standards than he should be, having his own idiosyncratic views about what is proper verification and DUEWEIGHT sometimes.

I'm not saying that's not a bit of a problem for an editor as prolific as he is (it clearly is). But he also doesn't go to the mat to push his preferred version if confronted with strong opposition. His initial reactions to his content being removed can lack perspective at times, but I think he operates in good faith and seeks to avoid prolonged conflict. You're rarely going to get him to change his mind, once it's set, but he'll usually eventually accede to consensus.

Basically what I am trying to get at is that I don't think the label "disruptive" really fits in Randy's case. Personally, I kind of appreciate an editor who can be a bit out of step with community consensus on a major policy issue, but consistently avoid being nasty about it. But yeah, the cost-benefit outcome of his contributions would be improved considerably if he could permit himself to re-assess his understanding of WP:OR/V/RS. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Snow, thanks for the clarification. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, thank you for the WikiAnalysis, which is incorrect in several ways, but who am I to know better than you what I think and what my motives are. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy, I don't think your motivations are so much the cause for concern from your fellow editors here, but rather your objectivity and your willingness to conform with basic community consensus on fundamental principles of sourcing and original research. I continue to oppose further sanctions for you in this instance, but I'm not sure that my opposition alone is going to count for all that much, being rather in the minority in that respect--and even if you do manage to avoid a TBAN this time, unless you address the pattern being discussed here (i.e. start sourcing your content a bit better, stop placing in large sections based on personal knowledge and perspective when you can't source, and avoid the "took a 'WikiHatchet' to my incredible article" rhetoric whenever others remove said unsourced content) such a ban will become inevitable. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing my reverts and the edits surrounding them, I would, looking at it objectively, not have imposed a block. My concern about the editor not being very knowledgeable about the topic (putting common terms up for deletion, nominating public domain images for deletion) while at the same time making well over a hundred edits to the topics over a two-day period (not sure of the exact number, haven't counted, but it was a large and sustained edit run) while not being aware that the topic's quotes were from copyfree books, seemed like an excessive amount of incorrect and unwarranted removals. I reverted, then a quick three-revert situation came into being (if you read the edit summaries the situation becomes obvious, at least from my point of view) then Ninja blocked me for three days and I went off to view the eclipse. Being in the middle of it I don't think the block was deserved, and experienced editors such as EEng agreed (thanks EEng, a picture of a Sacred Cod is worth 1,000 words), but could see Ninja's point of view just enough (although it was imposed as if I were a 500 edit noobie, thanks for the assume GF NRP) that I wasn't going to challenge it. So I hung Christmas lights on it. Then saw, after a couple days, that Skyerise had done their usual great job in editing and bringing the articles up-to-code - they are a Wikipedia treasure. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, your honors, I would like to place this post into evidence. It further explains just one of the several reasons why I reverted the edits in what was called an "edit war": in order to slow down Veverve's edit swarm and go to a talk page to check if they knew what they were doing. NinjaRobotPirate might or might not also benefit from reading that linked comment, maybe to learn a little more about assuming good faith in long-time editors, or at least to encourage them to further research incidents next time to ascertain if maybe there were two sides to the doubloon. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This argument that you can edit-war as long as it is to protect from what you deem to be an edit swarm shows you still have not understood what is reproached to you.

Also, one can open as many RfDs as one believes is needed, so long as one has legitimate reasons to do so. And one can remove as many unsourced/WP:FICTREF-sourced statement as one believes are bold, non-WP:BLUE statements (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course you can, within the rules (as I can revert within the rules). But maybe when first corrected as to copyright mistakes, common wording, etc. you can pause in your deletions and noms and choose instead to discuss the concerns and objections to find out if they have merit. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• All that stuff aside (and that's where it should be), and I'll get back to reading it more in-depth and responding later, the major problem here comes across from reading Skyerise's point of view. Seems there are two different understandings of BRD among Wikipedians. I would have hoped that, given the circumstances and my experience here, that people would have also given me some of that "assume good faith" business, and trust that my judgement and reasoning contained the "other side of the coin" (which I'll also get into above later). What we should assume is that many Wikipedians, myself included, understand the BRD process to be 1) a bold edit (or edit run) made, 2) then reverted, 3) well, maybe a second revert if you think you know your stuff, etc., that the talk page discussion should begin when asked for. Lots of editors use BRD. It's all over the place. How many editors have been blocked or banned for getting into what an administrator perceived as a one-sided bad-hat "edit war" and using the ban stick like a baton, when assuming good faith might tell them something different if deeply researched. I will bet Elon Musk's money that a huge percentage of Wikipedians trust BRD as the letter of the law and not just an essay. Maybe we should make clear to everyone that BRD no longer should be cited, as it really has no meaning in preventing an "edit war" if two editors understand it, or think they understand it, differently. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's the first time I've ever seen anyone state that not following BRD is a blockable offense. WP:BRD is quite clear in it's first paragraph that it's optional and not mandatory. It's good advise and I would follow it as 'best behaviour', but unfortunately it's not enforceable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Then you are still waiting. I did not say that not following BRD is a blockable offense. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry I should have been clearer, Skyerise suggested that. You were commenting on what Skyerise had said, and my reply was meant as a continuation of that discussion not as a insinuation against you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That is just an example of how BRD is used and remembered versus what it may actually say. BRD seems to be a "go to" guideline (even though it is an essay) and is used extensively by editors of all lengths of service. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

vandalism

RAMSES$44932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has vandalized Category:Al Jazeera, AJ+, Al Jazeera Media Network, Al Jazeera Arabic , Al Jazeera English . They added anti zionist, Conspiracist media, Antisemitic propaganda category into all these pages. Multiple attempts were made to vandalise. Please take appropriate action

Gsgdd (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

This user has made like over 4000 edits it’s hard to verify claims that they added antisemitic propaganda.

Can you provide to any links of them doing this?CycoMa1 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

here they are

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1196103736

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_English&diff=prev&oldid=1196103708

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1196103686

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1217046201

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AJ%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1217046115

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1215522058

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_Media_Network&diff=prev&oldid=1215029098 Gsgdd (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gsgdd You are required to notify all involved editors of discussions at ANI. I have left a notice at RAMSES$44932's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, The user seems to have several other violation on thier talk page as well. Gsgdd (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

But Al Jazeera are self-declared anti-zionists. It is not something disputed. They are anti-zionists. Antisemitic is debatable, but anti-zionist is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAMSES$44932 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@RAMSES$44932, please read WP:CATV. Readers should be able to clearly understand why an article is included in a category by reading the article. Al Jazeera English, for example, makes no mention of zionism or anti-zionism. If it should, that's something you could bring up on that article's talk page, but until then, it should not be included in a category that the article doesn't support. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd@CycoMa1Can we give an official warning to them. They have been using wiki long enough to understand the rules. They also have engaged in multiple edits violating copyrights , disruptive edits etc.. please read their talk page Gsgdd (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gsgdd, if there are other issues with RAMSES$44932's editing, you need to be specific and provide diffs to support the claim. Since RAMSES$44932 posted above, they have resumed editing but stopped incorrectly categorizing articles, which was the complaint raised here. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Please review their talk pages, where numerous individuals have expressed concerns about disruptive edits and copyright violations. They have not responded to acknowledge these issues or committed to improvement. Their last reply—asserting that Al Jazeera is self-declared anti-Zionist, a point they claim is undisputed—exemplifies the problematic behavior in question. This is the basis for my request to take action against them. Gsgdd (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please review their talk pages

That is not adequate for ANI. You need to find specific WP:DIFFs of edits you believe violate the rules, and document them here. We're not going to go fishing to try and find the edits based on these vague assertions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by نعم البدل

نعم البدل is engaged in edit warring and disruptive editing on the page Punjabi language. Even when I have stated a proper source by Britannica stating otherwise that Punjabi is not an officially recognized language in Pakistan, he refuses to believe so. He cannot even back up his claim on the talk page. He even goes further to report for me edit warring. This is blatant POV pushing and edit warring. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to mention that this was only made in response to User:UnbiasedSN being reported for Edit warring over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:UnbiasedSN_reported_by_User:نعم_البدل_(Result:_). I invited the user to discuss his removal over at the Talk page, back on 15th March diff, and he failed to do so. I asked to start a discussion again, yet his response was start the discussion diff] and proceeded to use a threatening tone on my talk page, and followed up with petty insults. diff1 and diff2. نعم البدل (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Even in the discussion you fail to make a case. You cite no sources. This is obviously POV pushing. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You are the removing the details, and no one else has had an issue with Punjabi being mention as an officially recognised language in Punjab, Pakistan. You also failed to start a discussion. I will leave this to the admins as clearly your attitude indicate this to be a WP:Battleground issue. نعم البدل (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously an issue to you that it's not recognized as an official language. While you're at it you should go ahead and argue with Britannica too.

"It is the official language of the Indian state of Punjab and is one of the languages recognized by the Indian constitution. In Pakistan Punjabi is spoken by some 70 million speakers, mostly in Punjab province, but official status at both the national and the provincial level is reserved for Urdu." Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I will leave this to the admins as clearly your attitude indicate this to be a WP:Battleground issue. نعم البدل (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And you're clear bias is against WP:NPOV. You clearly have not shown any research done on the topic.

. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring Issue has been resolved with page locked. Page was locked as it was before نعم البدل initial revert on March 15th. Props to Admin for doing through research on the matter. UnbiasedSN (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this user in particular has been reported previously for his disruptive edits. نعم البدل (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And you were previously banned. Your point? UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been banned previously. If you're referring to my appeal on my talk page, that was an issue with an IP/Proxy ban that is unrelated to me, that I was somehow temporarily affected by. نعم البدل (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• To OP, I won't comment on anything else, but please refrain from writing edit summaries like "[..] Punjabic isn't a real word, whoever wrote this needs to get a brain"(diff), doing so is definitely a personal attack, even if you didn't identify who wrote it. – 143.208.238.195 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I apologize. Punjabic is definitely not a real word, but I should've worded it better... Didn't know it was the person aforementioned. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ironically, you have also accused me of linguistic gatekeeping (among other things). And yes, rare it maybe, "Punjabic" is indeed a real word, used in academic papers [12]. It is used to distinguish the Punjabi language from the various other Punjabi dialects (not dialects of the Punjabi language), either found or relating to the Punjab(-speaking regions). نعم البدل (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I like how you cite 3 sources as a claim that punjabic is a word, but you discredit Britannica as a proper source in the discussion page. The irony is unreal.. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Britannica contradicts itself, I have shown you this, you have acknowledged this – yet you are not even prepared to accept that. You also discredit the Punjab government which passed a law for the Punjabi language. You are literally beating around bush. Go search the term on Google for all I care. نعم البدل (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I literally refuted every single argument you have brought up in the discussion page. Stop coming here afterwards to stoke the fire after you have claimed Wikipedia:Battleground. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Another note for admins:

  The reference presented was an act passed in the Punjabi Assembly of Pakistan, and the user has equated the Punjab Government to a "chinese cultural society" diff. نعم البدل (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just stated above how you should keep the discussion on the discussion page, but yeah go off.... without context... UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also... [13] Admins... This is not a how a user should conduct himself on wikipedia. The use of curses should not be allowed at all. I understand my words have been rude and condescending but it has never broken any rules for bullying or against civility. This is a blatant infringement on Wikipedia:Civility. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  This seems to me to be a content dispute. The page is semi-protected, so the edit warring has stopped. I've seen a few other editors on the talk page, so you two no longer need to engage with each other; you've both made your points, other editors will come in and help establish consensus. I think the best thing is for you to just stop talking to each other for a bit and let tempers cool. Also, UnbiasedSN, my experience has been that while it's not great, cursing is not prohibited. My read of the comment you linked is that it's expressing frustration, and bordering on uncivil, but hasn't crossed that line. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't their comment fall under Rarely acceptable uses of swears? The example the article provides is Ex: "What the h*** are you trying to accomplish?" What نعم البدل posted was "What f****** source are you demanding?" Feel like it's the same, but I could be wrong too, it does say rarely so I guess there's exceptions.

  Also thank you for your clear and concise response in the discussion page. It was very informative and it shows how well versed you are when it comes to these issues. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved third-party, might I suggest that both involved users take a break. Carrying this across WP:ANI as well as the Talk page for hours is not conducive to getting this resolved. Give it time, let outside parties take a look. Q ^{T C} 04:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it did end up getting heated in the end on the talk page. Will let admins do their work. UnbiasedSN (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we bang these two editors' heads together? This is petty and will be a time sink going forward. 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Zarghoonkushana

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.

---

Clearly this user is not here to build an encyclopedia as is clear from there edit history (here) where they are adding castecruft without any source (factually incorrect as well), likely a caste warrrior, indefinite block needed. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Done and edits mass reverted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:42, 14 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.

inappropriate repeated article editing to add personal social media links.

Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5C28:8200:E5BA:1C33:8C41:C3E6 has repeatedly added Tik tok links to the 2024 Bondi Junction stabbings article. The edits were reverted, and person then added the link again. Ryan Watern (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

User only has 3 edits, two of them being vandalism. Ryan Watern (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

2A02:A212:A583:5980:93B6:AAA7:8A66:717A

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.

---

Is at it again being (Personal attack removed) SpartanEmpire999 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpartanEmpire999: In future reports, please provide a concrete description of the behaviour that led you to file the report, and do it without resorting to insults. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

And please make sure you're reporting on current behaviour. The IP you mentioned was blocked 5.5 hours ago. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 14 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.

2603:6081:2AF0:90D0:0:0:0:0/64

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.

---

Is pain in ass. SpartanEmpire999 (talk) 02:38, 14 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.

Goodfacts666

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.

---

His username might offend Christian users with 666 please do something to prevent faith issue... SpartanEmpire999 (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpartanEmpire999 You could try to discuss the username at WP:UAA, but I wouldn't count on action being taken there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the rest of the name. It is probably within Wikipedia's guidelines, but it just cries out for extra scrutiny of edits, as does any userid containing "fact", "truth" etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 14 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 editing from an IP range

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.

---

There's an IP troll from 200.88.239.XXX who has been disruptive today. At least four separate IPs have been blocked and I protected Talk:O. J. Simpson as a result. I know we can range block IPv6 editors, can we do anything in this case? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• 200.88.239.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 200.88.239.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 200.88.239.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 200.88.239.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• I've blocked 200.88.239.0/24 for 6 months. There's a lot of nastiness on that range.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 12 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 User: Taking Out The Trash

• Leslie Mac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Taking Out The Trash has been adding libelous content to the wiki page for Leslie Mac (me) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taking_Out_The_Trash

TakingOutTheTrash Changes to main bio

They should be removed and banned from editing pages. LeslieMac23 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think you're looking at the wrong user, they're the one removing the vandalism. Q ^{T C} 17:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LeslieMac23, first of all, you're supposed to notify editors you discuss on this page. Since you are new I'll do that for you.

Secondly, the only edit that Taking Out The Trash made to the page of Leslie Mac is this one, removing vandalism from the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

A little of topic but this feels like COI Maestrofin (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It sure is. Liz gave them the COI talk page template. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's COI, but the removal of incorrectly sourced potentially harmful content (the BBC source was rather ambiguous) is OK whoever does it. Of course the person who was vandalising was misidentified, but we shouldn't expect the people we write about to be expert in reading article histories. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeated creation of sockpuppet accounts, harassment and doxing of myself

Hello, wondering if someone can please advise and help me with this matter ASAP?

Earlier today @Graham87: blocked User:JaneDoobyJench, a sockpuppet mimicking the behaviour of several IP addresses previously blocked in the past. Please see the prior conversation on my talk page archives. I'm fairly sure the original banned user was User:WelshDragon18.

Since their ban earlier today, they have re-emerged under as least 4 further users: User:29CommercialStreet (blocked by User:Favonian), User:SutherlandProperties (blocked by User:Bbb23), and User:BinghamTerrace & User:LinksPlace (neither of these are blocked at my time of creating this new topic).

(Redacted)

This is totally unacceptable behaviour and when I return from holiday I will report it to the police as this individual is clearly unhinged, but in the meantime can I please request several things on here?

Firstly – can somebody please wipe any historical revisions of my user page?

Secondly – can somebody please tell me how and if Wikipedia can impose a more definitive ban on this user, their associated IPs and/or device bans (if possible) to ensure this sock can't simply return minutes after being banned?

Thank you Jkaharper (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the latest two, but this time without tags. Having looked a little deeper, I suspect this may be Dopenguins, but I'm not sure enough of my ground to tag them all as such.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The more I review their edits, the more convinced I am this is Dopenguins. Favonian, you are familiar with Dopenguins; what do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

All four of those are clearly the same person. They're on proxies (which I'll block) so I can't tell you much about who it might be but I also found and blocked DundeeGayCruiser. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could well be, Bbb23. I was alerted to the most recent burst of disruption because it involved the Vilma Hollingbery article, an old favorite of The Penguin. Favonian (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Also Geoffrey Chater. Favonian (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Dopenguins often used proxies.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm now convinced and have tagged all as Dopenguins. In the past, we had stopped tagging, but because of the unusual nature of all of this, I think tagging is helpful. Also, if this had been filed at SPI, glocks would have been requested. I don't see any evidence of cross-wiki abuse with these particular accounts, but ....--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Harassment

Could someone please ask Lubiesque to stop harassing me? After leaving an unwelcome comment on my talk page that I deleted, while telling them that they are not welcome on my TP, they still left another with a Calm down M Bitton (the comment speaks for itself).

I'm not exactly sure of the intent behind this, but I'm certain that it is related to the last ANI report. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made such a request. IMO we can close this now. If Lubiesque posts on your talk page again without a very very very good reason (e.g. ANI notice), come back here and ask for them to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The reply isn't particularly charming, if I'm honest. Daniel (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but ultimately the community isn't generally supportive of blocks just because of rude responses to requests, unless they either persistent enough or cross some other line like NPA; so the main question is still whether they respect the request or keep bothering M. Bitton. I mean even an editor directly saying they're still going to do something they shouldn't be isn't always enough for a block until they actually continue. I planned to say something like "I'm just one of your fellow editors but that shouldn't matter anymore than it matters to me who you or anyone else I encounter is. The key thing is you should respect our guidelines and practices going forward." However the response by Novem Lingua seems sufficient so better just leave it at that. Especially since I can understand Lubiesque might not be happy about me calling their reply crap. I should have just said stuff since the the rest of the message was enough to convey their message on M Bitton's talk page was unnecessary and unhelpful regardless of any request to stay off. Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

IP address threatening blocks

IP address Special:Contribs/102.88.37.75 is leaving comments threatening to block users unless they pay money. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's just that page, then that's *likely just Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124 using proxies. I guess the page could be protected. Or deleted, wasn't it created by a proxy? – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)*edited: 22:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me step back a bit on what I said above and expand more:

1. This appears to be an extortion scam, there was another thread in the archived SPI about one such instance Special:Permalink/1217429341#Reporting editors asking for money.
2. On the draft you linked in question, an account that edited the article later posted the same extortion message Special:Diff/1217105085 and was blocked as a suspected sock of the SPI I linked.
3. All IPs who have contributed to the page so far have been proxy, including the one who created the article and another who also posted the extortion message, with the exception of the one you linked (which is in the same range as one of the other blocked proxies).

Maybe it is of interest to discuss the scam situation, that's what I'm stepping back on from my original message.

*edit: I misread the IP edits actually, only the one you reported did the extortion, besides the account that was blocked as a suspected sock of the SPI, and that's the only one with no history of being blocked as a p2p proxy. – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)*edited: 22:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one else commented here - though I did make my first comment in the same "not much to do" vein because the comments in question were already ~6 days old and I still think the IP is likely a proxy. At any rate, if no one else thinks it's urgent or worth commenting as it is, I still want to know at least, @Funnyfarmofdoom: Is this the only recent case of this sort of thing that you have come across? – 143.208.236.57 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove invalid tag as shudra

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

---

Original complaint

jus remove that why because Wikipedia is very good platform should have correct information devanga are basically from Karnataka region we are leading as kingdoms as king long time ago but you are keeping shudra sentences not fair and Community will not tolerate this Please you also ask them to remove that sentences you told you will change if get sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishsk2022 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Hello please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra see and change it https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishsk2022 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Firstly, this is a content dispute and I don't see a urgent incident or chronic ... behaviour problem for ANI. Secondly, maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how if a source doesn't mention something that means it's false? I would advise you read WP:RS again and find a proper source. If you cannot, maybe just drop the metaphorical stick and focus on another part of the wiki. On a side note, competence is required and I would advise you write in coherent English when communicating as some of your sentences seem to run on for a whole paragraph and don't make grammatical sense, hampering communication. Please also don't spam every noticeboard and talk page as this won't get your edit accepted faster (quite the opposite actually). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Remove that sentences contains shudra that's it please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This is definitely a refusal to "get the point" now. I would support an indef block. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Please remove shudra sentences Harishsk2022 (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC) actually no purpose of adding that sentences that sentences removal only Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Harishsk2022 and Devanga

Hi. I already added {{admin help}} to my talk page, but the issue continued, so I came here. In short, Harishsk2022 has been spamming messages about removing content from Devanga on the article's talk page and my talk page. I've told them to stop multiple times, and asked about the situation at the Teahouse (WP:TH#User talk page restriction?). The user then added the following text:

Hello
please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra
see and change it
https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf

to every page related to the subject, including the Teahouse and here. Could an administrator please look into this issue quickly? Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Support indef block per above thread. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for one week for disruptive editing, and have explained the reason their behaviour needs to change with an explanatory message on their talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you so much! One week is short, but let's hope they learn. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:31, 14 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.

Apologies, but I get the feeling that there needs to be an WP:ARBIPA warning for him. I get the feeling they will continue to push aggressively for this edit once their block expires, and the last thing the topic area needs is yet another caste/ethnic warrior. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 02:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"Ghost train" IP again

Fresh off serving a block for a bit more than a month, the Ghost Train IP (first ANI thread) has returned with the same activities as before, on the same range. Can we hit Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:9800:D00:9143:7563:8EF8:15F/64 with a block again, for longer this time? They've also created a nonsense draft at Talk:Timothy the Ghost Engine which should be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Canterbury Tail for actioning this. No further need for admin attention. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to come back here and post, I got "squirrel!!!!" Canterbury Tail talk 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We're rolling on the rails of this sock train... I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick

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.

---

Substituted template to prevent another auto-archiving for 30 days. NicolausPrime (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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: [14] "I won't be participating too actively in any further discussion." and [15] "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.[16] 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[17] over many years[18], 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 [19] 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. [20] 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: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25].

"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. [26]. 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 [27] [28] 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 ([29] and [30]) 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: [31] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [32] (continuing to double down) and [33] (no one asked any question here either) and [34] (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 [35] (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.[36] 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)
• Request closure: this proposal has gotten a significant number of !votes, and no new !votes seem forthcoming. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Vexatious pursuit of a topic ban

This was archived without action but a group of editors decided to restore it even though there are no urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This is by the way the second time they've done that but this time adding a template to prevent archiving for 30 days. That is pretty clear evidence of the sort of concern that @Elemimele: expressed that this looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the "wrong" opinion and very much evidence they are unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK (ironically). Especially as even his detractors note the BLP thread resulted in some constructive changes. Any closer needs to be aware of the vexatious way a topic ban has been pursued. WCM_email 12:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

PS to be clear, by vexatious I am not referring to everyone who commented but only those who aren't dropping the stick. WCM_email 14:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) It's been unarchived because there is a clear consensus for a topic ban, and has been for a while now. The only vexatious behaviour I see is on your part. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Another uninvolved non-admin comment I was actually reading the thread linked by Wee Curry Monster because I was at that user talk page for another reason and, rather than being a meeting of a shadowy cabal it was a user seeking guidance about whether un-archiving would be too much of a violation of AN/I norms and showing due caution before seeking closure of an AN/I thread involving behaviour they were concerned of. Reviewing the thread above I would concur with Lavalizard101 that there is a clear consensus for a topic ban. Suggest an admin just close this out properly before it becomes another waste of time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 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, [37],[38]. 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)

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 evasion

Goodfacts666 has made just a little more than 200 edits but it is difficult for me to go through all of those to find something pointing to sock-puppetry.

A new user cannot do this, this or this.

I can't report someone for sock-puppetry based on a hunch. I will need concrete proof, that is similar diffs, editing areas, shared by thar ID and others, so I am reporting here.

In her very first edit she added a {{cn}} tag; a newbie would not know about that.-

In her second edit she added an image - a newcomer would not be able to do that.

in her seventh edit she uses another sophisticated tool. This is another edit's diff where she uses the CS1 tool.

In this edit she has commented out some text instead of adding a {{cn}} template.

In one of her first few edits, she uses WP:Hotcat which isn't something a new user would know about - see this, this and this

Also, this is a diff of her ability to auto-collapse sections in the Template:Sikh_Empire template which certainly a new user cannot do.

This and this are other diffs of her collapsing text.

In this diff, she has added an, "Unreferenced" tag which new users would not even know about.

In this diff she tells another user that pinkvilla is not a reliable source as per WP:RS which I think a new user would not be aware of.-Haani40 (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, the text, "The Sword of Tipu Sultan - a web series on Tipu Sultan" was added by User:Indianjewme - see this diff and User:Goodfacts666 edits the same - see this and his sock User:Nenetarun mentions personal attack just like User:Goodfacts666 - see this diff for use by the former and this for use by the latter and User:Nenetarun used WP:Hotcat - see this diff and this much like User:Goodfacts666 (see the examples above of her/him using Hotcat).-Haani40 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It is quite possible that this user was editing as an IP for a long time before registering the account, or that she did as I did (I know it sounds very old-fashioned) and actually read the intructions before making her first edit. Do you have any evidence of disruption? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That is difficult to believe but I will leave it for the administrators to decide what to do.-Haani40 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You've been editing for less than a month and seem equally well informed. Whose sock are you? 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You are Goodfacts666, aren't you. 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what's difficult to believe about it. I know that I'm a little weird, in that I check before doing things whereas most people just carry on regardless, but I don't think that I'm anywhere close to unique. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Goodfacts666 is being accused of sock. Please, verify it. Zzuuzz 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Haani40 you have only been a user for 24 days. why should we not assume the same for you?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 11:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have registered my account more than a month ago and have more than 600 edits, besides making some edits as an IP before that (and reading Wikipedia articles for a long time now, before that). To the Korean IP, why would I complain against myself? -Haani40 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

{{{1}}}

Goodfacts666 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Please defend yourself!-Haani40 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

So, "it's difficult to believe" your target could have done exactly the same thing you did? Either you're a troll or a galloping hypocrite. In any case, Not Hereapplies. 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

{{{1}}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfacts666 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

AuguMaugu is asking the IP the question, not me. Neither of those messages on my Talk page were warnings, the first was about a link by Kautilya3 to a complaint at AE about another user and the other was just a message to, "cool down" because Joshua_Jonathan thought I was upset (but I was not).-Haani40 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It was directed towards you, Haani40. I accidentally tagged the IP user. I edited my previous comment to reflect this.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The sock has been blocked, so bury the hatchet.-Haani40 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

===

sock puppetry of User:Haani40

===

Hello,

Can anyone please run a sockpuppet checkuser tool for User:Haani40 ? Goodfacts666 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have also seen this guy, adding controversial statements in biography of person and removing various sources like adding Hinduism terrorism in someone's biography. I also think he's a sock of someone. Tag admin. 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Can any admin please run check user for User:Haani40 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfacts666 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Checkuser is not for fishing. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

#1 : 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 has been undoing most of my edits exactly like User:Haani40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfacts666 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You're adding controversial statements in many persons biography and misusing features of HotCat to add Hinduism terrorism in biography of a person as well. 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

To the admins, the IP is talking of Goodfacts666.-Haani40 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

to the admins: IP 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 is the same user User:Haani40. Releant check lke geolocator/checkuser will clear it out

Goodfacts666 (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, here is your fault for vandalising several articles. Even after many warnings from other editors, you're still vandalising the articles. Don't accuse anyone without proof. 1.187.216.30 (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the IP's first edit in ten years. Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an IP. They get re-assigned. On mobile networks in India, they get re-assigned most often. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't even know him. Can you explain why are you adding Hinduism terrorism in famous freedom fighters personalities? You're also deleting citations and vandalising many articles without taking concensus. 2402:8100:2728:14DF:2C0E:52D3:44:DBAF (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Any update @Haani40? Who's sock is this guy @Goodfacts666 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8C07:EB51:B855:57D7 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No idea since the articles edited by her are not the same as others but the reason I reported it here is because the administrators should know that this user with just a little over 200 edits is making edits like an experienced editor. To sanction her is up to them.-Haani40 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've submitted a sock puppet check for all the above parties. This is enough. Grow up, please. Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

And that doesn't look suspicious after merely 10 edits ;) Look, if anyone's going to complain or summon a checkuser, add substance and credible references. Otherwise, resolve your disputes. Less fish, less flailing and gesticulating, more substance. Or not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ohio RizzleRizzler 1: your so called sock puppet check was reverted.-Haani40 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yawn. Good for you. I guess you won... something. You might want to look up WP:HOUND and WP:STICK, though.

Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The user @Haani40 gets personal, uses harsh words, has many warnings on his talkpage...for a particular reason! Goodfacts666 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Main complaint

The main complaint here appears to be adding the "Hindu Terrorism" category to Babu Bajrangi. I'm pretty sure anyone reading that article would agree that the category is not misplaced. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's the IP's complaint; please look at the diffs at the top of this section about Goodfacts666 here and comment (that's the original complaint).-Haani40 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the substance of that complaint is fully addressed in WP:NOTFISHING. It looks to me like all of this could be solved by both account users agreeing to keep off each other's talk pages. ---- D'n'B-t -- 16:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Naah, he added that category in many articles. Also, She/he is now banned. 2402:8100:384E:3694:1505:7A5E:857D:D6D0 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

User:YHWHTruthKeeper

Discussion doesn’t appear to be productive, [39] and if I take action at this point it will just confirm whatever they imagine is going on concerning the Michigan Militia. Since I once reverted, I bring it up here. Acroterion (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment} The username suggests a possible agenda which might be at odds with Wikipedia's goals. Narky Blert (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that it's possible to edit well, but I've never seen anyone with "truth" in their name who is not a POV-pusher. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

And Yahweh Truthkeeper in particular does suggest an agenda. I've made a suggestion that they adjust their approach, but their first nine edits don't make them look very promising as a positive contributor. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

We're also borderline on legal threats [40]. Anyhow who cares if a crank feels their conspiracy theories are confirmed? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Support indef: Seems like a CIR problem, I think this editor should be blocked for NOTHERE. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I share Narky Blert's username-based premonition, and their edits could well be motivated by whitewashing of certain far right agendas, but I don't think they have yet reached the point of being block-worthy. They're interacting on their user talk, for one thing, rather than continuing to edit-war in article space; that's a good development. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, let's see what they do next. What I was doing clearly wasn't working, but they weren't in block territory yet as far as I was concerned. Their going directly to 11 on the denunciations isn't a good look, but I have a thick skin, and maybe somebody will do better. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we got an answer [41] Acroterion (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you think what really pissed him off is that it was a woman telling him what to do? Valereee (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think anything anybody could say would have gotten through, but we tried. Acroterion (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Lotta anger, wherever it's aimed. Oh, well. Like you say, we tried. Valereee (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Telling me a citation needs to be cited and that quoting SCOTUS opinion (that justifies the removal of a word that appears to be opinion or a typo) isn’t a good look for an “encyclopedia” editor, either. YHWHTruthKeeper (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef WP:NOTHERE - when a brand new account comes in and starts swinging wildly best thing to do is stem it off before they become a massive time sink. Simonm223 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

AliM7mdd

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:AliM7mdd is already listed at WP:AIV for dozens of AFD template removals, but has now resorted to a malicious page move of User:Fanfanboy to main space: User:Fanfanboy has been correctly reverting the removals of AFD templates. Could an admin please intervene? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Some convincing assurances will be needed for reinstatement of editing privileges. El_C 12:53, 16 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:Dismitha

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

---

Has a bias towards actor Vijay, and even purposefully alters content against what sources say, like this and this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, stuff like this is just vandalism. They've been warned enough times and have never communicated, so I've blocked them indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 16 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:Vaguceba

All edits from this user have been translations from the Spanish wikipedia to the English wikipedia to pages about Mexican television series. These pages don't seem to need these translations and the user ends up leaving the pages with poor translations, removal of references, and additions of red links that they will most likely not create pages for. The user might not understand English and may be related to blocked IP 2806:2F0:55C1:D6BD:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) who was making the same edits to the same exact pages.Telenovelafan215 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

There are several points that I would disagree with:

1. Any page about a notable subject can be translated. Nothing "needs" translation.
2. Poor translations on notable subjects should be improved, not complained about.
3. There is no requirement for the creator of a red link to personally create the article pointed to. This is a collaborative project.

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Without going into the merits, translations from other language Wikipedias must always be attributed. See WP:TFOLWP. Narky Blert (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 and WP:CIVIL

The IP in question added a paragraph to Spirulina (dietary supplement) that conflicted with WP:MEDRS, and Julius Senegal reverted it [42]. This started a conversation on User talk:Julius Senegal#Why did you remove my edit of the spirulina page?. Julius Senegal responded with an answer that conflicted with what the IP was saying, and the IP said Now give me an honest answer.. Also, this seems to be a WP:CIR issue since the IP said The "doubtful[ness]" of the journal is not relevant.. Then they went to say PS. Are ***you*** a doctor? Then, at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Deleted for not fitting the narrative., the IP started making personal attacks, eg. Editor Julius Senegal removed the edit, and when I asked him why he gave a bullshit answer. His honest answer would be that he's a shill for Big Pharma. What can I do? And why is Wikipedia becoming anti-science?, Again, his answer was bullshit. You are all showing that the once great Wikipedia has been ruined and is no longer a reliable source of information., and accused Julius of being racist. Is a block in order? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Support Block for reasons above. The IP also made this personal attacks during the incident: "Again, you can't be honest, or you would reply that you're not a doctor, you've never heard of these doctors, and you don't possess the skills, educations or intelligence to judge the study. Thank you for helping turn Wikipedia from being a great source of knowledge into a steaming pile of useless shit. 2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)" I'm all for a block. anyone else? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:IPBLENGTH, IPs should almost never be blocked indefinitely. Even IPs used by blatant vandals are expected to only be blocked for a long time if the IP or range has been used by vandals for a long time. – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)*edit: No longer relevant. – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not really that used to policies, I still have a lot to read :P thanks IP! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP editor for one week for personal attacks, harassment and disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeated removal of sourced content

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.

---

Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing sourced content backed by reliable sources from the Aksai Chin article. See this, this, this, this and this diff. Kautilya3 has told them that, "their reverts are improper and merely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT" on the talk page of the article here but they continue to remove the sourced content.-Haani40 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this already being discussed at WP:AE? DanCherek (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That is about the behaviour of Abhishek0831996 but here I expect an admin to warn them not to remove sourced content (besides, nobody has bothered to take action at WP:AE despite so many days having passed after the complaint being filed).-Haani40 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

For your information, for "China occupied", there are dozens of sources.-Haani40 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This point has been discussed on the Talk page of the article here but neither of them is willing to accept that we have used reliable sources and so, they are repeatedly reverting that edit.-Haani40 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Without going into this particular case I must point out that there is in principle nothing wrong with removing sourced content. Merely having a reliable source doesn't necessarily make content suitable for an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to be a summary of what reliable sources say about a topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

To add another point, I don't see why this is not still just a content dispute, one that was apparently intending to go to WP:DRN. In fact, minutes before this thread was started, @Haani40, you edited the page(once more adding the disputed content...) with the edit summary "I will seek dispute resolution over this".

So what happened? – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I went and read the other disputes there and it seemed that they were being told to come here (ANI).-Haani40 (talk) 21:22, 16 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:Celia Homeford and WP:CIVIL

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

---

The user had threatened to block my account over a minor issue (one over-linked profile) on the Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia article, which I wanted to keep—but instead of being civil, the user started harassing me on my talk page. This prevented the user from creating an environment that was conducive to encyclopaedia, instead using the space to display their "authority" and blatant abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wentwort12 (talk • contribs) 12:00 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• What I can see is you edit-warring to keep in a bad wikilink that violates MoS. I would suggest you withdraw this complaint lest you pull a WP:BOOMERANG.Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

it didn't violate MoS, as I understand it that 'Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Common sense applies; do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there' MOS:REPEATLINK I definitely think the re-link is contextually important since it's a list of her residences at that moment in time and it certainly didn't warrant such aggressive reply from this user Wentwort12 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I already accepted this "overlinked situation" but I don't think this user's aggressive behavior should be maintained, treating other editors with no civility over edits about linking and threaten to block their account over one overlinked is definitely not a conducive behavior Wentwort12 (talk) 12:33, 17 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.

Unusual message - request for emergency assistance?

Not sure where to report this. Someone posted a very strange message on a talk page and may be in need of assistance. [43]. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:EMERGENCY explains how to handle this sort of thing, and who to email regarding concerns like this. I did revdel the edit, as that was a phone number it appears. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Виктор Не Вацко

I am unsure, but I assume the user is banned on the Ukrainian part of the website. However, at AfD is European Football Coach of the Season and European Football Coach of the Year, both have been pointed out to be fabricated hoax articles that require WP:G3 along with the template Template:European Coach of the Year which I just tagged G3, although the user hasn't edited in a while, would it be prudent to global ban the account to stop any future business? As it seems the user does return to doing these editing every so often. Not to mention it seems there maybe a bit of work to cleanup some of the mess created by this user. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just say or ask 2 things:

1 - The procedure for sanctioning people with global bans is documented on MetaWiki at meta:Global bans. We (the English Wikipedia community) do not have the authority to sanction people with such bans.

2 - Let's see if I'm understanding it right, both of these articles have been nominated for deletion as hoax, by the same user, because on the Ukrainian Wikipedia these articles were created by the same user (who is blocked there) and were identified as hoax. Did I get that right? If so then I will note that the account that was blocked on the other Wiki for creating many hoax articles is not the same account as the one you are reporting here (the account you are reporting also does not appear to be blocked on the Ukrainian Wikipedia). – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Govvy, I am not sure that the User:Виктор Не Вацко is the hoaxer User:Volodymyr VB. Most likely, this user himself was misled by Banyas’ articles. --Mitte27 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mitte27: If a user creates fake articles that's a problem that needs to be dealt with, being misled is not really good enough. Also it could easily be the same person for all we know. We still have issues to deal with. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Govvy, unfortunately, many of these hoaxes in Ukrainian Wikipedia have existed for more than 10 years. They were posted on behalf of a journalist associated with a football publication. So it was quite easy to believe in them. --Mitte27 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Further, both accounts appear to not just have interacted with each other, but also had conversations with each other (the first 2 pages are their talk pages) on the Ukrainian Wikipedia: editor interaction

edit: Though I'll disclaim that I haven't read those conversations more than using Google Translate on one. – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Govvy, as far as this noticeboard goes there is an enormous difference between deliberately perpetrating hoaxes and being misled. The former is a behavioral issue that belongs here and can be dealt with by blocks or bans, but the latter is a content problem which can be dealt with by normal editing, including AfD discussion or tagging for speedy deletion. And for all anyone else knows you and I could be the same person. You need more evidence than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: That's not what I am looking for, the first thing is to G3 delete the articles pointed out, and the next was to block the user from possibly doing anymore dysfunctional editing. That was all. Adding hoaxes to wikipedia regardless of method is still punishable. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You want an editor punished for believing a hoax? NebY (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

MLKLewis, edit warring in a Landmark-related article

MLKLewis (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting the same content over and over (again) against consensus. Can they please be blocked from all Landmark-related articles, broadly construed?

1 2 3

For literally decades the Landmark sock- and meatpuppets have been trying to influence Wikipedia articles about Landmark and related topics. There was an arbcom case and a bunch of them got banned but that did little to stop their activity. Another will pop up in a couple of days or weeks but at least that is a couple of days or weeks of peace.

Polygnotus (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that is probably the best move. I never realised it went on that far back and or there was an arbcom case. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the abuse is blatant enough to warrant an indef block: such edit warring, including the inflation of source material and the writing of tendentious, promotional text, goes against the very spirit of what we do here, no matter how hard the editor works on Maggie L. Walker. A topic ban is the least we can do. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking this afternoon about why the editor is edit warring like mad, to get that block in. I suspect there is some kind of relationship there that I can't fathom and no communication until the ANI notice. scope_creep^Talk 13:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus I tweaked the heading a bit hoping to draw other editors into the thread. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: If the goal is to draw in more editors I can ping some people who had problems with the Landmarkians (or whatever they're called) but I assumed that would be considered canvassing. Uninvolved people usually don't want to dig through 20 years worth of archives to understand the scale of the problem. Polygnotus (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, yeah, that's canvassing, but a neutral note on AN would be OK. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This confrontation was instigated by Polygnotus and Scope creep by removing material from the Werner Erhard article that was factual and reliably sourced. diff There was no discussion on the talk page. The edit summary said "mostly promotional". In my adding back the material I requested reasons for calling the material promotional, as I do not see it as promotional to state factual material from the past. And on my talk page I offered to discuss the specificity of the edits so as to work together to address concerns. User Polygnotus also made edits that I did not agree with and they were not willing to assume good faith or discuss things rationally on the talk page of the article. Instead of discussing the edits Polygnotus used ad hominem attacks and incomprehensible logic, and was not willing to engage in any kind of reasonable discussion. MLKLewis (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@MLKLewis: Since you made the accusation of "ad hominem attacks", I would love to see some diffs. Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@MLKLewis: IIRC I was working on making improvements to the article and then you reverted all the improvements and I tried to explain that we have no creative freedom when using sources.

What is your relation to Werner Erhard, Landmark, and related entities? Please disclose your conflict of interest. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@MLKLewis: When will you recover from your ANI flu? Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I have read what has been written and published in reliable sources about Erhard and his work and have contributed that to the Erhard article.  What I find disturbing in recent edits by Polygnotus and Scopecreep is that the result of their editing is that all material regarding Erhard’s later work has been eliminated from the article entirely (despite there having been many reliable sources used to validate the facts of his work).   This itself reveals a bias against the subject on their part that I felt it necessary to counter. The information removed from the article was sourced by reliable publications.  The argument given in these wholesale removals of content was that it was promotional. When I requested comments as to why it was seen as promotional I got no response and was then accused here of edit warring.  Earlier interactions with Polygnotus on the talk page of the article were disrespectful and lacking in civil discussion.  It didn’t seem to matter what I said, I was met with attitude, uncooperativeness and condescending insults designed to make me go away (as opposed to constructive discussion aimed toward consensus which I thought was a fundamental principal in Wikipedia).  MLKLewis (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 

Are you saying I shouldn't have assumed good faith? Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@MLKLewis: You accused me of "ad hominem attacks"; I asked for diffs. You haven't provided any. Such behaviour is frowned upon. I will ask again: where are the diffs of me using "ad hominem attacks" against you? Polygnotus (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What is your relation to Werner Erhard, Landmark, and related entities? Please disclose your conflict of interest. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary needing redaction

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 someone remove the edit summary of this diff [44]? I don't think it's appropriate to refer to the subject of a BLP as "Adolf Hitler". I can't notify the editor who left the edit summary because their talk page is protected. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. I intended to say something along the lines of "this is like if Hitler's opinion was used on Germany-related topics" (and thus is undue), but it came out all wrong. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 15 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.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gsthae with tempo!

Could a willing CheckUser please swing by this page to run a check; it appears the master is continuing to create sleepers and it has gone unactioned since April 5. Additional vandalism cleanup likely needed. Home Lander (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Wname1

This user keeps adding copyrighted material (and non-WP:MEDRS compliant content) to medical articles concerning brain tumors. CopyVios of [45]:

At anaplastic oligodendroglioma: 2024-04, 2024-02, 2024-01

At brain tumor: 2024-02, 2024-01, 2023-12, 2023-11

At glioblastoma: 2024-02

Previous attempts to communicate the issue to Wname1: 2024-02, 2024-01, 2024-01, 2023-12, 2023-12

The same behaviour is seen across many other projects and their talk page contains mentions several other copyright violations. User:grim, User:Doc James, User:DanCherek, others and myself have tried to communicate the problem to Wname1 to no avial. --MaligneRange (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

User:MaligneRange MaligneRange doesn't like the Anaplastic Oligodendroglioma page I started. <ref>med.stanford.edu/neurosurgery/patient_care/radiosurgery.html "Radiosurgery/Cyberknife". Stanford School of Medicine. Archived from the original on 2007-09-03. Retrieved 2019-02-08. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)</ ref> I built and for MaligneRange this is wrong. What else is Cyberknife for? Yes, it helps with Anaplastic Oligodendroglioma.

Symptoms of anaplastic oligodendroglioma may include:

• Seizure
• Headache
• Weakness on one side of the body
• Language difficulties
• Behavior and personality changes
• Balance and movement problems
• Memory problems.

I have written.

Prognosis

5–Year relative survival rate: Ages 20–44, 76%. Age 45-54, 67%. Age 55–64, 45%.[7][8] Procarbazine, lomustine and vincristine have been used since May 1975. For 48 years, new therapeutic options have been regularly tested as part of therapeutic studies to improve the treatment of anaplastic oligodendroglioma.[9]

I have written

I started the treatment

I took the pictures and video.

I started pathogenesis

I started diagnosis.

I gave the start

Wname1 (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I also wrote this article and it is accepted: "Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg". Wname1 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I also wrote this article and it is accepted: "Danish withdrawal from the European Union". Wname1 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

None of what you said relates to the copyright violations that I brought up. I wasn't even aware of you being the creator of the article - but I'm not surprised to find the originial version to be mostly a direct translation of this page by the Swiss Brain Tumor Foundation with some slight rearrangement of sentences, another copyvio. MaligneRange (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Please use the "reply" button to reply to comments, or thread them properly in the future. I'm a bit confused by this response, you just say MaligneRange doesn't like the Anaplastic Oligodendroglioma page I started. Can you address the claims of copyright violations and sourcing? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg largely reads as an unattributed poor-quality (machine?) translation of the German article de:Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg. NebY (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That article used to be even worse:[46] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this same editor wrote the German Wikipedia article, so at least ours is not a copyright violation of theirs, but it seems to have other problems. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Much of the German article was already written in hundreds of edits by many registered and IP editors beginning in 2006, before Wname1 contributed to it in 2021 and translated it here; here's the last version before then. NebY (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I was only looking at the last 50 edits to the German article rather than the 1000 that I have displayed on English Wikipedia and lazily thought that I was looking at all of the history. In the light of this it looks as if Wname1's magnum opus (why am I speaking so much Latin today?) is indeed a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and that they present it above as "I also wrote this article" says they truly don't understand copyright or how serious a matter it is on Wikipedia. Nor does their chaotic response above address the blatant copying from outside Wikipedia by which they created Anaplastic oligodendroglioma (probably by machine translation - we see their difficulties in writing English above and on talk pages). NebY (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again. MaligneRange (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

They have already been notified on their talk page of reversion of this edit.

Wname1, consider this your final warning. Even if you are the author of the source material that is copied or closely paraphrased on Wikipedia, it still constitutes copyright infringement if the source material is not released under a free license (i.e., CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) or into the public domain. Copyright infringement is a serious matter with legal implications, as you have been informed about multiple times on your talk page and in this thread. Please refrain from reintroducing such material to Wikipedia articles, or a block will be necessary to protect the integrity of the pages you edit. ^Complex/_Rational 13:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Narek48thunderchicken26 is WP:NOTHERE

Narek48thunderchicken26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has openly admitted to being a vandal and has made threats against editors who are trying to correct them. Already reported in AIV but there has not been a response, during which they appear to be gaming the system for the sake of getting auto-confirmed. Need urgent action as AIV has not responded for hours on this despite follow-ups. Borgenland (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The user @Narek48thunderchicken26 clearly said “if you block me l will just make another acount and keep vandalising” clearly Nothere to build a Wikipedia, but to vandalise it. Grabup (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked; no sleepers immediately visible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I almost checked yesterday, since these little edits to get autoconfirmed are so typical of sockfarms, but in this case it was just extraordinary incompetence. BTW I strongly recommend The Land of Green Plums. Borgenland, that's a sad note about AIV. Thanks for escalating. Drmies (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(Hey, I came here from AIV. ) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Unbiased6969

Since this thread from last year, [47], Unbiased6969 is still producing aspersions and personal attacks in nearly every edit they make. Here's the diff list since February

• This is what I meant when I said its hard for some to remove their bias. [48]
• I suggest reaching a consensus before making edits. I don't think sources are the issue regarding this matter. [49]
• Okay, since you edited your comment after my previous on, here it goes. [50]
• A misinformed editor, at one point, added their own opinions into the article, not accurately depicting a study's author, but then citing the study as if the author made that statement. [51]
• Consensus shouldn't need to be sought for noncontroversial, widely known facts. It is those that wish to dispute known facts to bring new evidence to be scrutinized to challenge if they disagree with the facts. A good-faith editor would not say "demonstrate consensus" to someone trying to correct to say "the earth is sphere" for the earth's wiki. [52]
• Agreed, a good-faithed editor can clearly read the source and see that the source is referring to the APBT. Now, why would the wiki article state "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting" if the source clearly states that the APBT was? [53]
• Pit bull breed, could be used to describe the ABPT, but often times, its just used by ignorant people to the topic who think that pit bull are actually one breed [54]
• Oh, I cant make simple edits correcting demonstratably false information without gaining concensus first apparently. [55]
• Oh, you would think that a topic about a breed would be uncontroversial, but unfortunately for those with an bias and are unable to remove themselves from it when making editing decisions, any information that goes against that is controversial, even if it's the mainstream viewpoint. This page has semi-protection for that very reason, because a lot of people rather use this page to push their agenda than to work towards wikipedia's goal of presenting the mainstream viewpoint of academia and reputable organizations on the topic. [56]

Geogene (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

As for the facts Unbiased6969 is trying to assert here, according to sources pit bulls were bred to fight, not just the American Pit Bull Terrier. The pit bull is unique in many ways. Historically, the breed was derived from the "butcher's dog" developed for the blood sport of bull-baiting in England. The dogs were intentionally bred to be stronger than other dogs and to engage in dangerous behaviors that would favor their winning in the ring by fighting a bull to the death. When this sport was banned in England in approximately 1835, the owners took their dogs to the coal mining communities of Staffordshire County. There, the dogs were placed into coal pits to fight one another, and the breed was manipulated to be quicker and more agile. This breeding eventually resulted in the smaller, tenacious terriers now known as the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The name "pit bull" is associated with dogs displaying these phenotypes. [57]. Unbiased6969 is pettifogging about whether one particular source said "pit bulls" or "American Pit Bull Terriers" were bred to fight, and using it as an excuse to insult me on the talk page. Geogene (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The last thing I will say, is this user clearly has an issue with me that can be demonstrated through their actions. I made an edit[58] to present a NPOV on an reference to an old study of the CDC's, that the CDC has discredited after they published it. This user then reverted[59] my edits, citing WP:UNDUE. I the reverted[60] their edit and cited that If the article is going to cite CDC data, its relevant to also state that the very data that was cited was viewed by the CDC to be unreliable to make determinations. Undid for WP:UNDUE I was then mistakenly banned and this user reverted [61] my edits again stating "Revert sock. If other editors in good standing like the content enough to revert me, that's okay too.". I then got unbanned and reverted[62] stating I was in good-standing and like the edits.

If the edits were good for any other editor, then why were they not good for me to make? Unless, this user has a personal issue with me that interferes with their editing judgement. My edits should not have been reverted after I explained them, or they should have never been okay regardless of the editor. To make it about me, shows this user engages in disruptive editing.

That is all. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing very little here that would qualify as personal attacks. Mostly it's just snark and frustration at what appears to be WP:STONEWALL behavior by others. Frankly, I can understand that frustration. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If Unbiased6969 wanted to present a coherent proposal with sources, they have already had years to do that. Calling your opponents "ignorant," and calling them "biased" repeatedly has, unsurprisingly, not had much effect on the article. Geogene (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an article that has been targeted by individuals with ideological agendas for years. I'm not going to get dragged into the editing dispute, but the links given above do not show personal attacks that require sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

And I consider Unbiased6969 to be one of those individuals. Does that mean that behavioral guidelines should operate differently there? Geogene (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You might want to dial back the rhetoric yourself. I disagreed that these rise to the level of personal attacks, that does not mean guidelines are "operat[ing] differently". And you can't really claim Unbiased6969 is making a personal attack in calling people "biased" then turn around and identify them as having a biased agenda without making you look like a hypocrite. I'm done with this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

While it's hard not to look sideways at a single-purpose account named "unbiased" (next you'll tell me User:TotallyNotASockPuppet might be a duplicate account), those quotes just aren't so problematic. I will say, however, that there are enough WP:SPAs, enough battleground behavior, and enough POV-pushing in the pit bulls topic area that I think it's a good candidate for WP:CTOP. It's been going on for years and sprawls to many pages, some of which don't seem to get any attention other than by advocates one way or the other. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see Tamzin and Abecedare floated such an idea in the last ANI thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

People seem to get hung up by the username. Its unbiased6969, which the following letters I would have hoped made it evident of the lack of seriousness and sarcasm. No one is unbiased, but people can work to limit how their bias affect their actions. I would hope that someone would look at my contributions, or attempts to since I get stonewalled all the time, to see if I am editing in a way that is NPOV.

The pit bull topic is one that needs serious moderation and has for years. I can give several examples of how its written with a POV that, if I were try to remove to create a more NPOV, would be no doubt undid. For example, why is the pit bulls dog page the only dog page with a link to the "dog bite" and "list of fatal dog attacks"? Its not on any other dog breed page, even though multiple breeds populate that list.

Its also littered with data from animals24-7.org and dogsbite.org, both which were deemed to be unreliable by the WP:RS community. However, there are users in this thread that will defend the removal of this unreliable data, and the evidence of such is located within the talk page archives.

As for a WP:CTOP, I would assume it would benefit the topic as trying to improve the page to present a NPOV that represents the mainstream academic viewpoint is not achievable for editors in its current state. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We've just seen so many accounts containing the words "unbiased", "truth", "fact," etc. who wind up being battleground POV pushers that we're a bit wary of any account with those terms. It's hard not to reflexively wonder about a user with those in their name. The 6969 helps, but I still did a double take the first time I saw your name. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The 6969 helps? Do you know what 69 means in vulgar speech Geogene (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it helps sell that they're being humorous about the "unbiased" name bit. Also, "vulgar speech?" What are we, the Vatican? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Geogene (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I can certainly respect the skepticism, especially with a history of seeing repeating patterns. However I am a sarcastic speaker and intended on it being sarcastic because many claim to be unbiased, but no one is. Some are able to see their bias and others are blind to it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I've made a couple of comments recently about users with "fact" and "truth" in their names. It looks like "unbiased" needs to be added to that list. We write based on consensus about what reliable sources say. It is a clear bias to say that sources and consensus should be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) And the Earth is not a sphere. It approximates to an oblate spheroid.

I agree. Truth69420 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You look like a sock Maestrofin (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

oops its your names that are similar im sorry Maestrofin (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been accused of being a sock puppet, among other things, and was wrongly banned in the past for it, which was reversed when a check user brought up that an investigation was already concluded on me to not be a sock puppet. I don't have enough time for 1 editor account, let alone 2. For the admins out there, good time to mention that I have moved residences, so expect a different IP this time. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you judged all my contributions based on a username. Outstanding! Can you point to one example of me writing contrary to what "reliable sources" say? I will wait. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No need to wait long. In the edits that were provided in the first statement in this thread you said that sources and consensus were not required. You even said that they were not required for the untrue statement the Earth is a sphere. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying the earth is not a sphere? I will leave this here...[63][64] Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This mini-argument about the shape of the Earth is a good example of what it's like to argue with Unbiased6969. You can tell them something, they won't understand it, and assume you're a Flat Earther (or the equivalent). In this instance, they've produced sources that they think supports their argument, but do not. And their only apparent purpose in Wikipedia is to camp on that talk page and argue with me about how "biased" I am. Geogene (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I really don't know what to make of this response. You provide a citation that the Earth is not a sphere, but seem (your language is very unclear so I may be wrong) to still be claiming that it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

First link says earth is an ellipsoid, second link says an ellipsoid is a deformed sphere. I will concede that there is a technical difference, but it also doesn't take away from the point i was trying to make, which is obvious widely known facts shouldn't even need consensus because good faith editors wouldn't dispute widely known facts. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

you said that sources and consensus were not required That is not my reading of those quotes. I see them as saying "2+2=4 should require seeking consensus to fix" and "this dispute isn't about sources". Whether the related disputes are about sources or whether the subject is as straightforward as 2+2=4 is a separate matter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

My arguement is that I have already shown both the UKC and AKC, and the Britanna encyclopedia all recognizing that pit bulls is a term used for various forms of dog breeds that result form the Bull and Terrier. The wiki article itself mentions this fact several times, but yet Geogene continues to argue for "consensus" as a way to stonewall edit to an article to better reflect the sources claim as the article does not presently do that. All those same sources state that at least one of the breeds, multiple breeds for some sources, that falls under the term "pit bull" was not bred for fighting, against your statement here[65], and despite that you reasserted here[66]. Its not controversial information and is widely recognized, so no consensus shouldn't need to be sought for something so widely recognized, unless the persons intent is to stonewall because the edits go against their bias. I'm not against consensus, I'm against it being used as an argument against improvement in bad faith. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't dispute that "pit bull" is an umbrella term for a type of dog, not a specific breed. Your seeming willingness to argue without so much as being consistent about what is being argued about is disruptive. Geogene (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are correct. You are saying that the breeds identified as "pit bull" were bred for fighting, and not originating from a preceding breed that was bred for fighting. I will update to reflect accuracy to your position. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I also cited a source at the top of this thread that says, perfectly clearly, that pit bull-type dogs are descended from fighting dogs, and exhibit dog fighting phenotypes. Therefore, pit bulls were bred for fighting. Geogene (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Break in the logic train. It ignores the 100+ years of breeding after the Bull and Terrier. Done arguing it here. Anyone can go to the talk page to see the discussion. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You're arguing with the source now, a peer reviewed paper in Annals of Surgery, one of the most reputable journals in medicine, with an impact factor of around 10. Geogene (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Which part of "ANI is not for content disputes" are you having difficulty with? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't see how arguing against basic facts expressed in reliable sources is a conduct problem? Geogene (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Everyone throwing the words "basic facts" around need to realize how biased they're being. This is a topic in serious dispute, and being pushed by people with various agendas. Declaring your facts are The Truth is not going to go well, and dragging those disputes here is going to go worse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Casting Aspersions[67] "refers to a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe". The evidence is located on the talk page and the talk page archives. I will update with links as I get time.

However, you would be correct that I should bring them to an appropriate committee rather than just make the accusations. So you got me on the procedure. However, I still have not cast any aspersions as there is plenty of evidence of Geogene's bias affecting editing decisions on this topic. I am not the only user who has issues trying to improve the article as noted in the archives.

I suggest a topic-ban for Geogene and when I get home from work I will provide links to their contributions to the talk page that show a repeatedly engaging ins disruptive practices, including defending keeping data in the page that originated from a source WP:RS has deemed to be unreliable in the past, despite being shown that fact. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Claiming Dogsbite.org is reliable[68] simply because it was cited by Times, despite the community previously determining it to be unreliable[69] as a source and being informed[70] of that.

Flip flopping on AKC importance on the topic depending on when it suits this users position[71]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Defending Merit Clifton (animals24-7.org) being cited in the article [72]

Past editor stonewalled and then a dispute filed. Seems history repeats with this editor[73].

History of being accused of personal attacks against editors they disagree with [74].

Accuses the AVMA of having a bias in an attempt to discredit [75].

Taking a break for now, but will continue to update examples of their contributions that are in bad faith. I will start getting into our past discussions, was focusing first on this user and other editors.Also, if anyone knows how to obtained archived dif, would love a refresher on my talk page. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So you're going to make unfounded accusations about things I supposedly said four years ago, but still no diffs? I'll help you out a little on the first one. What I said there was, And as for Merritt Clifton, if reliable sources treat his work as reliable, then it is reliable for most of WP's purposes. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC) That's WP:USEBYOTHERS, and it's a part of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. So you're basically accusing me of knowing the rules. Which sounds to me like WP:COMPETENCE issue. Geogene (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's another gem from Unbiased6969's list. [76] Four years ago, I said, I suspect one could easily argue that the AVMA, ASVAB, and ASPCA do have biases that Time doesn't; the ASPCA is an advocacy group. Yes, that's right, I dared to call the ASPCA an advocacy group, and Unbiased6969 thinks I should sanctioned for this. Geogene (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice red herring. The topic was the AVMA being accused of having a bias. Not the ASPCA. I will continue to dive and pull examples when I get home tonight. Others can read and make a determination whether you're contributions are in good faith, and if a topic ban is warranted. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The AVMA might have a bias. Can you prove they don't? This is normal discussion of sources, that you are weaponizing in bad faith. Geogene (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

A god may exist, can you prove one doesn't? Does that mean we should all live lives by scripture? I hope you see your argument there.

The AVMA is a respected organization that adheres to scientific princibles. Do you have any evidence that the AVMA is not reputable?

If not, do you make it a habit of casting baseless aspersions onto reputable organizations, or just ones that have opinions different than yours?

Seems to me, to be a perfect example of you allowing your bias into editing decisions on the topic of pit bulls. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's weird and spontaneous religious argument. The AVMA is a respected organization that adheres to scienfic princibles that is an opinion, but it doesn't mean that whatever the AVMA says automatically gets repeated in Wikivoice. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have examples of them publishing flawed studies to support a bias? Examples of any misdoings to misrepresent an audience?

Lastly, another red herring I fail to see how Wikivoice is anyway relatable to the topic of "acsusing AVMA of bias, at the same time defending animals24-7 and dogsbite.org. No one was arguing for them to be repeated in Wikivoice here. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey look, you seem unable to accept that sources are critiqued here, and you're personalizing it. This is more evidence that you're just disrupting that talk page, and that you need to be blocked. Geogene (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources are critiqued, but then fails to present any evidence critical of said source. I am waiting for a factual critique of the AVMA, please indulge.

I do not need to prove something doesn't exist. You need to prove something does. One cannot prove what doesn't exist. To assume someone/organization has a bias, without providing evidence of that claim is to assume bad faith in someone/something.

The fact that you assume AVMA is bias without having evidence to support, shows you have a bias against the AVMA that isn't rooting in fact. Otherwise, you would share it. Wikipedia is not a place for your opinion, its a place for facts. Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This is another problem with you: you never engage with criticism, you just go on repeating yourself over and over again. WP:IDHT I had a look through your contribution history just now, and didn't find much, other than arguing on talk pages. And you registered your account two years ago. WP:NOTHERE. Geogene (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Arguing with you, and a user that was banned from the site from engaging in disruptive editing on Wikipedia pages relating to pit bulls. There are several other users I have engaged with, but reasonable minds seem to avoid that page and when they do come by, it doesn't take much of a discussion to come to an agreement. Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That's right, as I previously noted, you are on Wikipedia almost entirely to argue with me. That's why we're here at AN/I. Geogene (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

we are here to find out if I am warranted when I accused you of not editing in good faith. Something I am glad you posted here about, as I don't know how to do all the editing required to make this move myself yet. I belive I have the evidence to prove you to be a disruptive editor when it comes to the topic of pit bulls, thus I didn't not cast aspersions without evidence. Others will decide. I have nothing against you, but you have demonstrated, in my opinion, an inability to control your biases when it comes to editing about pitbulls. Which is why I seek a topic bam and not a site ban. It's not personal, it's about pursuing wikipedia's goals. Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a "disruptive" editor? How many editors in total have you interacted here? Five? Maybe ten? Geogene (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

On the WP:COMPETENCE front, Unbiased6969 is now arguing that the AKC and UKC should be considered more reliable than peer reviewed medical research papers on dog bite injuries. [77]. Geogene (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a flat out lie on my position[78]. The diff is there for anyone wanting to view it. I was specifically talking about the history/lineage of the dog breed. Not dog bite injuries. Very weird to purposely misrepresent someone's words. It also important to note that this user seemed to have a very different opinion of AKC's authority on a topic when they decided to cite someone as being AKC affiliated to defend their position previously as outlined here[79]. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The diff [80] shows that you think that kennel clubs should take precedence over peer reviewed medical journals in sourcing. Geogene (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Twice confirms you are purposely misleading my statements to others. When the topic of breed history and lineage is at hand, a Breeding Organization is more reputable to cite than a doctor's study. The doctor's study is much more reputable to cite regarding statistics and results within a medical setting than a breeder. No one source is universally the best all around. All have their fields of study, and doctor is not studying their linage, unless its in a study of their genetic history. Add all the context please when representing my words. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, because nothing the AKC publishes goes through peer review. Inability to understand this is WP:CIR. Geogene (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Unbiased6969 just added another meritless complaint to their list, Flip flopping on AKC importance on the topic depending on when it suits this users position with this diff [81], where I pointed out that an author and academic, among other things, has some kind of affiliation with the AKC. This has absolutely nothing to do the fact that medical journals are a better source on dog bite injuries than kennel clubs, and is evidence that Unbiased6969's reading comprehension abilities are poor enough to lead into WP:CIR territory. Geogene (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

After (reluctantly) reading through this bickering, and considering how frequently this topic has been ANI fodder, I support a CTOPS designation for it. Grandpallama (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• It's not very fun going, is it? I also support a CTOP designation. Perhaps also a IBAN for the two bickerers above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me. Geogene (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Fine with an IBAN. However, I would be very disappointed if it just stopped at that someone didn't look into our contributions and determine if one, or both of us were editing in bad faith and topic ban one, or both of us. The article has been in a poor state and written with a POV for years. I have provided several examples[82] of this users contributions, but the totality is even more clear. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I would rather see Unbiased6969 blocked on the merits for WP:RGW, WP:GRIEFER, WP:NOTHERE, and/or WP:CIR, but ANI rarely produces results these days. I think an IBAN is likely to be impossible for them to abide by, resulting in their eventual block, or else is likely to ruin whatever it is that brings them to that talk page. Geogene (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  If someone goes through the archived history, I had arguments with 3 editors in the past. One of which, PartyParrot42, was banned for disruptive editing after he/she filed a ANI against me. Geogene has arguing with at least 4. He accused myself and other of being sockpuppets prompting an investigation.[83] I am not worried about my ability to ignore this user if I am required to. But significant edit I have made, I believe, has been reverted by this user, so I do question if they can avoid me. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You and that other account were blocked [84], [85] for behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry, and the block was only lifted later, when the blocking admin, Bbb23, became aware that a previous SPI had found no technical evidence. Implying that I had no good reason to file a SPI on you when Bbb23 saw behavioral grounds to block you is absurd, but typical of the kinds of arguments you're making here. Geogene (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  My point is, you have a history of filing things against people you disagree with to get their accounts sanctioned. You have something personal against me illustrated by you reverting my edits, but then saying if anyone else likes them then you are good with it as highlighted here[86]. Edits should be gauged on their quality, not the editor making them. If they are good for someone else to make, then they should have been okay for me to make as well. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think Geogene and Unbiased6969 have said several times over anything useful that they can say here. It's time they shut up and let uninvolved editors discuss things. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  After adding this users history[87] of admitting they reverted my edits, but would allow another editor to post them showing the issue wasn't the edit, but with me making them), along with the long history this user has with casting aspersions against reputable organizations like the AVMA while defending animals24-7.org and dogsbite.org that can be found above. I will do just that.

  Since I am open to a topic ban or those, including myself, I will end by proving a diff[88] from a day before this was filed. You can use it to judge whether I am trying to pursue a NPOV, or insert bias into a wiki article. Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I barely know where to start with Unbiased6969 whose username can be plausibly interpreted as "I am trolling, cunnilingus and fellatio, cunnilingus and fellatio". The name may not be an overt username violation but in 15 years of editing, I have never seen such a username go on to long term productive editing, but there is always a first time. As for the editor's statement However I am a sarcastic speaker and intended on it being sarcastic because many claim to be unbiased, but no one is, please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place for sarcasm or boundary testing. It is a place for businesslike communication among editors for the sole purpose of improving this encyclopedia. Take your sarcasm to any other website that allows it. Wikipedia does not permit any type of disruptive editing which includes sarcasm clearly intended to alienate your fellow editors. I am unbiased about the "pit bull" topic area because I have not investigated it enough to form a firm opinion, but one thing that I do not know for sure is that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes, so every pro and con comment about pit bulls is an utter waste of time, and nobody in this discussion should delve into the content dispute here any more. Unbiased6969, you are arguing that Consensus shouldn't need to be sought for noncontroversial, widely known facts, and you are applying that line of argument to content disputes about the pit bull topic area. That is completely false on Wikipedia because every substantive assertion about pit bulls that anyone can make beyond "pit bulls are dogs" is highly controversial and contested. Uncontroversial assertions on Wikipedia are of the nature of "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" or "Rome is the capital of Italy". Let me be crystal clear, Unbiased6969 of the false assertions and profane numbers: You are skating on very thin ice at this point, and any further disruptive or tendenetious editing is highly likely to result in a block. Be on alert. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to even address the username again, but will address your points. It is not against the rules and just because I enjoy sarcastic usernames does not mean I edit Wikipedia with sarcasm either. Nor am I here for a content dispute. I am accusing this user of Stonewalling and being a disruptive editor, where I have documentation of Geogene not acting in good faith, so I did not cast accusations without evidence, as WP:AGF says assume good faith, "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."

"That is completely false on Wikipedia because every substantive assertion about pit bulls that anyone can make beyond "pit bulls are dogs" is highly controversial and contested." You are wrong. They have teeth, they can bite, the breeds were also not bred FOR fighting, they were bred FROM fighting. Not everything about pit bulls is controversial either to users who are not bias, except for whether they bite because of their genetic composition or because of environmental factors. Everything else is made controversial by those with a bias unfortunately.

I am the disruptive one? Not going to address Geogene admitting[89] that anyone but me can make the edits he reverted me several times for because why? Why is your one-sided as to ignore this user stonewalling users in defense of animals24-7.org and dogbite.org[90] while also casting baseless aspersions[[91]] of bias against the AVMA in an attempt to discredit an otherwise reputable organization? If you review the archived talk pages of pit bulls, you'd see several different people attempt to get this information removed from the article with Geogene defending it each time saying "get consensus", even though at this point there is enough documented there to argue the consensus is with us trying to change that, and not this user trying to defend its sourcing. Is this the editing practice you support, editing warring those they don't like but admitting anyone else is free to make the edits, and engaging in WP:Stonewalling that if you were to review the talk page was clear for this user[92] to pick out?Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, reading through all this mess, this ANI strikes me as Geogene trying to remove an editor they're in a dispute with from an article. There's valid points to Unbiased6969's issues with certain sources being used, and the stonewalling about their removal. However, Unbiased is not really helping things by being overly-argumentative and sarcastic. That's something they'll have to correct to continue working here.

But the original complaint by Geogene was accusations of direct WP:NPA violations, which has not borne fruit. And when that failed, Geogene switched to the arguments about RGW, NOTHERE, and other aspersions. Which smacks of throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, in order to get Unbiased sanctioned over the content dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Szturnek

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

I am having a problem with Szturnek behavior on talk.

• I started a discussion about an issue on their talk page.[93].
• They decided to reply on my talk page. I repeatedly asked them to keep their replies with the discussion, they decided they to continue to reply on my page, including restoring sections I had removed and refusing to respond in the discussion (or the article talk page).[94], [95], [96], [97], [98]
• @Firefangledfeathers: asked them to stop [99]
• They then decided to selectively edit my comments. [100]
• I requested they not edit my comments.[101]
• They decided to reply (about editing my comments) on my talk page, instead of in the original discussion on their talk page, same pattern as Firefangledfeathers warned them about previously. [102]. Their reply includes the statement "I'm not breaking any rules" and "I have a different style of responding to comments in the discussion".
• They have not restored my full comment.

I thought Firefangledfeathers comment would stop the problem, but now I think this editor is being intentionally difficult, they need to understand (1) not to edit other users comments, (2) to keep discussions in the place they were startedd and not expect other editors to chase their replies to other pages.  // Timothy :: talk  21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

My behavior does not violate the regulations.

There is no point in the regulations that forces users to respond to comments, posted on their own discussion page, on their own discussion page.

I prefer to respond on the talk page of the person who comment on my page. But @TimothyBlue: has a different opinion on this - and instead of asking me to keep the discussion in one place, he tried to force me to follow his own vision of the discussion by constantly deleting my comments, and making the original discussion pointless.

My mistake was restoring my previous comments on his talk page - but when @Firefangledfeathers: pointed me that a user can delete topics in his discussion without any restrictions I stopped doing this.

When I found out about this rule, that user can deleting topis on thier own page, I decided to clean up my talk page - and accidentally deleted one sentence. I apologized for what when TimothyBlue told me about it, but I didn't actually restore it, because it was thinking he had already restored it himself in this editions (I didn't check carefully). But now I restored this sentence - so this issue is solved in my opinion. Szturnek_¿? 21:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You need a rule to compel you to respond to a comment in the location where it was made?? Schazjmd (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. XD Szturnek_¿? 22:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Then I'd say this is WP:CIR block territory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

How can you "accidentally" delete exactly one sentence in the middle of two paragraphs? This strains credulity.

Your claim that you should be able to reply to a discussion on another talk page instead of in the discussion itself makes no sense. If everyone did this it would be impossible for editors to follow a discussion and contribute meaningfully.  // Timothy :: talk  22:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

1. At first I wanted to delete everything, but then I changed my mind and by pressing crlt+z I didn't restore everything ;P

2. It's only a your opinion. I prefer my style, because when I make reply on your page, you got a notification. Szturnek_¿? 22:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Taunting others with emojis such as ";P" in obviously nonsense replies is pushing AGF to the breaking point. You might think its being clever, but it will eventually get you blocked.  // Timothy :: talk  22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, Wikipedia is a place only for serious people, and no light jokes will pass here. xD But serously - I wrote ";P" because I'm laughing from my stupid mistake, not from you.

I haven't vandalized anything, I don't offend anything, and I don't break the rules in any other way - so why should I be banned? My only crime was "modifying your statement", but I fix it and apologized for it - so I consider this matter closed.

Okay - I've had enough - I rarely edit the English Wikipedia, so I don't want to engage more in this discussion. You provoked the whole situation by being too outraged at my style - but okay, I'll end it.

Żegnaj, mam nadzieje, że nie będziemy musieli więcej razem dyskutować. Szturnek_¿? 23:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the above translates into "Goodbye, I hope we won't have to discuss it together again." The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 18:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Persistent misrepresentation by an editor

There are two major points of contentions:

1. Coco Lee's place of birth (Hong Kong, Wuhan, both, or neither) in the infobox
2. the Sing! China#Alleged mistreatment incident in terms of due coverage and placement in Coco Lee article's "Death" section

Dustfreeworld has continued to claim that there is consensus or agreement from discussion for their revisions [103] [104] [105] [106], but that is not true.

Evidence contradicting Dustfreeworld on point #1:

"She was born and died in Hong Kong" [107]

"Since we don't even know where she was born" [108]

"She was born, died and most notable in Hong Kong/China" [109]

"premature for the infobox" [110]

"no consensus yet for the infobox" [111]

"Sort it out in the body first. Then decide whether and how you will deal with it in the infobox. Remember there is no law saying that ths infobox must have PoB data." [112]

Evidence contradicting Dustfreeworld on point #2:

During the first discussion [113], there was one editor agreeing with my positions, one agreeing with theirs, and a third one recommending a shorter "Death" section with controversies under a different section. Dustfreeworld tried to stop the RfC, claiming they were misrepresented, but has not explained what their original or "true" comments were.

During the second discussion [114], there was one editor saying the section is too long and potentially unrelated. Dustfreeworld tried to change the subject to the stock market.

Over the course of our disagreements, Dustfreeworld has suggested that I lied [115], spread misinformation [116], deliberately slandered them [117], or work for Sing! China [118], all made without evidence. So I temporarily backed off from editing the article, but now they are claiming to have consensus.

This shows Dustfreeworld does not understand what consensus means or does not care and cannot impartially edit information related to Coco Lee when it comes to her origin or relationship with Sing! China. Vacosea (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) ANI is, as the top of the page says, for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I do agree that some of Dustfreeworld's comments have been uncivil. I'm not sure about the Sing! China situation, but the last discussion of the birthdate problem was in November last year, which you posted in after months of the thread's inactivity. (Both that and Sing! China discussion.) Dustfreeworld has been reverting you because you've been unilaterally reverting birth place info when only one user (aside from you) has clearly agreed with you—according to the very same links you have posted. You also brought this to ANI a few months ago, where it resolved into a bunch of bickering. Please put down the stick. (For the record, you and Dust have been moving towards slow-motion edit warring. Not saying that you are right now, but breathe in and look at the mirror.) Wuju Daisuki (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The inactivity of the discussion threads was a result of no consensus. How many editors agreed with Dustfreeworld, why don't you ask? The point is there has never been consensus because their original edits were seriously disputed in open discussion from the very beginning, so they should not mislead by claiming to have consensus or agreement from discussion.

Regarding the previous ANI, it was overseen by an admin under investigation for being a repeat offender or something like that, so they probably were not in the best position to judge ANIs. When I or other editors (see links above) dropped the stick, it only enabled Dustfreeworld to put into place their preferred version of the article. Vacosea (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Not going to make any more comments right now - it's 1 AM where I am and this baggage needs to be on someone else. (Preferably an actual admin.) With the ANI, I was mostly referring to its closure, which was by a non-admin. I think in both cases consensus was malformed, but your actions are confusing it either more. If you seek consensus now, go to the article's talk page and do just that. In my opinion you two should have gone to dispute resolution a long time ago, but I digress. I also commented on other stuff you said but I lost the draft and am not willing to rewrite it. Now on to sleep. (still not an admin) Wuju Daisuki (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The history of how much the infobox was changing [119] [120] [121] [122] also shows there was no consensus. Vacosea (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. All of them were more than four months old however. BTW, saying where a person was born is normal encyclopedic content and we don’t need sources to harp on its importance to justify its inclusion. I’ve replied on your talk page. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly they were debated from the very beginning. What is not normal is to pick only one birth place when the other has a much longer history and better sources. The infobox is not the best place to explain such conflicts.

Dustfreeworld knew they had no consensus after my revert and the RfC. (Dustfreeworld added [123], I partially reverted [124] they should know because they then reverted me, Dustfreeworld copied more paragraphs from Sing! China [125], when they knew there was an RfC by their own admission [126]). Vacosea (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think people will be interested in the 24 diffs you posted above (most of which were months ago, back in 2023).

Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to make peace with you. I’m too forgetful, and forget how good you are at misleading people with unrelated diffs, links and sources. Maybe you would like to post all the diffs at one time, like this.

It seems to me that your main purpose is not trying to improve the article. Rather, you are using aged or tangentially-related diffs in the hope that you can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs have been raised at previous ANIs that ended without the desired ban. I won’t comment on the issue of the former admin you mentioned, as I know nothing about that. However, I don’t think ANI is only moderated by one admin. Again, digging up old non-issue issues is a waste of community’s time and is exhausting other editors. Not to mention the untrue claims / potential WP:PA that are made. I don’t think I’ll take the bait this time. You can go on with your diffs. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

FeldmarschallGneisenau

Hi. Can an administrator please take a look at the discussion going on at User talk:FeldmarschallGneisenau? It has became quite heated and turned from a policy debate to personal attacks. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the real issue is the building evidence this user is a sockpuppet: User talk:Bbb23#Potential sock... Zenomonoz (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe a SPI could be opened after an admin responds. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

FeldmarschallGneisenau has been temporarily blocked, and accepted the block. No opinion about a SPI. Lectonar (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI investigation here NicolausPrime (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC).

Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

ElijahPepe New York Times issues

This is a continuation of behavioural issues first raised at ANI in 11 February 2024. ElijahPepe is continuing to be disruptive on The New York Times and its various sub-articles. Since the start of this year, he has exhibited the following issues on this set of articles:

Warned multiple for editing without using edit summaries
Warned by Soni on 8 February 2024 Warned by Softlavender and Moxy on 21/24 February 2024 Warned by Ad Orientem on 24 February 2024 Page blocked by Acroterion from The New York Times for a week for this issue and related problems on the article's talk page on 24 February 2024 Warned by me on 11 March 2024 Warned by me again on 14 April 2024 Warned by Drmies also on 14 April 2024

WP:OWN issues

I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there [127] I'm not looking for help at the moment. [128] I didn't expect anyone to discuss any of these changes. [129] Whoever nominates this article to good article can take all of the credit for the work that I did, because the work is irrelevant here regardless. [130] I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own. [131] I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. [132] I have determined the following events to be notable to the Times [133] Warned about ownership by me on 8 February 2024 Warned about ownership by Drmies on 8 February 2024 Warned about ownership by Soni on 10 March 2024

Editing against consensus

Between 21 February and 1 March a consensus was found for 4 History of sub-articles with a specific set of date splits. On 7 April, without discussion and against this consensus, Elijah split History of The New York Times (1998–present) to History of The New York Times (1998–2016) and History of The New York Times (2016–present) (moved 1998-Present to 1998-2016, created 2016-present). Soni opened a discussion about this issue on 7 April 2024 that Elijah has yet to contribute to.

Unable to edit collaboratively with other editors

I am done trying to argue this. It is patently obvious reducing content over time is not an option. [134] Right, because there aren't problems already with editors stealing my content without attribution. [135] The critical reception section is incomplete, as is much of the article, but I have been driven out of the article and thus cannot add what I want to [136] I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. [137]

Dealing with Elijah on this set of articles is utterly exhausting. I know that he has explicitly driven at least one editor off editing the article and it's talk page; Premeditated Chaos on 27 February 2024. During the last ANI about this behavioural issue, Elijah apologised for his issues, yet here we are two months later with the exact same set of problems. The underlying behavioural issues with editing collaboratively with other editors however may not be unique to this series of articles. On 27 March 2024 Elijah displayed similar issues on his user talk page in a discussion with ZLEA about the scope of the Boeing manufacturing issues article, though I haven't dug any deeper to see if there are more widespread issues on other articles and talk pages.

I'm not entirely sure what type of sanction is appropriate here. Either a TBAN from the NY Times, broadly construed, or a series of PBLOCKs from all of the articles on the topic would prevent this disruption. I am sure though that a voluntary arrangement to not edit this series of articles will not work, as Elijah has claimed multiple times since February that he was done editing the articles (27 February, 2 March, 2 March, 14 April, 14 April). However there are elements of WP:NOTHERE behaviour though, in discussions on the NY Times talk page he has implied that he's only in this for the GA credit ([138]. Driving away productive editors, asserting ownership of article content, and being unable to collaborate with others are textbook examples of NOTHERE, so perhaps a stronger sanction is needed.

I hate to have to bring this case though, because despite his behavioural issues Elijah can write good content, and his original goal of getting the NY Times series of articles to GA and eventually FA is a laudable goal. However the largest barrier to achieving this goal throughout the entire process has been his behaviour. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANI notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I no longer edit the articles in question and I have removed them from my watchlist. In my absence in the last month, nothing has prevented neither Sideswipe9th nor Soni from engaging in any of the articles. Arguably, nothing has prevented them from overruling anything that I agree or disagree with. I returned today to remove references that were retained before the articles were split, which I believe is the least contentious edit that can be made, particularly considering I included those references and know which ones to retain. I'm not sure how doing that has resulted in an ANI thread and a reversion of my edits. I don't see how Boeing manufacturing and design issues is relevant here. The page title inherently assumes that there are manufacturing and design issues in general, not within a specific year. ZLEA assumed that the page would only cover Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, but that is erroneous because the scope was laid out early on. Creating an article with a specific scope is not ownership, and it was ZLEA who refused to listen to what I was saying.

To correct the record: I did not spend the time that I did to include the article in my user page assuming it receives good or featured article. I don't include any of my good articles in my user page and I have intentionally kept it that way. I prefer to get credit for the work that I do, and the impression I received was that I would not be credited whatsoever.

I'll accept the consequences, assuming those should occur. Again, my intentions were not to disrupt the article, but it has been my responsibility and I assume that I have done so. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe When you are making non-trivial edits, an edit summary is very important. In the case of major edits, such as your recent redactions on the NY Times pages, I would hold that they are obligatory. Unexplained deletions of that magnitude are going to naturally be seen as a red flag by other experienced editors and those who are on the alert for vandalism. Really, you have been around long enough that you should know this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I see how my edits could have been seen as vandalism, but I take issue with the insistence on requiring me to use edit summaries for all of my edits to the point of reverting them. That has not been an issue in my time editing. I interpreted my prior issues with it to arbitrary barriers; that was not the case here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That has not been an issue in my time editing. That is demonstrably not true. You have been warned by six editors for this (diffs above), and you were page blocked from the NY Times article for a week in part because of this (diff above). Explaining your edits by edit summary or talk page discussion is required by policy, and that is something you have consistently failed to do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to edits I have made to other articles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe This is turning into an unnecessary time sink. As noted above, the matter has been raised with you on multiple occasions. I dislike having to address experienced editors sharply, but this has reached a point where it is becoming disruptive. You are required to use edit summaries on all non-trivial edits. That's it. This should be regarded as a Formal Caution. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Understandable. I will cease all, in the strongest terms possible, edits relating to the Times, its history, or its online platforms. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That is your choice. However, the requirement to use edit summaries applies throughout the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Per a request and discussion on my talk page, I am reopening this discussion as the OP feels there are unresolved issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping @ElijahPepe -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for reopening. The caution may help with the edit summary issue, if Elijah can stick to it, and to assist with that he may wish to enable the prompt to always include one as was suggested by Softlavender back in February. However that still leaves the ownership, editing against consensus, and the inability to edit collaboratively with others unaddressed. Given how long this has been going on for, and how it's driven at least one editor away from the topic (PMC) I think these need to be addressed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Most of what you have brought up is prior to the previous ANI thread. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No actually. While the issues may have come up, the last comment in the prior ANI was on 12 February, and most of the diffs are from after that date. The four diffs prior to that date are there to establish that this is a pattern that has been ongoing for you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, since you asked for this discussion to be reopened even after Ad Orientem's "Formal caution", I was just wondering what kind of resolution are you looking for here? You are the primary editor keeping this dispute alive, unfortunately we haven't heard from other editors about this behavior so this kind of rests with you: What are you expecting here? I'm not saying it will happen but I'm not sure what you are aiming for here...a page block? A warning? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have lurked instead of speaking up much. This is quite draining and I'm a bit burnt out here. I have already discussed many of these concerns privately with Sideswipe, and generally every discussion on this spans 1000s of words without any proper resolution.

I have no problems with him editing the article even if he says he will walk away. But the OWN-ership and ignoring consensus has persisted constantly. As has dismissing other editors who disagreed (and repeated "I am being driven out of this page" comments against others). And potentially gaming the GA system (Making a unilateral page split only to nominate both halves of it immediately for GA). Not all of these are actionable already, but they are indicative of why Elijah's caused constant problems for others.

As for what resolution I'd like, I would like anything clearly actionable. The edit summaries are the most obvious example, but the lack of discussions/going against consensus/OWNership are more problematic. I would like most/all of those to be covered under any warnings, so we have a clear path forward (Say, If ignore consensus again -> Block). I would like to not return to ANI a third time just to address the the same problems. The current warning just covers edit summaries. Soni (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you expecting here? I don't know, I'm too close to the situation to be fully objective about this. I brought this issue here for community review by primarily uninvolved editors, because discussing it with Elijah doesn't work. He seems fundamentally unable to collaborate effectively with other editors. If you check the back and forth in the New lead is not an improvement discussion, PMC tried to get Elijah to collaborate on a better summary for the article lead and she ended up describing it as the pulling teeth version of collaborating. I have tried repeatedly to get him to collaborate, to treat Wikipedia as the group project that it is, and have the same opinion. For example, I did a review of the first history of sub-article looking for issues that would come up during the GA and FA process. I came up with an extensive list of questions and issues, and Elijah's response to all of the questions on vagueness and clarity was I included what was relevant, alongside a snipe about article authorship at GA/FA; I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own. Neither of those comments are helpful to actually addressing underlying issues with that sub-article.

Maybe a warning about the above issues is appropriate. But the problem with a warning is, we were here in February with the same types of behavioural issues. Elijah apologised for them at the time with the implication that he'd do better, and that just hasn't happened. If he's issued a warning on the other three issues listed above, are we just kicking the can further down the road for another couple of months?

He's already driven one editor away from editing the article, and in this very discussion another is saying his behaviour as burnt him out, neither of which is behaviour we should be treating lightly as it goes against the WP:DE guideline. WP:OWN is policy, WP:CON is policy, and being able to collaborate with other editors underpins almost every policy and guideline we have. Violating all of those, and continuing to do so after the original report on 11/12 February is the underlying issue here and is what needs addressing in some way. I just don't know what the solution is. I would love it if Elijah would fully collaborate on these articles, he knows this sourcing better than any of us right now, and the process would go so much smoother and faster if he would collaborate and cooperate with other editors. But he seems utterly unable to work with other editors. Multiple of us have tried, and we all get the same lack of response. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that I have been pinged here. After reading through the above discussion, I see that I have nothing to say that has not already been said. However, I am quite disappointed to see ElijahPepe claim that I refused to listen to what they were saying, which anyone who reads that discussion will see is far from the truth. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• I was also pinged here. I became involved in this article peripherally, mainly in an attempt to help Elijah. I'm active on the Discord and while he was drafting his overhaul, Elijah frequently posted about it there soliciting feedback, and I was one of the people who commented occasionally. After Elijah moved the article into main and ran into some pushback, he asked for my advice offwiki. I did my best to provide advice and steer him toward engaging with other editors on the talk page. Unfortunately I found these conversations - like the onwiki one - to be exercises in frustration, and I eventually bowed out of trying to engage further, just as I did onwiki. For what it's worth, I was not an active editor of the article(s) outside of trying to assist with this, so I wouldn't go so far as to say I was driven away from the article, but I did exhaust my interest in assisting Elijah any further.
  It's obvious that Elijah has done an incredible amount of work on the NYT topic, and I don't want him or anyone else to think I'm dismissing his effort. The problem is that he has paired his incredible devotion to the topic with a sense of ownership over the articles that has resulted in some really poor behavior on his part. At every step, he has stonewalled or outright rejected reasonable suggestions for change. He has repeatedly said he doesn't need help or input from other editors. When asked to concretely explain his thinking or suggest compromises, he frequently provides useless comments along the lines of "I don't know" and then refuses to elaborate. Even getting him to use accurate edit summaries was an unbelievable slog, as noted above.
  What's more concerning is that he seems to assume that other editors are out to somehow supplant him or steal his work. In addition to the repeated comments about people "stealing" his GA/FA credit, there are comments like this is going in the direction where most of my work will be disregarded and editors [are] stealing my content without attribution (this last in regards to a good-faith but poorly-attributed split, quickly fixed). This ABF behavior continues into the present, with this lengthy comment yesterday where he accuses everyone of trying to take credit so that they can add a link to their user page and once again complains that he is being asked to use edit summaries. This mentality is a recipe for disaster.
  Elijah has repeatedly expressed frustration and a desire to quit the topic area, but seems unable to do so. In February he expressed at least once that he was going to unwatch and step back, but continued editing the articles. Yesterday he said much the same in this discussion at 14:20 my time: Understandable. I will cease all, in the strongest terms possible, edits relating to the Times, its history, or its online platforms. (Can't link to the diff as it's been OS'd due to unrelated edits). Literally less than one hour later, he's back on the talk page: [139] and has made several edits to the main and the sub-articles since. His behavior makes it impossible for any of the other good-faith editors who want to work with him to actually make any improvements to the article. As much as I would prefer not to, I am beginning to think it might be better for Elijah to be blocked from the topic area, because he is clearly unable to work collaboratively with others within it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed my mind on ignoring the topic. Ceasing edits is how the article remained in its state for a month, and it was not just to leave it as such. There are several sections remaining that need to be expanded. I'm willing to accept help there, I only ask that shortened footnotes be retained and reliable sources are used. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept help there The unwritten subtext here is "This is my article but I'm going to be generous and let you help me". Trainsandotherthings (talk) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

ElijahPepe also did the frustrating cycle of asking for feedback and then ignoring it in my case as well (I told him, repeatedly, in increasing levels of bluntness, that the original 33k work he moved into the mainspace from draft was a massive violation of WP:SIZE, but he did it anyway and then acted defensive after people predictably complained on the talk page. Who could have seen this coming.). You've done a core of good work, but if other people say that there are problems, you need to believe them. The other editors are acting in good faith and trying to help. Sometimes helping means modifying the text you've written. That's okay.

I don't want to get too much into the broader issue, but re the linked diff above where Elijah writes I'm not sure why my opinions are getting disregarded, I'm not sure why there's some unique rule for using edit summaries that I have not once experience at any point in the last two-and-a-half years editing, and I'm not sure why making decisions and being bold has to involve weeks of discussions. Since being subtle apparently doesn't work... Elijah, edit summaries have always been required. Even if your next project is a single-digit page views topic with no other editors to collaborate with, you STILL need to write informative edit summaries. They don't have to be an essay, but they do need to be there. The reason it didn't come up is that most people have better things to do than hassle other editors over it, and it's a lesser problem than most of the other things that are happening on Wikipedia... but that doesn't mean that lack of edit summaries aren't a problem. Use them. SnowFire (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Diskyboy and Philadelphia IPs combining in edit wars

To me it appears that Diskyboy is violating WP:MULTIPLE by using several IPs from Philadelphia along with his registered username. The IPs are Special:Contributions/2601:40:C580:11B0:497B:1768:D7D0:9E03, Special:Contributions/2601:40:C580:11B0:8B:899E:6861:95B3 and Special:Contributions/73.30.109.234. The edit-warring is taking place at Solitude (Black Sabbath song) and Black Sabbath (album). Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Opened a SPI as well.@Binksternet Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian, please see Tamzin's essay User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive. I don't think opening an SPI is necessary as ANI is a much faster-acting noticeboard and that could be considered forum shopping. Also, Checkusers cannot publicly connect registered accounts to IPs. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 22:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's forum shopping at all. The part about CUs is true. I've indeffed the named account at the SPI, and blocked the IPs for a couple of days each.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I am evading a block, sorry, block me and kindly go through my 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.

---

ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} (User:Adishere) - I was blocked as a not so matured editor, who created this account to do some small constructive edits and today has edit count of little less than 4000. (User:ExclusiveEditor/Unblock Request,Confession) - User:ExclusiveEditor(talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor Why did you evade your block and decide to perform sockpuppetry? That's just going to bring you more consequences. On your old account, you should have taken the standard offer and waited out your block for six months, then had an unblock request. Now this won't be good for you. Let's see what the admins will say. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There's been a significant time from the block and socking to now as far as I can tell. I'm not immediately inclined to hold a procedural error against them. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I'm not sure, but this is just my opinion. It's fine to hear the others say their thoughts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. If they aren't using accounts to make disruptive edits anymore, than there's no need for a block. Noah, AA^Talk 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please note that I cannot reply for next six hours due to some reason. ExclusiveEditor [[ User talk:ExclusiveEditor|_{Notify Me!}]] 22:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  I just read through the unblock request and it looks like they know what they did wrong Maestrofin (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Probably the correct decision from a procedural standpoint, but I get the sense that ExclusiveEditor genuinely intends to be a productive editor and has matured in the years since he was originally indeffed. I'd support allowing him to return to editing without requiring him to go through the prescribed six-month waiting period of the standard offer. We're a website, not a parole board. We're allowed to bend the rules once in a while. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see any reason why the original account can't be unblocked, based on the pretty reasonable request they linked. The sock account would be permissible if properly attributed, once that's done. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This individual created the sock account shortly after the main account was indef blocked. And they continued to edit with his sock account up until yesterday. I also don't see current block appeal anywhere. They knew the block appeal template and decided against using it. It's hard to take their words seriously when they continue to violate the sockpuppetry policy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  It’s been like three years Maestrofin (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  @OhanaUnited: Their unblock request is located here. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any unblock at this stage - WP:STANDARD should apply. Please wait 6 months without socking. GiantSnowman 14:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals is policy; Wikipedia:Standard offer is only an essay, and is intended as advice for blocked or banned editors. In this case it was the editor's first block and a successful appeal was likely; although multiple accounts were used, the edits that led to the block were improvements to the article, and there isn't a community ban or even a WP:3X ban. An unblock request in 2021 was declined by an administrator with the comment "It's not enough to say you understand, you must demonstrate your understanding by telling us what you did and what you will do going forward",[140] but the editor had done just that in the unblock request. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry is policy, and mentions "Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions" but the editor is no longer avoiding detection and any continuing block would be to punish, not to prevent disruption. Peter James (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request: ExclusiveEditor

I'm adding a separate subheader to draw more attention to this unblock request. While I doubt it'll gather consensus in EE's favor, there seems to be enough disagreement that I'd at least like to hear a few additional voices chiming in before this discussion is archived automatically. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Support unblocking for the reasons given in the preceding section: it's been three years, they've made a reasonable unblock request (albeit not procedurally perfect, but who cares), so far no evidence of any disruption with the socking, and preventative-not-punitive. I think we wouldn't be here if that 2020 unblock request was accepted. I'm not a fan of the "you must demonstrate your understanding of what you did wrong" rule for unblocks -- which always seems like a demand for kowtowing. If someone says they won't do it again, that's really all that should be necessary for a first-block unblock (different tho if it's a repeat offender). Levivich (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Support unblock, although they did sock, blocks are preventive and EE has been editing constructively. This was good-faith socking imo. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, my feelings fall somewhere in the middle here. As someone who admired ExclusiveEditor's anti-vandalism contributions, the fact that they were evading a previous block and willfully violating WP:SOCK (this wasn't the first time they evaded their block, the master account has an SPI report that can be seen here) seriously disappoints me, and I believe that User:Bbb23's block of the user (as well as User:Yamla's decline of their appeal) is entirely justified. But I also think about admin-penned essays like this, as well as these two, which, despite not being anywhere close to policies or guidelines, make interesting points with regards to this kind of behavior potentially skirting the WP:Ignore all rules and WP:NOTPUNITIVE policies. I don't know, maybe I sound foolish right now -- I've deliberately stayed out of this thread up to this point, because I feel that this is a very complex matter that is hard for me to respond to in a concrete "yes" or "no" way, given my appreciation of ExclusiveEditor's edits here. I think this could go either way, and frankly, I'm not opposed to consensus going one way or another. If they remain blocked, the standard offer is available to them, assuming they stay off here for six months. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing about block evasion in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Adishere/Archive; the investigation was because the editor was using the two accounts to edit the same articles, the accounts had not been blocked when the report was made. Peter James (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, admittedly I was incorrect in that one facet. I don't think this overshadows the fact that they knew block evasion was against the rules, given that they had been previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts. That is the point Yamla was getting at on the user's talk page, and I have their back in that regard, considering this was not their first time using another account to circumvent policy. To quote their words on that page directly: "This wasn't an accidental mistake. This user knew about WP:SOCK, having been caught violating that in the past. This was a deliberate decision to continue violating Wikipedia's policy, a decision they took days after being caught violating exactly that policy the previous time." JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just in case my block doesn't make it clear. Unblocking would set a dangerous precedent. We block people, not accounts. Many socks justify creating their latest account because "my edits have not been disruptive". It simply doesn't - and shouldn't - work that way. There are consequences for socking, and one of them is to be unblocked, you must request an unblock, not create another account. As for the standard offer being an essay, there are many essays that have more power than formal guidelines and even policies, e.g., WP:BRD. Is six months arbitrary? Sure, almost all time durations are somewhat arbitrary, but we don't always make it six months. Sometimes it's longer, and sometimes it's shorter. It depends on the circumstances, but it's the default starting point. It's also not a get-out-of-jail-free card, meaning the extension of the standard offer doesn't mean we will grant an unblock request after six months, but that we won't consider one before then.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, this all just feels like a roundabout way of using the block button as a means of punishing an editor for their past transgressions. Aren't blocks explicitly supposed to be preventative, rather than punitive? Kurtis ^(talk) 05:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  As someone who has been previously blocked for socking myself, including the "quiet return" type socking, I can see both sides of the argument. However, socking in and of itself is disruptive as it involves deception and disregard for the rules. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've expressed this sentiment many times in the past, but it bears repeating: we have absolutely no idea just how many sanctioned editors have abandoned their old accounts, registered new ones, and became integral Wikipedians without anyone being any the wiser. I could list countless examples from throughout Wikipedia's history that eventually came to light—just imagine all of the ones that didn't. I would hazard a guess that if we somehow had the magical ability to expose and indef every single editor who created a sock account to circumvent a sanction without ever being found out, we'd lose many of our most productive article writers, a sizable chunk of our most active administrators, and I'd even wager a few arbitrators past and (potentially) present.

  And just to be clear, none of the above should be construed as accusing any specific editor of ban evasion. My assertion is merely that it's a lot more common than we will ever realize or care to admit. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  And as someone who was once indeffed by Bbb23 for editing with a different account while this one was under a self-requested block (which was very stupid of me), I think that some admins have a stubborn fixation with the letter of the rule even when the best interests of the encyclopedia might be better served by a more nuanced approach. Also, what Kurtis said is very valid. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's for a ban, which is WP:3X, not WP:1X. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: per my comment above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If the block is not being evaded and the accounts are linked it isn't socking. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The block Was being evaded though, the creation of the account after an indef block on the master IS block evasion. Plain and simple. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Opposing the unblock. The user clearly admitted to socking, and even though they may have had good intentions to improve, socking is still a bad thing to do on Wikipedia. I'd support going for a standard offer, just like Bbb23, but the user needs to acknowledge that what they did was truly wrong and how they will not do it again. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he willingly confessed to his prior history is, in my view, evidence enough that he wants to be transparent from this point on. He could have just kept quiet and carried on as he had been for the past couple of years. He chose instead to fess up, completely of his own volition, and make a formal unblock appeal to the community. Out of process? Yes. In violation of WP:SOCK? Also yes. But I'm convinced of his current good faith. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Tell me then, is there any other way that you could prove to others that people will not sock again? They have apologized for their behavior and demonstrated understanding of why socking is bad. In fact, I would say that blocking them again would set a precedent that the Wikipedia community is a big elitist gatekeeper which does not value second chances. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  The opposes make me feel concerned a lot. This community assumes that a sock person's behavior is unchanged for years and they are deposed to socking again and again and again. "Once a drug user, always a drug user", as they say. However, I genuinely believe that most people are not like that and have a capacity to improve on their behavior once they fully understand as to why they are indeffed. There are drug users that are clean for the rest of their lives. Too often though, our community demanded the impossible from the indeffed users, by hyperanalyzing their unblock response and deluding themselves into understanding their true intent from a bunch of words on the screen, and thus perfectly good editors who did exactly what we say get their unblock for their indef still need to wait for years, sometimes even decades. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  But they literally continued to sock away as if nothing happened. Using your "drug user" analogy, this user showed up to rehab professing they stopped using drugs, all the while still having cocaine residue left on his nose. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  And all else being equal—this metaphor breaks down a bit—they've showed up to rehab because they would like to stop now. Remsense诉 23:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock. They seem to understand the problems and have an understanding of how they should and should not act in the future. If for some reason this turns out not to be the case, they can be blocked again. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. Kk.urban (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock per CactiStaccingCrane, who provides a good analysis of the situation and reasoning supporting an unblock. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock per CactiStaccingCrane. I am not satisfied by the arguments for keeping the editor blocked. Preventative, not punitive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I stated above. The arguments made by some are akin to "They broke the law and must serve a certain amount of time before we would even consider parole". That is punitive when the person has made a sincere request for an unblock, understanding what they did was wrong. Noah, AA^Talk 19:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I always have found the song and dance of unblocking quite degrading to our editors. It seems that those with written articles can get away with nearly everything save for Arbcom (and sometimes, even then). But then we do not extend any rope on newer editors, tripping them up for every possible technicality. Unlike some very experienced editors' behaviors, this is voluntary, not even a "Someone dragged them to ANI/Arbcom to make them reveal this". The intent of Standard offer is of a clear second chance, aka "Do we think they'll be more likely to be a net positive than not". I do not appreciate the humiliation and punishments sometimes doled out instead of empathy.

As for the precedent it would set... I welcome it. The precedent it sets to me is "We care about preventative blocks more than blocks for the sake of punishment". I am happy to discuss and unblock good faith users in the same bucket. Did they understand their mistake? Would our initial punishment already have lapsed by now? Have they shown they can edit productively? Do we think they'll probably be a net positive? If the answer to all of these is yes, then yes, we should set a precedent for unblocking such editors. Soni (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Agree with Kurtis. Does anyone really think that none of the under-35 admins got up to some mischief when they were young and stupid? The reason they aren't facing similar sanctions is that they never told anyone. I wouldn't. We should not punish people for honesty. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock as a honest, although non-standard request, that appears to be in good faith. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock This is clearly going to pass, but I simply can't endorse wilful contempt of the sort that was displayed here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • What is your alternative? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Endorsing or not endorsing shouldn't even be a factor, that's the whole point of "preventative not punitive": we don't punish willful contempt. The only relevant question is: do you think this person will be disruptive if allowed to edit? Nothing else matters, nothing else is relevant, according to policy. Levivich (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, to reiterate my position and comment from above. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Either we accept a reasonable unblock request, or we don't. If we don't, then I'm not even sure why we have the process. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock WP:PUNITIVE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Support Unblock: Good faith user who has acknowledges his flaws. If he didn't confess, would he have caused further distruption? I think not. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  On a different, unrelated note I can't be bothered to make a ANI or ARV about it, but I recently got blocked twice by @Bbb23, once due to a error and another due to edit warring issues (fair enough) but there block note was for the 24 hour block was... colourful, and poisoning the well to me. I have basically quit, but let's not have a culture of heavy handed action that kicks out editors when they regret something so much that they admit to strangers on the web, and obviously WP:AGF (unless there is more under the surface, like Lourdes. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock – the rules are clear, but that doesn't mean people get it right all the time. From what I've read, this person would very much like to stop socking now, and they have done nothing to make me believe a well-defined second chance wouldn't be worth a shot. Remsense诉 23:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock—Per what I said in the section directly above. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock. If the editor is not being disruptive, there is zero reason to institute a sock-block except for purely punitive reasons. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock comparing constructive edits to cocaine use is certainly something; we block people if they're being disruptive, which EE clearly isn't. If we're going to be bean-counters about our rules even when it's actively harmful, we're just telling people that they might as well not 'fess up to anything stupid they did and just go about hoodwinking us. AryKun (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock per above. It's nice to see people grow up. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock per WP:NOTPUNATIVE. ——Serial Number 54129 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock - WP:PUNITIVE. They've been a part of Wikipedia for several years now without causing any disruption, why would they begin after admitting their own past fault? This feels more like a punishment for being honest. XaviaDaBee^Buzz 16:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock: Blocks aren't punitive, and this editor has clearly realised the gravity of their actions. It's better we just give some metaphorical rope. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Unblock per Peter James, Kurtis, and Noah. I've looked over EE's edits and they appear to be of good quality. The initial sin of socking after being blocked for socking has long passed, and an unblock request with the level of (albeit imperfect) insight and contrition shown here would likely have been granted if EE had not been editing for the past three years. At this point, a block is punitive. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Closure of discussion

No new comments past 1/2 days, can we get someone to review this discussion possibly? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:23, 20 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.

Thank you everyone involved in the discussion, from supporters to opposers and others, for getting involved.🙏 -ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Unbanning user User:Dušan Kreheľ (bot)

On 2022-10-29, while still having the bot flag and performing the task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dušan Kreheľ (bot), he was banned. Today, the bot no longer has a bot flag.

I hereby request that you remove this ban as it is:

• a longer time since the ban was granted,
• neither the bot nor the bot manager performs any "malicious" task,
• bot does not have bot rights, so if it wants to perform any activity, it must go through the approval process for the task,
• the user has my bot on several wikipedias, so User:Dušan Kreheľ can learn from that one mistake.

I, as the admin of bot user Dušan Kreheľ (bot). Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) to --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think your explanation as to why the bot was blocked is incredibly disingenuous. You were not blocked randomly while performing the bot task you had approval for, you were blocked for making thousands of edits deleting external links that you did not have permission or consensus for and which left many articles in a mess.

I can't support an unblock here because this request doesn't actually address the issue that led to the bot being blocked in the first place. Additionally I think you are doing this process back to front - get approval to run a task first (which I think you are really going to struggle with given your history), then the bot can be unblocked. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The bot was blocked for editing outside of its mandate. If a new BRFA for this bot is successful, the bot will in due course be unblocked to allow it to edit again. I agree with the IP that this post is attempting to do things backwards - even if we did unblock the bot, it would not be able to edit until a BRFA is approved. Primefac (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dušan Kreheľ: I'm confused, in the new sentence you added(diff) "the user has my bot on several wikipedias, so he can learn from that one mistake.", who is "he"? – 143.208.238.208 (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated: Special:Diff/1219702739 --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC), --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Right. That makes more sense. – 143.208.238.208 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I object to you playing this off as "one mistake". I think it would be far more accurate to say that making those edits was the "straw that broke the camel's back". You have had issues as a bot operator throughout your time here - you have been unwilling to follow proper process to get approval for automated editing, you have failed to get consensus for your edits (or you don't understand what consensus entails), and there are general WP:CIR issues regarding your English language skills and understanding of policy that make your suitability to be a bot operator questionable.

You made those 2000 edits removing those links in a poor manner, in many cases deleting the only source those articles had, and leaving broken articles with empty external links sections e.g. [141]. The policy you quote in the edit summary, WP:LINKFARM does not support deleting official statistics websites from settlement articles. When asked to point to where consensus for this change was you left this link [142], where two bot operators on meta explained that mass deleting dead links would need consensus and is out of scope for an archiving bot, but you took that discussion as consensus for mass deletion? You added hundreds of misspelled sections to articles requiring someone else to clean up after you [143]. You used some kind of semi-automated script to add links to your own website [144] [145]. You have filed a number of vague, unactionable bot requests which basically boil down to "let me do whatever I want" and where you appear to have issues understanding or responding to concerns or questions that other editors raised [146] [147]. Even though your bot was blocked and it's permission to run revoked it looks like you've been running it from your normal account [148]?

If you want to run a bot again you are going to have an uphill battle. You should pick a small, well defined task, get other editors to help you work out the exact details of it (including checking small details, like date formats, spelling, article/wikitext layout...) get consensus at a relevant wikiproject and/or village pump and follow the bot approval process to the letter (no running hundreds of "test edits" without permission, explain the task clearly, respond to questions appropriately...). The English wikipedia is quite strict when it comes to running bots, and "make edits first, ask for permission later" is not the way to go about it - you need to take a lot of care and make sure other editors agree with the edits. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

as @Xaosflux said When it is ready to be used again, just file a new Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, unblocking will be done when a trial is approved. — xaosflux Talk 16:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC) There is no reason to be unblocked now, and no indication in your recent edits that you understand the issues raised and won't repeat them. You seem to lack the competence to operate a bot here (as do I - but I'm not trying). Change BAG's minds with a successful BRFA and then you can be unblocked. Consider a block on the main account if IP 86's diffs are an ongoing issue. Star Mississippi 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, Star Mississippi. We seem to have a flood of CIR issues this year, at one level or another. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Surprising attack out of nowhere

User:Dahn came to my talk page to call me "frankly moronic", "inane", and "destructive". Baffled by this, I took a look at the edit they had a problem with, where I discovered this edit summary, where they called me an "ignoramous". Faced with an attack like this, I don't know where else to turn but here. It's extremely disheartening. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I apologize. Though most of those things are not in any way personal attacks, but references to the result of the action I commented on (not "called me", but "called the things I did" this and that). As for what those things are: the random removal of sourced content, without any semblance of a discussion, on the pretext that the sources "do not exist"; when it was absolutely clear that the sources have a print version (the name of the paper magazine is immediately apparent in the reference), and when not even a perfunctory effort was made to actually check if the html version was ever archived. At the time of writing, I was on a mobile device, which makes it near impossible to fix this uncollegial type of problematic editing (which I continue to see as bordering on vandalism) beyond a sheer revert; going to search for the archive myself, on said mobile device, was too much of a practical hurdle, and it was especially annoying to have to do so based on an editor's whimsical claim/apparent unwillingness to check a source/assumption of bad faith from other editors. I would like ANI to instruct Fred Zepelin regarding the scope of such behavior, which may have occurred over several articles. Dahn (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  this uncollegial type of problematic editing (which I continue to see as bordering on vandalism) The only uncollegial behavior I see is from you. Fred Zepelin was obviously incorrect (though that wasn't vandalism), and you could have justifiably reinstated the removed source, gone to his talkpage, and explained what he did in a collegial manner. You chose not to, instead showing up at his talkpage with guns blazing and assuming bad faith; your behavior is not justified post hoc because Fred was in the wrong about content. Grandpallama (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps so. But at what point is a user expected to already know that theyre not to remove sourced info? And why should I be the only one expected to police pages against such disruptive edits by supposedly experienced users? (Thats assuming you really do not see the removal of others' work under a bogus claim as uncollegial.) Dahn (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Dahn: What of "[..] also restored originall spelling removed by another ignoramous"(summary)? Is that not an insult on the IP who changed the spelling and the OP ("another")? – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure who I'm answering to and how a raw IP was able to locate this discussion and contribute to this piling on, but: is the point here that I should be apologizing to a(nother) raw IP who changed the spelling of the alternative title because they couldn't manifestly figure out that the spelling rules of Romanian were once different (and that the original title was therefore spelled slightly different -- an encyclopedic and sourced info), or did not want the info present in the article for some obscure reason? Just to clarify: is this what is being asked of me? That I apologize to raw IPs committing hit-and-run vandalism? Dahn (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  The point is civility. I get that it can be very irritating to have content you wrote be removed with a bad explanation (I'm assuming you wrote it), or even to have it vandalized, but the base level of interacting with civility is expected even when interacting with actual vandals. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, being able to collaborate without escalating things is extremely important. Acknowledging that is what I would expect at least, which your initial response evaded a bit by starting at saying that you were commenting on actions (though I'm just commenting, and am no admin, obviously). – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  The very first words of my very first comment here: For what it is worth, I apologize. As for the rest: the behavior I was commenting on, as unjustified as those comments may be, is itself disruptive, in both cases you bring up. (Yes, I did write that content. But it's mostly the fact that I sourced it transparently, that I have painstakingly referenced it, and I'm expected to protect it against users who either claim that "the source does not exist", based on quite baffling rationales, or, as is the case with the raw IP, just don't want it in there. Lets also take a moment to ponder the implications of accusing editors that they have fabricated sources.) Dahn (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not good enough when the rest of your comment mostly consists of justifications for that WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. Fred Zepelin encountered a dead link, so they removed the content it attributed. Not the best course of action, obviously, as at the very least {{Dead link}} exists. But your aggressive note to them on their talk page (permalink) was disproportionate when compared to the gravity of their error. So please take this as a warning to dial it down when presented with similar issues. Thanks. El_C 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks a bit like Im already being hounded by this point, especially with personal takes about what I did that wasnt good enough as an apology. Fair enough. But allow me to note: Im not "justifying my actions", Im asking that, whatever comes out of this case, Fred Zepelin is also instructed regarding the disruptive nature of that sort of editing. Because disruptive it is, even if the link were dead -- since the reference was not even link-dependent, let alone that the link was archived; since no discussion about the reference was opened anywhere by him; and since the near-explicit accusation in both of his edit summaries (note his first one as well) was that the source had been fabricated by editors. That kind of editing is not just "not the best course of action"; editors acting like this create gaps in content, and impose themselves, and their range of competence, as a filter on what can go in the articles. They need to be educated not to do that. Dahn (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is just "not the best course of action." By all means, educate away, but without all the added aggression baggage. Because that approach to education is folly and is not welcomed here. El_C 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I am referring to how ANI, or anyone engaged in this discussion, should educate an experience user not to engage in that sort of editing, which is (once we dont sugarcoat it) disruptive. As for myself: I create content, and would rather spend more time on creating it, rather than micromanaging sensitivities of users who delete sourced content without ever engaging in a discussion (doing so would effectively double my time spent here, absorbing me in thankless tasks). I accept scolding for whatever I did wrong; but please at least make sure Fred doesnt end up doing this over other articles I cant even be bothered to check. Or is that something I am expected to keep an eye on? And does Fred even acknowledge that there was something wrong with his edits, including from a civility point? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not gonna do that. No, you are not expected to, either, but are free to do so if you are able to do so civilly. El_C 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You're not being hounded; you're hearing a consensus in the reactions of other editors. If you're committed to not dropping the stick, though, I think there is a conversation to be had about the fact that incivility seems to be a normal pattern, not an exception, in your edit summaries: [149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159]. You're doing quite well to get off with an informal warning from an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I am being hounded by being asked to engage in this conversation, with users who do not ultimately decide what sanctions I supposedly deserve. As for the "stick", I have dropped it even before you came in searching through my months-long edit history. The only think I asked, and I believe anyone will be able to pick it up, is that Fred's removal of sourced content be analyzed for what it was. Are we done here, or do you guys still need my input? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I do decide on the sanctions here, so please keep my warning and additional comments in mind. Thank you. El_C 03:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

searching through my months-long edit history To be clear, that's just from the last 30 days. Grandpallama (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dahn I know you were just blocked, but I was typing this and still think it applies, though I won't rephrase it:

RE "[..] do you guys still need my input?": We need your assurance that you will avoid being aggressive like this on future instances where people do things that you consider disruptive. --- I will now comment on the rest of your concerns, but that's all I feel we need for now.

As to if Fred has done this on multiple articles, we don't know that, and we can't assume that, and you shouldn't assume it either. If Fred did continue doing it multiple times or to multiple articles, or if someone brought up a concern to them in the future and found out that their page talk history has had multiple of those before with no change, or someone really does see a pattern of disruption in their edits and comes with evidence, then we can do something official about it.

So far their work in this instance was sloppy, which ultimately resulted in them removing existing references and content, but to us it's just one instance, ideally you telling them about it civilly after you corrected it, or in the summary, would have been all there was to it, unless they had repeated it. It likely wouldn't have ever reached this board. – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You keep adding to your comment after having submitted it, Dahn. Anyway, you write about a purported near-explicit accusation in both of his edit summaries [...] that the source had been fabricated — and you link to an edit summary that reads: nothing at that link, cannot find any reference to that quote anywhere. That is not a "near-explicit accusation" of "the source [having] been fabricated," that is you assuming bad faith. Because maybe they thought it was a simple (or complex) error, and you can't read minds. El_C 03:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the examples Grandpallama provided above — that's a problem. A problem far more extensive that I initially realized. You cannot continue like this, Dahn. You need to not do that anymore. El_C 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

El_C: The content was sourced and had been removed. The source existed and had been published (in a paper edition, the link was already superfluous); the fact that one needs to "see" a paper source to "allow" its content to be used as a reference is assuming bad faith from the editor. A paper source, lest we forget, can simply be used without any link, so not being able to check the link does not invalidate the source.

As for my past uncivility picked out from in months of productive editing, I accept whatever critique and ruling (even when I was exasperated by evident vandalism, I was arguably out of line; and I was evidently out of line in other edit summaries, that did not refer to such editing -- some of the diffs provided are just snide, not truly insulting to anyone). They can be weighed against my productive editing, or not -- either way, I don't suppose you want me to have to sit around for the rest of the day having to perform self-criticism. Give me my punishment, if any, and let's all get on with our lives. Dahn (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours: User talk:Dahn#Block. El_C 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Since this thread is still open, and since I just saw it, I’ll weigh in after the fact: the block was a serious overreaction. Dahn apologized from the start and pledged to be more cautious. That is all that should be expected, not a ritual abasement. There was no STICK or BATTLEGROUND, just a refusal to engage in self-humiliation. And the AGF was on the other side, by assuming Dahn had added invalid content. It’s striking how this project treats productive editors, expecting them to expend valuable time explaining and accounting for their valid choices. A sad moment, not so much for Dahn but for the rest of us. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

My sense is that you've not read this thread in full. They could have stepped away with my original warning and that would have been that. No, that level of incivility (repeated, 30 days, not months) is not acceptable, and you are doing him and the project a dis-service by stating otherwise. So, no, performing self-criticism was never sought. El_C 05:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I just compared, at a glance, Biruitorul's user talk page (200+ sections) with Dahn's (400+ sections), so the above comment makes more sense to me now. It's fine to stand up for friends or colleagues, but that defense needs to be evidence-based, not reflexive. El_C 06:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Dahn's apology was essentially "I apologize, but don't think I did anything wrong". That's not an apology, that's just deflecting so he can continue doing what he's been doing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a "sad moment" whenever someone shows a pattern of incivility and someone tries to brush it aside or say it's no big deal. This is damaging to the project and makes the problem more difficult to solve down the line. Also, see User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned; defending another editor's incivility does them more harm than good. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the consensus here: this was an appropriate block, and arguably an inevitable one, considering the consistently WP:IDHT reflex and cavalier attitude towards WP:CIV in every post of Dahn's chain of responses here. The original comments on the OP's talk page were unambiguous WP:PAs (irrespective of whether the descriptors were directed at the OP or their behavior), and Dahn could easily have been blocked for those alone. But having initially dodged that outcome, they couldn't seem to find the wherewithal to not talk themselves into trouble--so committed were they to trying to rationalize and justify their nakedly aggressive, unproductive, and basically caustic rhetoric, which was paired with near-complete ABF and a fundamental failure to understand the most basic tenants of acceptable discussion on this project. Even as one editor/community member after another weighed in to tell them they were taking things way over the line in tone, and on very undeserving grounds, they continued to resist all community feedback and assert that they were in fact the ones being 'hounded'.

Frankly, it had hit a point of raising a WP:CIR concern, and El_C's decision to ultimately act, where they had first exercised discretion not to, was entirely appropriate in the circumstances, and indeed almost certainly saved some trouble for other future targets of such needlessly combative and disruptive language, the project generally, and (honestly) probably Dahn themselves. Dahn seems relatively intelligent, aside from their inability to read the room in this instance, and hopefully putting the breaks on them when it comes to such behavior here increases the chances that they can be a solid net positive to the project for the longterm. It's unfortunate that it needed to happen as such, but looking over the discussion, I think it's very clear that it did. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Preventative nut punative

I too endorse the block. It's important to remember that blocks are preventative nut punitive, but it's clear from the discussion above that Dahn requires some enforced time-out to reflect. Because so far they're either missing or refusing to get the point. Incivility drives good editors away and no amount of constructive editing is an excuse for it. WaggersTALK 08:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone for weighing in, and for educating me; I also accept the punishment, and apologize again. As long as this discussion is still open for some reason after my ban has expired, and hoping that me commenting here while others continued to comment on my person shant be seen as my flogging a dead horse: should the reference to me as "relatively intelligent", just above, be viewed as a breach of civility? Thanks. Dahn (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Also, can we call up the gender enforcers regarding the insistent (and absurd) use of the singular they, or is it only “misgendering” for the other way round? — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

    Can you point out where @Dahn clearly mentions their preferred pronouns? I don't think it's absurd to not assume. It is matter of respecting other human beings. SnowRise is one of the most thoughtful and respectful editors I've had the privilege to encounter. --ARoseWolf 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

    The latter. Using a neutral term is not misgendering, in the same way as referring to someone who identifies with a particular gender as a person isn't misgendering. If you'd like to educate yourself we have an article about the singular they.

    @ARoseWolf If you have popups enabled, you can see a user's preferred pronouns when you hover over their username. I now know that Dahn's are he/him. WaggersTALK 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

    Biruitorul, it has long been my policy on this project to refer to an unfamiliar community member as "they" unless and until I see a clear identification of their gender. This preference goes back well before the culture war battles around gender hit their present zenith over recent years, and is not a consequence of concerns over misgendering as the term is typically invoked these days--though I do believe it is consistent with those concerns as well. Rather, when I began contributing here, I found it presumptuous that individuals would often tend to assume that the party they were talking to was a man. Not that this was a phenomena exclusive to Wikipedia by any means; it was a pronounced feature of the early internet and continues to be with us to lesser or greater extents in most spaces where contributors are largely anonymous and names gender-ambiguous.

    As such, I consider it not just acceptable, but in fact obviously best practice to use a gender neutral pronoun until I know an individual's preference, at which point I switch immediately to that preference. And to the best of my observations, most veteran editors have landed on a similar approach. It's not so much that this approach gives one the best odds of respecting the identity of trans individuals (though that is a nice collateral benefit), but that it reduces the odds of stepping on anyone's toes regarding their gender or otherwise causing confusion as to who was being referred to. And as Waggers notes above, singular they actually has a very long tradition in the English language of serving this grammatical role. Large projects based around largely anonymous users merely give that utility enhanced value. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  If someone called me "relatively intelligent" I'd take that as a compliment, albeit perhaps a somewhat backhanded one depending on the context. I don't think it's uncivil.

  More to the point, this discussion is about you and your behaviour. Continuing to deflect that with whataboutery is not a good look. WaggersTALK 12:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am not deflecting,though I would expect it to have a forseeable ending -- instead of having to catch glimpse of new commentary after the matter of my behavior will have already presumably been brought up (unless it is to prepare the ground for me receiving more sanctions, in which case I would hope you guys to speed that along to where we get to that junction). I mean, the only way in which I would be deflecting from the topic is if it were still a topic -- is it? and for how much longer? what more is expected of me?

What I am asking if the standard of the discussion is such that I receive "backhanded compliments" about my intelligence. Is this part of the sanctions? Or are we just piling on to match or surpass my transgressions? Dahn (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

At this point it is still a topic as long as you continue to make it one by posting here and doing things such as accusing others of piling on. It would be beneficial to keep the Law of holes in mind. MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Great. I will stop posting now, and it wont be a topic any longer -- unlike throughout the period when I was blocked, and yet it continued being a topic. Lets see if that ends this. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Consider that some of the diffs cited against me above had annoyed comments against clearly disuptive users (such as one who keeps creating sockpuppets and adding a flag of his own creation in Banat Republic -- a matter brought up as disruptive by several users, as you will note from that artcles talk page). Yet in this discussion a peer who I dont think I have ever interacted with comments on how I am "relatively intelligent", which is semantically on par with calling an admin "relatively competent". I am not asking that action be taken or anything of that nature; I am merely suggesting that perhaps this discussion has veered off course. At which point in this degradation can I ask that we move on? Dahn (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dahn: You need to appreciate that there are many ways in which English is not a standard language. It may be considered an insult where you live but, as @Waggers has already told you, being described as "relatively intelligent" can (where I live, for example) be a compliment; in the context it was used above I would accept it as such if used to describe me. I'd take being described as a "quite good editor", or "not bad Wikipedian", in the same way. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification about what I need to appreciate. Overall, yours is a relatively intelligent comment. That said, I shant take up more space here. You guys make sure to ping me when there is something else that requires my input in this discussion about me, my motives, my competence, and my intelligence. See yous around! Dahn (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

El_C, I don't know if you've been continuing to keep an eye on this discussion, but in addition to the borderline trolling Dahn is doing here, this edit to the talkpage for Luceafărul (poem) is about as snide as one can get, and a clear continuation of the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL problems that led to your block in the first place. Similar behavior is occurring, post-block, here, again in regard to one of the diffs (now outright edit warring) that prompted your block. A longer enforced wikibreak may be in order. Grandpallama (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As a practical point: how am I supposed to address the fact that a portion of the article was modified based on the claim that a source, which I was originally told did not exist at all, has a wording which seems to validate precisely the reading that was modified? I was clearly mistaken to go so tough on the editor in the original interaction (for which I alreafy received a block), but how do I realistically deal with this edit and the problems that I see with it? Note how I did not even bring up WP:COMPETENCE, for edits by someone who apparently cannot read the foreign language they are correcting; even though that very same objection was raised against me above, for reasons unfathomable. Also, I was told that this string of allegations will pause once I stop commenting, yet here are more accusations against me (brought up immediately after I announce my intention to stop commenting, a propos WP:STICK), this time for the vague claim that I am being "snide". Is there any other resolution to this other than me saying "whatever you say is right"? Dahn (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There also is no "edit-warring" (and certainly no breach of WP:CIV, namely the behavioral guidline previously invoked here) in Ludovic Antal; there is one revert, endorsed by other editors, and me raising the issue of inconsistency on the article talk page (to which the other party never responded). In all honesty, what else is expected of me, that I just stop editing? Dahn (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, in what way is this a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue? I do not object to the edits on a personal level, and I have left most of what was edited into Luceafarul in there (except for the part where I await clarification on how I supposedly misread the Romanian clause). In the Antal article, I brought up the issue on the talk page, where a fellow wikipedian also pointed out the stylistic discrepancy that was being pushed. So please detail,if youre going to accuse me of this. Dahn (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, you've clearly failed the law of holes here. That entire diatribe on Talk:Luceafărul (poem) comes across as "I can't be directly insulting, so I'll do it the roundabout way." You're not collegially disagreeing, you're intentionally finding ways to pretend you're being polite while still talking down to others. The harping on "relatively intelligent" is a dead giveaway that you're pissed off about this whole thing and taking it out on whomever you can.

So no, this isn't going to get dropped as long as you keep behaving like this. You need to do some serious self-reflection, or you're going to find yourself subject to sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe that I have said clearly that I do take an issue with this thread being used as means to comment on with "backhanded compliments" (as defined above) regarding my "relative" intelligence, and I do regard that comment as unwarranted. Then again, my talkpage comment about intelligence is, if anything, self-effacing -- I am insulting myself (disregarding the fact that I was told it is not an insult at all). I believe I have also said that I cannot understand what to make of edits which suggest that I invent and then that I misread sources which were previously said to have been invented by me. But overall, the comments you are referring to are about a content dispute: of all the edits made by Fred Zepelin, I reverted one, because it apparently contradict the quoted text, which I have rendered in full in Romanian. Of course I am pissed off by "this whole thing" (not by the block, not by the edits, but by the fact that I have to defend content against this sort of editing, and have to debate the Romanian language with some who may not speak it at all); and of course the frustration may out in my edits (I can express my frustration, can I not?); but to suggest that I am engaging in anything other than a content dispute, and asking the (largely unresponsive) editor to explain his edit on the talk page, is wrong -- my comments, however frustrated by what I perceive to be unjust, are largely, perhaps entirely, within the legitimate means of advancing this project. In my latest comments there, I try to reduce the frustrated part of the comment and address the content dispute exclusively -- do you have something to object to regarding those comments, HandThatFeeds? Dahn (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As a side note: I am not even asking that this be "dropped". I am suggesting that it is equally questionable behavior to comment on my person when I cannot respond, with the suggestion that, if I do respond, I am only digging myself deeper. I was told above that the matter would reach an end if I stop commenting on what others (particularly those with no administrative functions) have commented about me, then, as I stop commenting, I get more comments, with newer, more or less accurate, allegations -- and if I comment in my defense, I am the one prolonging this. This puts me in an objectively impossible situation. Dahn (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Announcing that you are going to stop commenting does not mean that you will get to have the last word, just as a flame doesn't immediately go out when one stops adding fuel. But stop feeding the fire and it will go out sooner or later. Or keep throwing logs on there and see what happens, it is your choice. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• As a fellow content writer, I understand the feelings of frustration Dahn is expressing regarding unhelpful and cosmetic edits on the articles they write. Indeed, these [160] [161] were simply wrong edits. But I'd like to remind Dahn that acknowledgement of this frustration, which is I believe, sorry if I am wrong, something that they are seeking following certain comments, is not to be expected here in ANI, frequented by editors seldom engaged in content writing, and who have been seeing cases like this one every week for years.

By the way Dahn, it is clear you are alienating editors ultimately uninterested in the dispute regarding the content with text walls. Know, from content writer to content writer, that I am at your disposition for dealing with disputes arising from the edits of this user, who I will be watching for some time, of course while acting with reason and as much impartiality as I can. As for other editors, I ask them to realise they are not getting to the depth of the problem and that clearly nothing good is coming from further comments. They are just making the hole bigger, independently of whose comments are the biggest contributor in this.

Please close this useless thread already, and everybody stop talking. I do not wish to see more sanctions being enforced. Super Ψ Dro 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted your close as premature, since new concerns were raised just a few hours ago, and as the closing comments do not reflect the general consensus being expressed by other editors. Dahn was blocked for incivility and battleground behavior; apart from their conduct in this thread, they have unapologetically and actively continued that behavior immediately following their unblocking at Talk:Luceafărul (poem), and there has been a request (by me) for more admin attention. Grandpallama (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but I very much insist, given that my closing has been thanked by both Dahn, AND Fred Zepelin. I will attempt to act as an intermediary if necessary to end the disputes and deal with the short-term problem. Regarding the possible long-term one, I have two things to say: to Dahn, that the reopening of the thread by Grandpallama should serve as the best possible warning that the discussion was about to turn badly and that they need to change aspects of their behaviour; and to other editors, that Dahn had gone since 2017 without a block, and that this has been an episodic exception, which I know because I've watched their contributions regularly for some time now. Super Ψ Dro 19:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, please do not close a discussion in opposition to other editors, especially one in which your comments do not reflect the consensus of the discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the most patethic and sad edit war, even if a short one, I've ever had in over eight years of editing Wikipedia. Very well, let's continue the discussion, which I am actually quite sure nobody has will to continue for much longer. Super Ψ Dro 19:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Part of Fred's comment on your userpage: I do not feel comfortable engaging with them, for reasons that will be obvious if you read their latest comments, and am hoping that an admin can look at that behavior and facilitate a situation where I can edit that article without fear of seeing the same kind of thing from Dahn again. This is why the thread should not be closed--because we have one recently unblocked editor behaving uncivilly toward the other, to the degree that the other feels uncomfortable. That requires admin attention, not an early close that suggests Dahn's behavior is understandable. Grandpallama (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And I'll add that no, Dahn has not gone since 2017 without a block;Dahn has gone less than 24 without a block and is actively continuing the behavior that led to that block. Grandpallama (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I said had gone. Super Ψ Dro 19:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Struck. Grandpallama (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Grandpallama, thank you for noticing. I did thank Super for the close as I had initially thought the issue was resolved, but I immediately followed up that thought with a link to what is an obvious "read-between-the-lines" sarcastic new attack. I do not feel comfortable engaging in a discussion about the edits on that article with an editor so vigorously battling to revert whatever I do there. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Thebiguglyalien (talk), SnowRise ^{let's rap}, WaggersTALK, and El_C to alert them to the aforementioned incivility at Talk:Luceafărul_(poem). Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• The only one comment that I will make here is that there is apparently a small WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLEGROUND issue in the brew, since Fred Zepelin now apparently feels validated to go after articles picked from my list of DYKs and make edits that are rather peculiar (as identified by other users, who have long been editing on this topic). See this diff the subsequent discussion at Talk:Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor#Ramuri. Dahn (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record, this is absolutely not true. The extent of my edits to Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor was removing redlinks, which was prompted by this edit by Dahn in which he said "actually read WP:REDLINK, then get yourself another hobby", which was linked in this very discussion by Grandpallama (talk). The accusations by Dahn are completely baseless. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the unproductive nature of Fred Zepelin’s mainspace edits on these articles, and his increasingly odd behavior toward Dahn, I propose a one-way interaction ban applied to Fred Zepelin. This will hopefully solve the issue and allow this pointless conflict to subside. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on my editing, although I suspect that in this case, you might not be completely impartial. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither are you impartial here, for that matter. I’ve already had this insinuation made twice against me on this thread, and I’m getting tired of it already. I cannot speak highly enough of Dahn, that is true. Having said that, he apologized for whatever wrongdoing he did from the very first. Can we now stop wasting his time and let him continue to do productive work, or must we continue to hound and badger him, continually shifting the goalposts and throwing more accusations at an excellent fellow who does amazing work? For my part, the answer is clear, which is why my proposal was made with all seriousness and in all good faith as a way of moving past this desultory episode. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI really does bring out the worst in everyone, doesn't it? I have an opinion on who is more at fault here (like, 70/30, not like 51/49 nor 99/1), but it's unimportant, because this thread is giving serious "a pox on both their houses". I'd be inclined to issue a one-week cooling off two-way interaction ban, followed by a warning that re-escalation after the ban would be looked on really, really unfavorably. Smug passive-aggressive snark, and going after someone else's DYK articles, would both cause future sanctions, as would poking at the edges of the iban. Oh, and I think Biruitorul's comments here harm more than they help. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely Support this as a good first step to de-escalate the situation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Tempers run hot at ANI, which is why I am generally less concerned about the comments that have been made here. Dahn's incivility wasn't Fred-centric; he was blocked for a pattern of edits going back over a 30-day period (and, ultimately, for not dropping the stick during the initial discussion). Setting up an IBAN might defuse the immediate conflict, but it doesn't really address the underlying behavioral issue from Dahn, which is broader. The fact that this was Dahn's first edit after his block expired is problematic regardless of whether it was directed at Fred or someone else. I understand Floquenbeam's observation that the 70/30 responsibility split doesn't feel entirely important, but while there might be a Dahn-centric issue for Fred that is resolved by an interaction ban, there is a behavioral issue with Dahn that extends beyond Fred and won't be solved with an interaction ban. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, as we see restated all the time on ANI; Dahn's post-block behavior was to immediately resume incivility, which suggests to me that a second, longer block is necessary in order to prevent it. Floq reasonably says future behavior would cause future sanctions, but Dahn already crossed that line about an hour after being unblocked. Grandpallama (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Again I am compelled to discuss myself, while being told that discussing myself only makes it "harder" on me. When reviewing my supposedly damning history of incivility, I would argue that those cherrypicked examples should be taken in context: other than that some are lashing out at guidelines which I view as incoherent (and not any person in particular), some, such as the one asking an IP range which kept stalking me and tagging my articles to "get another hobby" are not doing anything harmful, such as keep productive editors away (an incarnation of that stalking is here, where, you will note, it was reverted by another user, not me, because the programmatic removal of redlinks is destructive -- the IP was since blocked, but probably not for this edit). In Banat Republic, the cited diff with a rude comment was my exasperation with a user who keeps creating himself socks to promote a flag that he has designed, and that only he endorses, in an article that is largely about something else entirely, and who adds faux citations to hopefully bamboozle us into believing that the content is legit (for instance, the edit I reverted cites sources which do not in any way back what is attributed to them, one of which only shows his flag as an illustration, because it was planted on some street, and has not one word of commentary on what it is and why it matters). For (some of) the history of this ever-returning disruptive editor, who has various banned socks by now, plus an indefinite ban on PetrusdictusA, see the input by editors in Talk:Banat Republic#Disruptive removal of flag.

That said, considering that some of my comments are aimed at disruptive, banned users, who have contributed absolutely nothing to this project, their being conflated by Grandpallama and Fred Zepelin into a supposed history of abuse on my part is beginning to look to me like a game of tipping the scales. In what I can only read as an attempt to malign me.

I trust the facts above will be taken into account by whoever looks into this, and I am again hoping to end my involvement in this litigation. Dahn (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

↑ This "here is why my incivility is/was justified" screed, even after being told it wasn't justified and after receiving a block, is why the 70/30 split is relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was justified (though Im sure admins can make their own heuristics about whether banned disruptive users will be "driven away" and not allowed to contribute their fine work by my rudeness); what I am saying is that it is not manifestly what you claim it is (as in: proof of an "underlying behavioral issue"), and that your persistent misrepresentation of it could perhaps raise questions. Also, allow me to understand: does WP:STICK only apply to me? Dahn (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama:, at what point are we allowed to say that a sockpupeteer has a personal obsession with the flag of the Banat Republic? Or must we indulge this individual for years and years, never faltering in our effulgent politeness by even an iota? Must we keep up a hypocritical charade indefinitely? Is there no limit beyond which one may proclaim that a personal obsession is, well, a personal obsession? Biruitorul ^Talk 23:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Rv sock" as an edit summary demonstrates neither effulgent politeness nor unnecessary rudeness. Stop defending incivility as if it is an unavoidable part of editing. Grandpallama (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I rather like curmudgeons: I think they’re charming in an offbeat way, and their forthrightness is refreshing. They’re non-conformists in this ever-more-standardized world, and they have the supreme virtue of not being boring. So, thank you very much, but I absolutely will defend pointing out that a random sockpuppeteer has a personal obsession as being not only not uncivil by any reasonable definition, but indeed just the thing that might drive said gadfly away for good. (Come to think of it, I do find it rather odd that you’re sticking up for a random vandal and against a sterling 18-year editor, but it’s par for the course, I suppose.) Biruitorul ^Talk 23:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with your reasoning is that the opening paragraph of WP:PA does not read "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, unless you feel they are justified and you are of a higher caliber of contributor, and you even have buddies who assure you that you are. Comment on content, not on the contributor, unless you are certain they are the source of a problem. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia, unless they are directed at the right person at the right time. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans, provided you cannot prove you were in the right on the underlying content issue or that the target of those attacks really had it coming."

We get it: you don't think that Dahn should have been taken to task for saying what he said in light of being, as you see it, a stellar contributor trapped in a vexing situation. But the policy (that is, community consensus) says what it says. You and Dahn don't have to agree that it is a sound guideline, but he does have to abide by it, and you aren't doing your friend any favours by diverting him from taking that lesson on board. None of the numerous commentators above are "sticking up for a random vandal and against a sterling 18-year editor"; they are "sticking up" for the most basic of adherence to a pillar policy (WP:CIV) that is a cornerstone of the editorial process and without which every talk page on this project would grind to a screeching halt of acrimony, spitefulness, and petty pissiness every time someone got upset enough. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Grandpallama: It is perfectly avoidable, which is why I avoid in so very many of my edits, including the vast near-totality of my interactions with other users. The point here is that it is certainly not inexcusable, let alone proof of an "underlying behavioral issue", to tell people who are on their 300th sock and engage in disruptive editing to advance an absolutely ridiculous agenda that you're reverting not just a sock, but an obsession. The point of WP:CIV, as Im sure we're all reasonably aware, is that we are not to drive good editors away -- I have acknowledged that I have transgressed this rule in some instances; however, you are conflating into the case "against me" various instances in which I was (mildly) rude with sockpuppets, stalkers, disruptive single-purpose editors, all of them banned for good. You are apparently doing this so as to present a supposed "history" of incivility, knowing full well that some cases are not at all as indefensible as you make it seem, and at the same time advising me not to comment on this fact (or risk "digging a deeper hole for me"). And again: you are an editor of equal standing to me, and currently filibustering to advance claims made in that capacity; you are certainly not a Crown Prosecutor presenting evidence from the bench. Therefore: does WP:STICK not apply to you as well? Something to consider. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's try to put a tie on this

Dahn, I think you have wildly misconstrued the tone and intended message of my post. "Relatively intelligent" was most certainly intended to carry a positive connotation in that sentence. That phrasing is a quasi-idiomatic but fairly ubiquitous construction in English that carries a sentiment that I think could be best expressed explicitly as "This person, of whom I am speaking, strikes me as not a fool. I don't have enough information to speculate where on the continuum of normal intelligence to super genius that their mental capacities lay, but I am at least confident they are not a gibbering nitwit. Yes, I suspect they generally get on quite well in life with their brain bits."

If that is not a syntactic/semantic convention on the use of "fairly" that you are familiar with, I genuinely find that slightly fascinating. And I mean that sincerely, not facetiously: I have a formal background in comparative linguistics, and have lived in multiple regions in each of the three most populous anglophone nations, and I've never encountered someone not being familiar with that construction, that I can recall. I very much AGF that you are being on the level about that (because why on Earth would anyone lie about it?), but as others have noted (and I am grateful they filled in for me until I saw your reaction), I think it should have been pretty obvious from the content of the rest of the sentence and the overall context of this discussion that my phrasing of that particular adjectival phrase was not meant to be demeaning. Regardless, I hope you will now re-contextualize my thoughts in light of these clarifications.

Indeed, my overall intent (and I believe the more or less plain meaning of my actual wording) was to imply that you should be a net asset, all things being equal, to this project, but that the issues being discussed here need immediate intervention to preserve any such potential, because much of the conduct that has been raised and discussed here in terms of your reactions to editorial events and perspectives you don't particularly like is thoroughly inappropriate behaviour for the volunteer work environment of this project. You must learn to focus your responses in editorial discussions on the issues, the sources, and content policies, not your opinion of the negative qualities of your rhetorical opposition.

In a content dispute (or any context on this project, actually) if you find yourself appraising any other member of this community, under any circumstances, as an "ignoramus", "illiterate", "moronic", "unfathomably stupid", "obviously inept", "absolutely cretinous", or any of this family of obviously unacceptable commentary, you need to backspace back over that crap, and enforce a cooldown on yourself before contributing your thoughts. That is never going to be acceptable here, and if you can't accept that, you need to find another place to contribute your passion to. These aren't even borderline cases: these are brightline violations of our most basic behavioural policies. And "absolutely cretinous" was elicited by your taking exception to the spelling of a proper noun/toponym in it's non-native language. Are you really going to die on this hill, trying to tell us that was an appropriate and in-proportion reaction to another editor's provocation?

In general, follow the maxim of "comment on the issues, not the user". In rare instances of actual disruption, you may have to at least address the conduct of another user, but even when that is the case, you should take the matter to an appropriate forum and present the actions in question in terms of editorial and/or behavioural policy violations, not observations about the intellectual and character shortcomings of other community members. Bluntly speaking, much of the behavior presented here was juvenile, inflammatory and far below the baseline standard that you will have to adopt to avoid future sanctions, and I'm frankly floundering for an explanation of how you could have been on this project since 2005 without having previously become aware of the basic standards of WP:PA.

As for your frustration that this discussion continued after you were blocked, I'm afraid my opinion is that, other than yourself, the person you most have to attribute that too is Biruitorul. It is plainly obvious that they are making every effort to be in your corner here, but I agree with the opinion already expressed in this thread that their chosen mode for that advocacy has not been in your best interests. You're right, this discussion should have petered out as soon as you were blocked. Unfortunately, Biruitorul elected to come out swinging in your defense, expressing that El_C had made a bad block on unjustified grounds and ill-advised community feedback. As soon as an implication of administrative abuse was made, it was a foregone conclusion that the community was going to weigh in to some degree, though it probably would have been limited to three to five comments if not for the fact that you decided to immediately wade back in to defend yourself.

Unfortunately, the community commentary endorsing El_C's action did in turn pull you back into the cycle the block was meant to (at least temporarily) resolve. That said, the responses to Biruitorul's ill-timed (and to the eye of most of us commenting here, poorly argued) commentary don't obviate you from learning the lesson that was, I would presume (putting myself in El_C's place), half the point of the block: not letting go of matters, and interpreting valid and necessary community input as "harassment". There is a problem here, but it's not with El_C's exercise of his administrative discretion and it's not with the consensus of the feedback here. That said, I agree that it's time to put a close to this discussion and give you the space to take that feedback on board and adjust your approach to conflict resolution, rather than giving you immediate tests of that restraint. Happy editing and good luck moving forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a brief addendum: Dahn came to my talk page and, without objecting to the majority of my observations above, made a very polite appeal that I make one small amendment/correction to my above comments. Specifically, he wishes it memorialized for the record here that he didn't lose his cool in this edit summary simply because he objected to the spelling change, but because the changes could lead to broken links and other potential knock-on effects.

While that distinction doesn't really change my analysis above as to whether the edit summary was appropriate, I do understand Dahn's desire to have his motivations accurately presented here, even when it comes to small details. So I hope this addition serves to assuage his concerns. Further, I want to say I found his comments very cordial: they did not give me the impression that he was trying to prolong the dispute about the appropriateness of his response, but merely that he wanted an acknowledgment that his frustration arose out of more than a disagreement about spelling. I have no problem saying that I believe him about that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

disruptive article creation

Ya YouLe began their editing by hijacking Irfan Haider and writing about Irfan Hyder Laghari [162], after taking a hiatus of two years they returned today and created 4 articles about the members of the non notable Laghari family ( see [163]) ,I've tagged their recently created article Niaz Ali Laghari for deletion, I think admin intervention is necessary to prevent disruptive article creation.Ratnahastin (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Four CSD in a day. If they continue, they may find themselves blocked for disruption to the project. The primary issue is WP:webhost, and I imagine they don't understand they can't just make articles on all their family members, but this discussion should hopefully clear that up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Crusading movement

Administrators may well remember that I raised this recently, particularly regarding the behavior of @Borsoka. Having experienced his ways of working before it was obvious the was on a mission to attack this article as he has done others before. It is a MO of raising huge numbers of changes/tags/comments until all other editors lose the will to live. While accepting he has commendable commitment and energy for WP, he appears to have a blind spot when it comes to working in a consensual way. Especially, on topics that are more ambiguous, like this one.

Additionally, it must be admitted that the article had issues of close paraphrasing from the sources. I was working my way through these, where identified to remediate the issues. In fact I think this is an important article that I would work with anyone to improve.

However, he has listed this article at GAR, flooded the nomination with his comments and actually delisted the article himself. This does not seem to be due process.

JohnbodJenhawk777—FYI. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrongly templated Borsoka Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE may be applicable. Norfolkbigfish is obviously unable to edit without close paraphrasing. I gave them a chance to clean the article from plagiarism more than a week ago, but he could not. My detailed comments and reasoning can be read on the GAR page. I suggested them that they should review "his" other articles, such as House of Plantagenet from copyvio perspective as well. Borsoka (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not strictly accurate, I was working through this article as fast as real life would allow, rewriting section by section. A neutral review would have been welcome, as can be seen by the original GAN, 2 x peer reviews and extensive MILHIST ACR. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And at the end of those it still wasn't a good article. Remsense诉 10:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It passed both GAN and ACR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Only because the reviewers didn't notice it failed the criteria due to being plagiarized. Remsense诉 10:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as it seems at first glance. Yes, there is a pretty long and acrimonious discussion (from both sides), but the fundamental issue is that Borsoka has made a number of credible claims of copyvio/CLOP—supported by numerous examples—which NBF seems unable (or unwilling) to grasp. It is good that OP is slowly making their way through the article and rewriting it; but copyvio should be removed at the first opportunity. Also noting that close paraphrasing/OR concerns were previously raised at the article's previous iteration, where NBF was a major contributor to. This may test the premise that NBF is as capable of recognising CLOP as might be expected.

For GAR due process, see WP:GA/R. And why has NBF pinged two other editors above. ——Serial Number 54129 10:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If we call copy-pasting CLIP and close paraphrasing CLOP, then we could have WP:CLIPCLOP. EEng 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think my 29 replies in 8 days to the GAR, with associated edits to the article, demonstrates good faith in this matter Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Read my remarks below ([164]). Borsoka (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As also stated on WP:GA (I recommend against forum shopping on this), good articles simply cannot contain any plagiarism, which was present in this article as described. If someone was willing to be patient as you describe while this was dealt with, it would be going above and beyond what is expected of them. 'twas not a consensual process with the writers you've plagiarized either. Remsense诉 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

My principal problem was that even after his edits during the GAR, a whole section remained filled with closely paraphrased texts. By now, Norfolkbigfish has twice reverted my closing of the GAR. Although they could have started the review of "their" other articles to detect plagiarism. I am not sure whether Norfolkbigfish wants to build an encyclopedia or only wants to receive WP credentials for texts copied from historians' works at any rate. Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

All issues raised have been cleared. Mistakes have been made, but have been rectified when raised. This won't be repeated by me. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

No, even after your edits during GAR a whole section contains plagiarism. You have filled articles with copied texts for years. Examples can be read on the FAC review page. I could have delisted the article soon after opening its GAR. Instead I gave you a chance for 10 days. I draw your attention to the dangers of plagiarism years ago but you continued to copy texts from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

WHY is this at ANI again??? As mentioned at WT:GAN, Borsoka should obviously revert the GAR closure as an INVOLVED action which contravenes the GAR instructions, and Norfolkbigfish really needs to get a handle on when escalating a dispute here is a good idea, especially when it looks very much like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism is too serious an issue. I gave Norfolkbigfish a last chance. Borsoka (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That is the whole point here @Borsoka, you didn't give me a chance. Or not least a reasonable one. In 8 days I responded 29 times to your points and made the associated changes to the article. You knew full well I was working my way through the article section by section, you could have been patient. You were not. Instead you prematurely closed a review that you should have recused yourself from as WP:INVOLVED. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Read my remarks below ([165]). Borsoka (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, the simple answer is that I was looking for help. All feedback is welcome, even that which is challenging, as yours has been on occasions. As you write Borsoka should revert his GAR closure as involved, but no one was likely to suggest that without some form of escalation. If this is the wrong channel please suggest a more suitable one. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It would also be wrong to give equal weight to two dissimilar behaviors: wrongly closing a discussion =/= copyright violation, which may have legal considerations, or plagiarism. ——Serial Number 54129 11:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a key difference @Serial Number 54129, I am attempting to resolve my behaviour. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this could have been prevented if the IBAN proposed here was implemented. Either way I'd expect someome with over 10 years on here and who had copying trouble in the past to be more careful than this when adding content. Nobody (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that I should not have reviewed Norfolkbigfish's article? Blatant and constant plagiarism would have remained a problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If you see plagiarism you shoud obviously point it out. But with the history between you two, I'm not sure you are the right person to review their nominations. Nobody (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have expicitly pointed it out several times for years. During the FAC review, other reviewers opposed on the same ground. Yes, I have been suspecting for years that Norfolkbigfish should not edit not only because of persistent plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point @1AmNobody24, acknowledged and accepted. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: your above remarks show that you still do not understand that plagiarism is a serious issue. You are still struggling for your GA badge and accusing me of misconduct instead of reviewing your many articles. Let's forget that both myself and an other editor detected your plagiarism years ago ([166], [167]), and let's begin with the FAC review. During the FAC review I detected many cases of plagiarism (these are listed here), and some of my finds were confirmed by an other reviewer ([168]), thus the FAC failed. On 8 April 2024, I opened a GAR and explicitly draw your attention to the dangers of plagiarism, suggesting that "the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues" in the last sentence of the opening paragraph ([169]). Remember that a more experienced editor warned me, that the article should have been delisted [170], and you told me "I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that." ([171]) During the review, I repeated this advice, stating that "this is an extremly urgent task ... I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism" ([172]). Later, experiencing that you do not take this issue seriously, and your are discussing other (in comparison minor) issues, I also noted that "Clearing the article from plagiarism would be a progress. All other issues are less relevant for the time being." ([173]). In the meantime, I was reviewing your edits. During this review, I realised that you failed to address close paraphrasing in several sentences in a section that you rewrote ([174]). You have been warned several times and by multiple editors during the last years, but you have not learnt. You received a last chance, but you failed to clean the article. Instead, you entered into petty discussions about petty issues on the reassessment page, although I repeatedly warned you the importance of the issue. After I closed the GAR and delisted the article, you did not begin to clean it, but you began a struggle for your undeserved GA badge: you took me to ANI and tried to diss me on Diannaa's Talk page ([175]). (I sought Dianna's assistance to solve this serious issue.) Are you sure that you are here to build an encyclopedia? For me, your persistent and blatant plagiarism indicates "General pattern of disruptive behavior", and your struggle for your GA badge suggests that you want "to gain as many awards as possible". I suggest you should drop the stick and try to help other editors to clean your articles from your plagiarism. Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As has been explained to you by @AirshipJungleman29, @Borsoka it was not for you to nominate the article at GAR, flood the review with comments and then fail and delist without the involvement of anyone else. You were wp:involved. You should revert this and allow an uninvolved reviewer consider it. I happily admit my mistakes and am/was working towards rectifying them. As far as I am aware this has progressed far enough that all the copyright issues you have raised have been resolved. If you have any outstanding please feel free to add them to the articles talk page and I would be happy to rectify them. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• You still do not understand the problem: you are struggling for your undeserved GA badge. If I were you I would stop editing other pages than Crusading movement, House of Lancaster, House of Plantagenet. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the close as out of process—individual reassessments were last year deprecated to avoid this sort of situation. I suggest, to avoid Borsoka getting stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP he does not deserve to be in, that you attempt to fix all plagiarism concerns in the article, and then ping Borsoka; if he spots any more issues, he can simply !vote to delist, and an uninvolved closer will take that into account when closing the discussion. I suggest that you also moderate your tone Norfolkbigfish; your conduct has been substantially inferior to Borsoka's. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think WP:CRD for blatant plagiarism is to be applied here, and the article should be reduced to the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish started to fill the page with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Propose block of Norfolkbigfish for on going copyright issues which remain an issue despite their ongoing promises. Normally would advocate for them to clean it up, but this and all the prior discussions indicate they're unable to do so. We need to keep more plagiarism issues out of mainspace. Star Mississippi 16:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 has suggested a way forward that is much less excessive. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Further cases of plagiarism from one single section of the article are listed here. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Star Mississippi. NBF's comment above—'I am attempting to resolve my behaviour'—is troubling to say the least. They've been here 16 years,but it's okay to still be learning not to plagiarise?! In fact, not even learning, just attempting to?! No way. ——Serial Number 54129 10:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous IP vandalism

Recently I have come across anonymous multiple IP Vandalism on a series of articles. The series of articles are under this category: en:Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh. These articles are part of the election that is being conducted in India this may and these anonymous IPs are replacing the contesting candidate names and previously won candidates or contesting candidate names with derogatory terms in the local language. I have already requested for protection for 3 of the articles from the list and left notices for a few articles on one of the IP talk page. But still I don't think this is going to stop since these are multiple IPs and being vandalising idol time to time. One IP vandals and the other corrects it immediately. Not sure if both are related or different.

Presenting the IPs that are contributing to the vandalism:

• User:152.58.198.24
• User:2409:40f4:1123:97d7:61d8:db1c:3b1a:63dd
• User:152.58.213.210
• User:152.58.214.17
• User:152.58.199.43
• User:2409:40f0:1185:852e:8000::
• User:220.158.183.14

I am of the opinion that all these are of the same user. 456legendtalk 00:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And I am not sure if I am supposed to send a investigation notice to these IPs or not. Please advice me about my duties. 456legendtalk 00:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I see your comments on User talk:152.58.198.24. I think it is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or something User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I checked one of the IP's contribs. They were editing a template. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hamterous1 Please look into their contributions: [[176]]

[[177]]

[[178]]

[[179]]

[[180]]

[[181]]

[[182]]

They are actually editing the names of the candidates with derogatory terms like whore, gay, ass and other terms that are nearest to the candidate name in the election boxes of the local language on these articles. 456legendtalk 00:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked 152.58.198.0/23, which was low-hanging. An edit filter should be able to help with the rest. Take a look through these contributions and tell me if you see anything you haven't already stated (also please sort out any vandalism you come across). It would also be good if you could give specific examples, using diffs and translations, as this is hard work for non-local language speakers.

• 152.58.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2409:40f4:1000:0:0:0:0:0/39 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For example, this edit is apparently in Maharashtra and Yanam Assembly constituency is somewhere else. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but since I am in a different time zone and may be a bit busy, I may not be able to look through these at certain times. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 02:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I'd provide an update. I've set up filter 1303 (hist · log) to provide some log-only tracking. At this time I haven't made the filter public, but that may change depending on a few factors. I've also blocked 2409:40F4:1110::/45 and 152.58.198.0/23 for two weeks. Both those ranges appear to be larger, perhaps anywhere up to /29 and /16 respectively, but balancing collateral I think that should take out the worst of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Issues with User:晓谷

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:晓谷 is already blocked indefinitely on the Chinese Mandarin Wikipedia. The majority of their edits here are reverted. Every 2–3 months, they remove content from List of languages by total number of speakers and List of languages by number of native speakers to change "Cantonese" for "Yue" (but by doing so, they also tend to revert all other edits made in between):

• 2 April 2023
• 16 April 2023
• 17 April 2023
• 29 April 2023
• May 2023
• July 2023
• 13 August 2023
• 18 August 2023
• September 2023
• January 2024
• March 2024
• 5 April 2024
• 19 April 2024

I warned them on their talk page to no avail:

• 13 August 2023‎
• 18 August 2023
• September 2023
• February 2024
• March 2024
• April 2024

Not sure what else I can do. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

They were confirmed to be a sock of some user on zhwiki. Hence I've requested a glock on meta:Steward requests/Global. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:08, 20 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.

Raid on Tendra Spit infobox

Recently, I conducted a review of the subject article in which the infobox was ultimately removed because it contained false, dubious or misleading information, some of which falls to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Once such material was removed, there was no reasonable justification to retain the infobox. A TP discussion was created at Talk:Raid on Tendra Spit#Review of article and Talk:Raid on Tendra Spit#Revert in which the issues relating to the infobox have been clearly articulated. Salfanto readded the infobox here with the view that an infobox was somehow mandatory for such an article. They have readded another version of the infobox here, which retains some (but not all) of the material identified in the TP discussion as being inappropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157, the issue of whether or not an article ought to have an infobox is entirely unrelated to the question of the accuracy of the content in the infobox. If there are inaccuracies, correct them. If you want to remove the infobox, then make a policy based argument at Talk: Raid_on_Tendra_Spit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The point is the reinstatement of the dubious information that was identified and corrected. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Narek48thunderchicken26

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

---

Please remove TPA, there are WP:CIR issues and general misuse of TPA. Courtesy ping @ToBeFree. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 02:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:03, 20 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:M.Bitton and WP:CPP

I would like to call attention to M.Bitton and what seems to be an intractable pattern of WP:OWNership and civil POV-pushing. I considered the edit warring noticeboard or DR (3O has already failed), but decided to come to ANI because this appears to be a longstanding pattern.

We have been talking for some time and his responses have been increasingly indefensible as he continues to wholesale revert any change to shakshouka. The article came to my attention because one of my randomly-assigned wiki-mentees asked for help. At first I thought M.Bitton was just a bit impatient and bitey with this newbie (I expressed that concern here), but I am now concerned that there is a much larger problematic pattern of behaviour. In this content dispute, M.Bitton has ignored this 3O and repeatedly reverted full-article edits over a single word in the lead: [183] [184] [185], refusing to engage constructively on the talk page: [186] [187] [188] [189]. I particularly want to highlight their response after that last revert, where they tell me I must base my edits on the three sources I had in fact just used: [190] [191] They appear to address my suggested edits here (apparently reading my contribution for the first time after reverting it) but not in a constructive spirit.

Their talk page history suggests that they have a pattern of obstructionism: [192][193][194] [195][196] [197] Especially worrisome to me are the edit summaries, where M.Bitton responds to these requests for more constructive editing by calling them insults. I got curious about whether this was a pattern; in addition to their block log, searching M.Bitton's name at ANI suggests that the Maghreb topic area has led them into conflict before: 2023 2023 2021 2021 2015

All of this suggests that there are major problems that have been going on for a long time. I truly do not care about shakshuka and am only trying to resolve, using academic sources, the content issue that my mentee was struggling with; nevertheless, I have been accused of POV-pushing and have found the article impossible to edit. Could an admin please investigate? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

We have been talking for some time no we haven't. While I have been making proposals on how to improve the article, your only input has been in response to the POV that you've been trying to impose through an edit war. Your first so-called bold edit involved a revert of Skitash's edit that sidelined my proposal and ignored everything that was said on the TP.

M.Bitton has ignored this 3O that's a lie! see my response them.

they tell me I must base my edits on the three sources that's another lie. Here's what suggested (inviting others to provide the needed RS).

They appear to address my suggested edits... not in a constructive spirit. the serious concerns that I raised with regard to your misrepresentation of the sources speak for themselves (there are others that I will highlight once you start responding). Understandably, it's a lot easier to run to ANI than to justify the unjustifiable. M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that you ignored the advice of the 3O, which was against your POV. For the rest, I honestly think the shakshuka talk page speaks for itself. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The quotes and diffs that prove that you lied talk for themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe I have misrepresented the diffs here or the sources I attempted to use in the article. I am happy to provide any additional context or explanation requested by an admin looking into this matter. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what WP:OWN is. M.Bitton was simply restoring the article back to its longstanding version that has been in place for ages. I suggest you read WP:STATUSQUO, which advises against reverting away from the longstanding version amidst a dispute discussion to avoid an edit war. The talk page discussion doesn't show a clear consensus, and I don't find the arguments from Raturous and you compelling. Removing "Maghrebi" from the lead isn't justified, especially when the only source from a food historian in the article confirms it as a Maghrebi dish. Skitash (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a consensus to rewrite: the thing to do would be to rewrite that section using the highest quality RS we can find[198] before my first rewrite and As for the body (specifically, the origin section), I can go ahead and rewrite it now using the only source that is written by a food historian (everything else will go)[199] before my second rewrite. Why should M.Bitton be allowed to (theoretically) do a full rewrite and not me? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Your out of context quoting has to stop. I only suggested a full rewrite of the origin section and I was looking for and sharing what I found on the talk page, while asking others to share any RS that could be used. What you did (misrepresenting the sources that I found, obliterating the etymology section and changing the lead section to push your POV) is simply unacceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur your arguments and those of Raturous are not especially compelling. I also don't see that the WP:OWN claims are particularly valid, nor do I think the claim that M.Bitton has failed to engage constructively at the talkpage is accurate. A cursory examination of the talkpage shows that this specific issue has been a flashpoint in the article's history over which there has been significant discussion and consensus, and M.Bitton has clearly laid out concerns with the changes and the need for high quality sources. Separately, some of the other evidence presented here is pretty poor: there is nothing wrong with the edit summaries M.Bitton has used on his talkpage; the contextless links and claim that M.Bitton has been to ANI about this issue multiple times ignore the outcomes of those discussions, at least two of which involved the other editor blocked, and the other three more or less exonerating M.Bitton. Strongly suggest this report, which seems disruptive, be withdrawn by the filer. Grandpallama (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for review of partial block from CopyPatrol

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

---

Hello,

I recently got "partially blocked" from CopyPatrol by JJMC89. I am writing to ask for someone to please review this block.

I am not here to "play games", or mess around with Wikipedia. All I wanted to do was help. I want to make it clear that I want to be a good contributor to the encyclopedia and I am happy to learn from my mistakes.

I understand that I have made some mistakes when using it, such as not following up on the copyright violations, and I am very willing to learn from this. However, I did not expect to be blocked completely and have a black mark on my record. I feel that this block is disproportionate given my actions. Particularly, I tried my best to use the tool properly. I know that this tool is not a toy. I think that it would be a lot better if I were informed of my mistakes, prior to such a block being imposed against me. I am more than happy to do more reading to further understand the tool prior to using it again.

Thank you in advance for reviewing my block and I look forward to a response regarding this. WizardGamer775 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you first discuss this with the admin who blocked you? This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. What exactly is urgent about this or what is the behavioral issue, other than your own, which resulted in your pblock? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not urgent. I think I posted it to the wrong place. Nevertheless, I will discuss this with the admin who blocked me. WizardGamer775 (talk) 00:52, 21 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.

Tendentious editing by Abhirup2441139

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.

---

Abhirup2441139 has in the space of c 24 hrs created five copies of Draft:Arup Das under different titles as well as on their user page and sandbox, most with significant copyvios. I believe there is also a COI issue, which the user has not responded to (they also implied as much, by saying that they got the permission to use "all the materials" from the family of the person in question). Finally, there is now a new account Ad1959 joining the fray (and offering to report me to "authorities"), which I suspect is a puppet of some variety. Could we please apply some brakes here? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

hello, it is noteworthy to mention here that -DoubleGrazing has deliberately denied publishing of an article regarding a sports personality for some unknown bias and instead of shedding some advice on how such article should be published as it is a biography of a sports personality, this person has gone to lengths to deny publishing such article, I urge you to kindly go through the article and kindly let the article be cross checked by some other person as this person has clearly violated his powers to deny such with reasons being absurd kindly request you to take appropriate action against -DoubleGrazing and re review the article by an unbiased and helpful person Ad1959 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Both accounts blocked for sock or meat puppetry. Both drafts deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Bbb23. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we be concerned about this edit in the context of the one made immediately after? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• UTRS appeal #87622 is closed. On the user talk page, I noted the legal threat looking edit and the cries of discrimination.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'll add a NLT warning. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  legal threat withdrawn (?). -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Further violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE with  Confirmed sock, Akatsuvalski12. --Yamla (talk) 11:25, 20 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.

Badly-written edits, WP:CIR issues and WP:OR by Baratiiman

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.

---

Baratiiman (talk · contribs) has made multiple instances of mistranslated statements, incoherent grammar raising serious questions about their WP:CIR and WP:OR that had been flagged by editors over a period of time but has refused to address the issue despite several warnings on their talk page. Their latest target has been 2024 Iranian strikes on Israel, where they have added material that is not supported by sources and falsely accuse me of censorship in the talk page. See

• [[200]]
• [[201]]
• [[202]]
• [[203]]

For further reference, I am also showing multiple complaints that they had from me and other users over their editing, which they have never addressed, as well as other examples of questionable editing. I have already raised this in ANI early this year but no action was taken:

• [[204]]
• [[205]]
• [[206]]
• [[207]]
• [[208]]
• [[209]]
• [[210]]
• [[211]]
• [[212]]
• [[213]]
• [[214]]
• [[215]]
• [[216]]
• [[217]]

For WP:CIR, a check of their contributions would find that a majority of their edits are badly written.

Borgenland (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like they just received a one month Arb Enforcement block by ScottishFinnishRadish. Is that sufficient, or does this need a closer examination? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I hadn't seen this. Based on their block log and edits a deeper look is probably worthwhile. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, their history of bad grammar appears to be exhaustive, and raises doubts over their good faith, but as I mentioned they have not addressed any concerns raised to them about this on their talk page, hence this report. Hoping that offending user finally takes stock of this. Borgenland (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Too late here for me to go digging, but on the surface, I would agree that a closer examination is warranted. What little I saw did raise questions about CIR and WP:TE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also this complaint from a user who happened to approach me over this, [[218]] Borgenland (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, I endorse a CIR block of some sort here. I haven’t had a ton of direct interactions with the user in question, but in what I have seen at the Ongoing portal, he tends to both use sources to make/exaggerate claims that aren’t in the sources themselves, and do so with a far-below-par level of English compared to what’s expected to contribute constructively here. As always, a mess created in good faith is still a mess. The Kip 15:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The quality of some of the edits made to Russian invasion of Ukraine makes me also support at least some level of restriction. It doesn't help that they seem to primarily edit in contentious topics, where the standard should be way higher than what they contribute with. TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 19 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.

Spam-only account

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

---

Zimidar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) enough rope given, seems to be here just to promote their clients. 95.107.255.234 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition, their files on Wikimedia Commons have all been deleted, and they seem to be spamming on Urdu Wiki as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the timing and edits (the first 500 in particular), it does look like gaming to get extended confirm status. Plus I noticed MMW removed the AFC tag on their page (good move), after they moved a draft to Bilal Talib, which itself, DOES look like pure undisclosed paid editing, and its a dumpster fire of an article. I will let someone else send to AFD (it needs it), but it seems obvious from the sources and prose. I will credit to the patience they displayed getting to this point, which is rare, but it is still a problem that needs to be dealt with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• I found this response to be a bit bizarre. [219] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Looking at the deleted contribs (admin only link), it seems kind of obvious this is undeclared paid editing, particularly when I compare the English skills on the talk page versus the articles themselves, ie: they might not have written the prose themselves, a common paid editing style. I would like another admin or two to opine before I do anything, as non-admin can't see the deleted contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:49, 21 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:John Foxe

On three separate occasions[220][221][222], User:John Foxe has removed maintenance tags while a discussion is ongoing on the talk page. In the third instance, the editor was reminded of the policy and did it anyway[223]. The editor is highly experienced, having been on Wikipedia since 2006 and should know better than to engage in disruptive editing.--User:Namiba 22:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have thrice prompted User:Namiba to provide sourced evidence that maintenance tags were necessary for this Good Article, listed as such since 2009. He has not provided any, apparently believing his POV trumps the considerable number of secondary sources cited. Otherwise, there's no ongoing discussion on the talk page. (Interestingly, Namiba is also highly experienced and has been on Wikipedia since 2006.) John Foxe (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

[involved] @Namiba, If your goal is to collaboratively rewrite the article with neutral language, it doesn't really matter whether the article has a tag at the top during that rewrite or not. In fact, you'll probably get more cooperation from the regulars if you forget the tag at the top of the article and focus on the individual sentences you feel are too peacocky. Just my 2¢ ~Awilley (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that once someone tags an article, it is up to you to start the discussion on the talk page if you get reverted while removing it. Someone has to start. If the tag is truly superfluous, it shouldn't take long to get a few others to say as much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is both parties' job to start a discussion on the talk page. I have sympathy with John Foxe's position, but the article talk page is the place to discuss it. One thing that seems to have taken hold on Wikipedia is that you are somehow losing face by starting a talk page discussion rather than saying that the other party should start it. You are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I started a discussion about this on April 15. While the discussion has been ongoing, the tags were repeatedly removed. The tags are meant to encourage participation so removing them is an attempt to stifle a discussion.--User:Namiba 12:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I see now. I made the mistake of believing this user when he said, "there's no ongoing discussion on the talk page". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats at Talk:Shiva_Ayyadurai

Diff: There is obvious slander and even legal libel that I’ve recorded and sent in that him and other editors have been consistently returning to the page to keep up.

They also have a lot to say about me personally, so I'd rather not respond myself any further. - MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by EvergreenFir as a WP:SOCK of Fung4022. --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither of whom appear to be HERE, but I have stock in WP:ROPE companies so I like to drive up its consumption. I've left Fung4022 unblocked for now. I doubt that it's the original account though. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, so you're going long on ROPE...?  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 13:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Zarah Abdurrahman

Single-purpose account promoting Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi, ignoring past discussion at Talk:Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi#Content written like an advertisement * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• This looks like (undeclared) paid editing to me, or they are so in love with the subject they just want to add puffery. Either way, it is either disruptive or a violation of the terms of use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have pointed out before that in the US (but not in most of the rest of the world) any training institute or degree mill can call itself a university and confer degrees. I was about to say that at least Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi has an honorary doctorate, but then I saw that it was from the California Metropolitan University. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Does any admin intend to do something here? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what the best solution is here, to be honest. Their only edit since this started was to remove a little puffery in the lede. What really needs doing is gutting that article down to what actually is noteworthy, which I don't feel up to. For example, I don't see why the awards section even exists for non-notable awards, which is the padding that is propping up the puffery elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Page-blocked. Several users have made large edits to remove and tone down the promotional material, see here and here, but Zarah Abdurrahman immediately started building it up again. In September 2023, they removed the advert tag. This looks very much like an undisclosed paid editor, but whether or not, they are bad for the article. Even if they've done no harm since this started, Dennis (i.e., not in the past three days), they are a promotional SPA who has been working on the article since June 2023. We don't have to put up with that, and so I've blocked them from the article. They can still edit the talkpage. As for gutting the article, I agree, but I'm not going to do it, since I've taken admin action. Bishonen | tålk 15:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC).

User talk:Countscarter

Since registration, @Countscarter has been adding unsourced content along with providing little to no communication with other editors, including the near-total lack of edit summaries. They were also in a brief edit war over the article for Fixed (such as here), providing no references for justification and insisted on their edits through word of mouth. They have been warned for their actions about eight times (mostly for this month), including by me. After recent unsourced contributions on The Ark and the Aardvark (here) and Universal Pictures Home Entertainment (here), I decided I can no longer assume good faith in this user.

I've been tracking and mostly reverting Countscarter's edits for about a couple of weeks now since finding one of their contributions suspicious, although I have forgotten the initial article that grabbed my attention. I initially made a report on the Teahouse before moving to here out of suggestion by @Tenryuu and then deciding to wait afterwards to give another chance. Unfortunately, in the eight days since the Teahouse report, I found little to no improvements in Countscarter's editing, with only about a couple of edits (such as with here, albeit reverted) using sources. Lastly to note they've made dozens of such edits on Scene It?; I suggest someone review the article's quality since there's too many edits to focus on briefly. If I have done anything unintentionally out of malice, please let me know. Carlinal (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 48 hours as a means to get them to engage and left them a talk page message explaining this - I recommend that any further discussion continues there. firefly ( t · c ) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Danteishere

Continuously uploading undesirable posters of Vijay films. I believe the poster used should be the original release poster, but he uses re-release and teaser ones. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

that recent one was a old original poster 😨 I uploaded I found it on pinterest.com since recent Vijay old film posters are bad shape I was trying to use a hd poster what's wrong with that is it a crime? Danteishere (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

In this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghilli#/media/File%3AGhilli_poster.jpg Danteishere (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hold on. "I found it on pinterest.com"? So you are unaware of the copyright status of these and you're just uploading images you find on the internet without updating the copyright status and free use justification criteria? Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The movie was released on 17 April. When there's a poster advertising that date, best to use it, right? Alright, this user's most recent upload wasn't so bad quality, but the pic shouldn't be less than 220px. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The important thing is that its copyright is compatible or that we can use it under the "fair use" provision of copyright law. Quality and resolution are only relevant when those hurdles have been passed. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Its just 200px and hd good quality so I thought it comes under fair use sorry admin hereafter I won't upload without taking proper concern have a nice day🙏 Danteishere (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

IP & Editor1249339333 adding nonsense to BLP article as an attempt to tarnish reputation/attack the person

The following IP as well as user has been adding nonsensical/opinionated text to the Tarek Loubani article. You can see their additions in the lede as well as later in the article regarding Loubani being shot in the leg.

• 142.198.108.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Editor1249339333

Looking at the article history, you can see that Editor1249339333's initial additions were reverted by an IP and were added again. After I went ahead and reverted it myself, the IP 142.198.108.139 would once again add everything back, even after being warned by myself in both their talk page and in my edit comment.

Given the fact that their only edits are on the article about him, it's clear that the sole purpose of this IP & account is to attack Tarek Loubani. I'm requesting somebody with the authority to either lock the article, block the account/IP, or anything else that would be suitable for this. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The edit in question was about a minor charge, not a conviction, based on a primary source. It definitely falls foul of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPCRIME and probably other policies. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep. I have indeffed the account as NOTHERE and pblocked the IP from the article (with logged-in editors from that IP included). Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Should the edits in question then be RD2'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

LTA user created an account impersonating a religious institution, username promotion, and fringe theory promotion

For the past 2 years, an incredibly disruptive user has been vandalizing pages related to South Asian topics; with their primary MO to inflate census numbers in favour of their religion, write general statements which aggrandize their language, Punjabi ethnicity, and religion, and to include the Ravidassia religion as part of Sikhism (Ravidassias were formerly a schismatic faction within Sikhism, after an attack on one of their temples and religious leaders, they split off from the Sikh religion and compiled their own religious book)

They primarily use various 93*IPs which geolocate to Italy; some of their ranges include: 93.33.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.32.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.36.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 93.45.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) etc. Hundreds of individual IPs within these ranges have been blocked (often for a short duration of time) for repeated vandalism + disruption.

They recently created an account called DeraBallanOfficial, pretending to be the official representative of an apex Ravidas institution. Their user page promotes a fringe theory about the aforementioned attack on the Ravidas temple, which they've incorporated into their edits as well-[224], [225], [226]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If Ravidassias were part of officially part of Sikhism until 2009 that's only 15 years ago. How do you know that this account is the IP? Secretlondon (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Like I said I've been dealing with and reporting these 93 IPs for a very long time: you can see all my reports on ARV-[227] which are almost exclusively about this editor. They're pretty dedicated to this narrative surrounding Ravidassias. You can also see the same type of edits from the 93 IPs: [228], [229], [230], [231], [232]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"DeraBallanOfficial" sounds like it is a straight up WP:UPOL violation whether they were legitimately an official representative of Dela Ballan or not. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account DeraBallanOfficial, because it was clearly deliberately falsifying information to promote its cause. However, the problem is clearly much bigger than that one account, and it needs more work. JBW (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @JBW, I requested indef semi protection for the pages this sock-farm persistently targets, it's difficult dealing with it because of how often the IPs oscillate, but unfortunately the requests were denied. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Southasianhistorian8: Yes. I notice the interesting comment "Protection is not necessary for issues with 1 or 2 users/IPs". I don't have time to look into this any further now, but I may possiblydo so tomorrow. JBW (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Southasianhistorian8: It took me longer than I hoped to get back to looking more thoroughly into this, but I have done so now. The range of IP addresses used is far too large to consider blocking all of them, and even totally blocking a lot of subranges covering all the editing would be problematic too. However, I have blocked the IP ranges 93.32.0.0/16, 93.36.0.0/16, 93.45.0.0/16, and 93.55.0.0/16 from the articles Amritbani Guru Ravidass Ji, Dera (organization), Dera Sach Khand, Guru Ravidass Jayanti, Ramanand Dass, Ravidas Temple, and Sects of Sikhism for two years. It would be possible to add up to three more pages to that partial block (ten pages is the most that can be included in a partial block) but I have not done that yet, because I have not seen any other pages with substantial amounts of editing from this person, but you may well know of more, as you evidently have much more experience of this issue than I have. Other articles that I have seen, but with very small numbers of edits by this person, are Bihar, Gaddi Nashin, Religion in Bihar, Religion in the United Kingdom, and Satnampanth. It would also be possible to include more than ten pages by using smaller IP ranges for some of them. The range 93.33.0.0/16 is already totally blocked until 24 December 2024. Unfortunately, partial blocks in this situation are quite likely to just result in the person moving to other IP ranges, other articles, or both, so it's likely to be just a matter of damage limitation, rather than a cure. If you know of other IP ranges involved, or other articles significantly affected, please feel welcome to let me know, and I will consider extending the blocks. JBW (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @JBW for looking into this, a partial block is great because it reduces collateral damage and at the same time it will at least significantly hamper this user's disruption who primarily uses logged out editing. Thank you very much for this. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Gaming by Justin L. 1230

Last year, Justin L. 1230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made hundreds of minor edits that are an obvious attempt at WP:GAMING EC, such as editing articles by adding a single letter at a time (e.g. [233] [234]). They are now making contentious edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area [235]. Can their EC status be revoked? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've revoked EC. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Cfls

I would like to report user Cfls for their poor editing behavior, including large-scale deletions, bias, and lack of good faith in discussions. Cfls has been involved in numerous disputes on talk pages regarding editing decisions on Chinese academic institutions, university classifications, and content deletions. Their editing behavior has resulted in the loss of valuable content.

Some specific issues are:

1. Large-scale deletions: Cfls has repeatedly removed large amounts of content from articles like Fudan University, Shanghai University, and Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They have deleted well-sourced historical information and replaced it with minimal introductory paragraphs, significantly impacting the quality and comprehensiveness of these articles.

2. Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Policies: The user often justifies these deletions by citing WP:NOTADVERT, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:BOOSTER, but fails to provide concrete explanations for why specific content violates these policies. They have removed references to reputable sources like Times Higher Education and Shanghai Ranking, claiming they don't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, which contradicts established consensus on these sources. They appears to misinterpret policies like WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV to justify removing factual information and descriptive language.

3. Lack of good faith: Cfls often replies to criticism with long, passive-aggressive paragraphs (possibly generated by ChatGPT) and dismissive comments. Instead of engaging in constructive discussions, Cfls avoids addressing specific concerns and accuses others of bias or not understanding Wikipedia policies.

4. Talk Page Misuse: Cfls is now frequently emptying their talk page by marking discussions as "archived," even though these disputes are clearly not settled, which seems to be an attempt to avoid criticism. This behavior raises doubts about their good faith.

I kindly request that administrators review the editing history and talk page discussions of Cfls, and take appropriate actions (such as warnings, topic bans, or blocks) based on their findings. 61.224.112.80 (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• We aren't going to go on a fishing expedition here. Unless you provide specific links and say what policy it violates, you are wasting your time and ours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Apology for not providing specific links earlier. I'm not an experienced editor. I would like to present the following examples of Cfls' behavior to demonstrate their mass deletions and lack of constructive engagement in discussions:

  Fudan University: Cfls eliminated a significant portion of the content in the "History" section, including well-sourced historical information, and replaced it with a minimal introductory paragraph. They also removed a paragraph explaining the meaning of the university's name, despite it being well-sourced.[236]

  Shanghai University: A large portion of the "History" section was deleted, with Cfls citing only WP:NPOV and WP:BOOSTER as justification, without providing any specific issues with the content.[237]

  Similar situation happened to Huazhong University of Science and Technology [238], Zhejiang University [239], and other smaller universities like Beijing City University [240].

  In each case, Cfls did not attempt to improve the existing content, find better sources, or engage in constructive discussions on the talk pages. Instead, they consistently chose mass deletion as their primary editing strategy.

  Additionally, Cfls has been deleting criticism and ongoing disputes on their talk page by archiving discussions prematurely:

  Archived without resolution: A discussion about Cfls' edits on Chinese academic institutions was twice archived, despite the issue remaining unresolved. [241][242]

  Criticism deleted: Criticism regarding Cfls' unilateral archive was again twice deleted in another archived discussion. [243][244]

  I hope these specific examples provide enough evidence to warrant a review of Cfls' editing behavior. Thank you for your understanding and attention to this matter. 61.224.112.80 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Most of those are content, not behavioural, issues. You say that Cfls did not attempt to engage in constructive discussions on the talk pages. Did you? I mean on article, not user, talk pages, which are where content issues potentially of interest to more than one editor are discussed. The claimed issues with their user talk page are non-issues. Anyone can delete almost anything from their user talk page, per WP:OWNTALK. The most serious issue that you raised initially was with the potential use of ChatGPT. I note that you provided no diffs for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the guidance. Sorry for not distinguishing between content and behavioural issues properly. I will use article talk pages to discuss content-related concerns in the future.

  As for the use of ChatGPT, it is challenging to prove with absolute certainty. However, I have strong reasons to believe that Cfls has been using it based on the distinctive language patterns and structure in their replies, as shown in the examples provided below. These replies are unusually long, overly formal, and contain complex sentence structures that are not typical of casual human writing. When put through zerogpt.com, the first response received a 57% GPT rating, which means a high likelihood of being generated by a language model.

  Here are first example (from Cfls' talk page):

  "I would like to emphasize that my edits were made in strict compliance with Wikipedia's mandatory policies, including WP:BOOSTER, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTADVERT. I encourage you to review these guidelines thoroughly before forming an opinion on this matter.

  Your observation regarding my edits on the pages of Chinese academic institutions is noted. However, it's important to clarify that these edits were not made irresponsibly or indiscriminately. My intention was to streamline the content to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifiability. The substantial reduction in content, though seemingly drastic, was an effort to eliminate promotional material and unverified claims, which is a common challenge in Wikipedia entries about academic institutions.

  It's crucial to understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for exhaustive histories or detailed profiles but rather a platform for concise, reliable, and verifiable information. The decision to condense the content was based on the need to align these articles with similar standards applied globally to academic institutions on Wikipedia. It was not a move to undermine the importance or reputation of these institutions.

  Regarding your concern about the elimination of contributions from other users, it's worth noting that Wikipedia encourages continuous editing and improvement of its content. My edits were not intended to diminish the value of previous contributions but to refine the content for accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

  In light of your feedback, I am open to constructive dialogue and collaboration. If there are specific concerns about the sources used or the content removed, I welcome a discussion on the respective talk pages of these institutions. This collaborative approach would ensure that the content remains robust, credible, and reflective of the collective knowledge of the Wikipedia community." [245]

  The second one (While this one not as obviously generated by ChatGPT, it shows structural and linguistic similarities to the first example. The use of certain phrases and the overall structure suggest that it was influenced by, if not entirely written by, ChatGPT.):

  "I appreciate your engagement and the opportunity to further clarify my position and actions on Wikipedia. It's essential to address some misconceptions and provide a broader context for my edits.

  Firstly, the assertion that I have removed 'adjective words' and relevant links indiscriminately overlooks the core of Wikipedia's editing philosophy. My focus has been on ensuring that every piece of content adheres to Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), no advertising (WP:NOTADVERT), verifiability (WP:VERIFY), and no original research (WP:ORIGINAL). For educational institution entries, the anti-academic boosterism policy (WP:BOOSTER) is also in force. In many cases, 'adjective words' are laden with promotional or subjective tones not suitable for an encyclopedia, which demands objectivity. When links and references were removed, it was because they did not meet the reliability criteria essential for Wikipedia (WP:RS), not because of an oversight or disregard for the institutions' history, reputation, and impact.

  Your comments suggest a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and the inclusion of verifiable information. It's imperative to recognize that Wikipedia is not a platform for unmoderated praise or promotional content, but rather for balanced, fact-based information supported by reliable sources. My editing approach has been consistent across various articles, aiming to uphold these standards universally, not just for specific institutions or geographies.

  Accusations of targeting certain institutions or applying rules inconsistently are serious and warrant reflection. However, these claims are unfounded in this context. My edits across diverse subjects strive for consistency with Wikipedia's global standards, contributing to an unbiased and informative encyclopedia. This approach is in no way arbitrary but grounded in established guidelines.

  Concerning the allegations of a condescending attitude, it is not my intention to demean or belittle any institution or individual. My objective is to contribute positively to Wikipedia, fostering a respectful and collaborative editing environment. I encourage open dialogue and constructive criticism, which are foundational to our collective endeavor on Wikipedia.

  On the point of suspected sock puppetry, it was not an accusation but a precautionary measure advised by Wikipedia's policies (WP:SOCK). The integrity of the editing process is paramount, and adherence to these guidelines ensures a fair and transparent contribution environment for all users.

  In light of your feedback, if there are specific content that is intended to be added, please open a discussion on the respective talk pages of the institution and gain community consensus before adding the contested content. This collaborative approach would ensure that the content remains robust, credible, and reflective of the collective knowledge of the Wikipedia community." [246] 61.224.112.80 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  This doesn't look like ChatGPT to me. GPT Zero is really inaccurate, and 57% isn't that high of a score. I don't understand what is passive-aggressive about this - if anything, it is the opposite, as the text is very informative and links to several policies and is also open to other views. As Dennis Brown pointed out, your best bet would be to go to the talk page of all the articles and come to a compromise. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think GPT Zero tends to flag anything that is written in a formal register. To avoid it flagging you it is best to write things in 1990s textspeak (as some users think they should on Wikipedia), complete with "u" for "you" etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  All good points above and below. I'd note that if we go back to older comments from Cfls like [247] [248] I'm not seeing a significant difference between what the IP highlighted and how they talked then. But that was in February 2022 so before ChatGPT existed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because something has a source, that doesn't guarantee it will be included. Otherwise, all articles would be a collection of trivia. As for the other edits he made, referencing WP:BOOSTER/WP:OR, that is what most people would call "good editing". He stripped out whole sections that were not sourced, and/or that simply were promotional or "booster-ism" in nature. This is a desired activity. I just glanced at a few of the edits and didn't see any problem with the edits, so many there is some middle ground on these, but there is no obvious policy violation going on with his editing. Again, just because something has a citation, that doesn't guarantee it will be included.

If you disagree, well okay, then go to the talk page of each article and present your case and let a consensus of editors decide what should and shouldn't be included. The end result might be your version, his version, or something in between. These are editorial decisions, made by editors, not admins. But his removal of content seems perfectly in line with editing policy. As for ChatGPT, that is simply conjecture on your part and you provide no evidence, or even a link to any specific edit that you feel was generated by ChatGPT, so I see no need to investigate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Points 2, 3, and 4 are largely vacuous: Cfls's communication is fine. It's a bit much to have an issue with the brief citation of guidelines, but then baselessly accuse them of using ChatGPT when they do decide to explain their rationale in detail. Whatever legitimate content disputes per point 1 that may exist should be discussed on the relevant talk page, per suggestions above. Remsense诉 01:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

2607:9B00:6211:4600:7B45:4E4F:96C6:88F1

Hate message left[249] after warning them for several vandalizing edits[250][251] ArkHyena (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours, deleted the attack page, and removed the attack from their talk page.-Gadfium (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

23.93.189.155

Repeat vandalism of Magnetar[252][253] despite being blocked recently over persistent vandalism of the same page and, vandalism of Mons pubis[254]. Protection of Magnetar may be needed. ArkHyena (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week. I don't think any protection is needed at the moment. Let me know if problem recur. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Block lengths

Hi there! This is for @Smalljim: your talk page is semi-protected so I have no other way of contacting you.

You recently blocked Kiss.immak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WelshDragoon19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – both are obvious vandalism-only accounts: Kiss is an anti-Israel edit warrior, Dragoon is an sockpuppeting LTA and harasser.

I am at a loss as to why both only got 31 hours off. In 31 hours, both will clearly be back doing the same edits again. This, to me, seems insane. 92.17.14.64 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I blocked them quickly to stop the edit warring. Being unfamiliar with either account, I was looking at the position when you pinged me. Expect amended blocks shortly. Incidentally I didn't choose to semi- my talk page and if Yamla were to choose to undo that protection, I wouldn't complain.  —Smalljim  20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a pretty extreme WP:LTA who was targeting Smalljim's talk page. Really nasty, deeply disturbing garbage. Smalljim, you are more than welcome to unprotect your talk page. 92.17.14.64, I'm sorry this affected your ability to reach out to Smalljim. --Yamla (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologise to both of you if I sounded angry/upset for not being able to reach Jim directly – the opening para of my post was to explain why I didn't go directly to Jim, as I wanted to do, and came here instead. It was emphatically not meant as a criticism of the semi-projection. 92.17.14.64 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla. No problem, 92. It was quite hectic in AV-land for a while yesterday, and I think in rare situations like that it's best to block quickly using Twinkle defaults and reconsider later: I indeffed one; Ingenuity beat me to the other.

No doubt you've been told several times of the benefits of registering an account, so I won't mention it here ;-)  —Smalljim  08:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ghosting consensus & constantly reverting

• Artem Petrov CHV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I noticed hoax references and copy-pastes on the Chuvash page. I made changes to rectify them, but user Artem Petrov reverted them without providing any explanation. Subsequently, I created a section on the talk page, outlining all the reasons for the removal while tagging him and requesting his opinion. He didn't respond. (until literally this minute)
• I then created another section on his profile, inquiring why he continues to revert and suggesting that we collaborate to customize the page together. Once again, he didn't respond. Despite this, he continues to revert the changes. I kindly request any moderator proficient in linguistics to assist us in reaching a consensus. Auzandil (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• I really ask you to familiarize yourself with this issue, and it is worth considering that the dispute is only about the edits of the user Auzandil, I did not make my own changes, but only returned the article to the original version. The user tries in every possible way to hide, to make insignificant the main version of the origin of the people. Bringing under-recognized theories to the forefront in the process. Apparently, the member does not want to seek consensus, and he just rolls back edits to the version he likes for more than the third time in a day, apparently violating Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artem Petrov CHV (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

  You should both continue the discussion at Talk:Chuvash_people#Recent_changes, and if you're unable to work through your differences, follow the steps at dispute resolution. @Artem Petrov CHV:, I did notice in that talk page discussion that Auzandil is providing sources for their suggestions and you haven't. It would probably help that discussion along if you cited your sources. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm telling you, I'm not adding information from myself, I'm just returning the version of the article to the one that was before the user Auzandil. There is no contribution on my part so that I give them sources, I return an article written from the attached sources, which was consensual for a long time and satisfied everyone until an expert in the field of all languages appeared Auzandil Artem Petrov CHV (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  This was a dead article, poorly documented and changed a bit from month to month. No one including you bother to look at references and read them. Once again, no one says that Chuvash are definitely not Bulgars. But scholars are split into two/three on this matter. They are not sure whether Chuvash is Sabir, Bolgar or another distinct Oghur language. Readers will see the discussion in the article body on this matter. Both of our personal opinion does not matter. We cannot force article into one side. Be neutral.

  Why even the version old version you protected say "Since surviving literary records for the non-Chuvash members of Oghuric are scant, exact position of Chuvash within the Oghuric family cannot be determined." What does this mean, my friend? Tell me. We discussed once again in talk page. In etymology there is a reference you protected even it says it is debated whether Chuvash are direct descendant of Bulgars or Sabirs. Auzandil (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd I was waited him for a month to answer me. He keep reverted weeks to weeks without saying anything until now. Please find a volunteer moderator who will look at our discussion and create a latest version for the page. Auzandil (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You are both well past Wp:3RR on your edits. There's no obvious vandalism so any accusations of such, and valid reversion are invalid. And if you're reverting an article to a previous version, you're indeed endorsing that version especially when you do it multiple times. Canterbury Tail talk 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I personally endorsing my version. A third mouth about this matter is needed for our discussion because consensus is impossible. I explained what and why I did in my version. If endorsement is clear, when the "hoax" and "copy-pastes" will come out in old version, he might get blocked for this. Auzandil (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that since you've reverted five times on that article to Artem Petrov CHV's four, unless his edits are deliberately sub-par the blockee is more likely to be you. I would suggest not reverting any other article at this point (and the same advice would go to Artem Petrov CHV). Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234

Back in the drawer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello there! I need your help. A guy named Sportsfan 1234 continues to investigate sockpuppets of the other account named Raymarcbadz and insists the admins block all the socks connected to the master. The editing of Olympic-related articles has been a major issue since June. He favored the users to ban the sock master and the other accounts from editing. Yet, he continues to baffle the socks and the sockmaster without any further reason. He never replies nor entertains my questions and comments. He destroyed the reputation of the user who spent 16 years editing Wikipedia articles. We need your help to stop and address this nonsensical issue. Thank you! DayangHirang4405 (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) You're going to want to include diffs to substantiate the claims you're making. You also must notify the other editors involved of this discussion assuming you haven't already done so. It would be better to link to their names here using the User template rather than just listing them in plain text. DonIago (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Sportsfan 1234's intent to topic ban Raymarcbadz from editing Olympic-related articles was indeed personal. DayangHirang4405 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Nirva20

This account appeared out of nowhere and was EXTREMELY active with page moves, racking up more than 19,000 edits in just 3 months, many of them article page moves. Most of the article page moves that occurred were abbreviations of the article subjects name, either dropping middle names or middle initials or other changes that served to shorten the article subject's proper name. I had some great suspicions about this account and brought them up on User talk:Nirva20 several times. I even mentioned my doubts to other editors/admins but without going through the article references myself, I couldn't easily verify that these page titles were improper and I didn't have the time to investigate the dozens of article page moves they did on a daily basis. I watch the Move log and they were a high volume page mover, I'd say many of their large edit count were page moves, all of them biographies.

They've now been identified as a sockpuppet of User:[email protected] and I'm just wondering if there should be a review of their page moves. I'm not familiar with [email protected] so I don't know if they were basically a competent editor and we can rely on these being valid page moves or not. I understand that this would be a big project to undertake but maybe there are editors who like projects like this. If on the other hand, [email protected] was a good editor blocked for behavioral reasons, perhaps this is unnecessary so I'm calling on longtimers who have a good memory for your opinion on this. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

They have done 1754 page moves, according to their move logs. Though of course each move that left a redirect behind is 2 edits. – 143.208.239.226 (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned at their talk page, this user has conducted at least several hundred incorrect page moves based on a misreading of WP:CONCISE, such as with Jonathan Plaut and Charles Herb. As horrid as it sounds to do in terms of time wasted for us volunteers, all of their moves should be either reviewed or reverted. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I started editing a couple of years after [email protected], and remember him as an editor that I never really trusted, so I think that any page moves need at least a quick glance to check if they are valid. If a random selection (statisticians may be able to advise on how many) is found to be valid then I suppose we can assume that most of them were, but at the moment my preference would be for someone (I know I'm not volunteering) to check them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

IP editor rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation

​​​​An IP editor (198.166.141.10) has been rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation. Some of the reverts were like this one related to the issue of "supported by" in conflict infoboxes. That was an issue that led to Rembo01 being blocked for IP-socking. But 198.166.141.10 was also rapidly reverting edits by Ckfasdf without explanation on 5 December 2023, and the IP is from Canada, whereas the IPs that Rembo01 was suspected of using were from Indonesia. I suspect that 198.166.141.10's activities are unrelated.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've already reported this IP editor on WP:AIV prior to Toddy1 reporting the issue to ANI. IMO, 198.166.141.10 is clearly not here to contribute constructively, as his edits only involve reverting mine (as well as FOX 52's) edits. And, considering that this pattern of reverting began in December 2023, it seems unlikely that they are connected to Rembo01, who was recently blocked . Ckfasdf (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: 198.166.141.10 is now blocked for a week. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss addition of non-official Tamil scripts in articles about industrial zones

Bringing to attention the chronic refusal by Visnu92 to discuss his persistent addition of Tamil scripts in articles about industrial zones in Malaysia ([255] and [256]). Discussion had been opened in WikiProject Malaysia as there had been no guidelines on Chinese and Tamil scripts in infrastructure-related articles, but said user has repeatedly ignored discussions eventhough he was tagged, a clear-cut refusal to seek consensus. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I left a warning on their talk page, in very clear terms and linked them to WP:Communication is required. I told them that the next block for disruptive editing may be for an indefinite period. They have already been warned, and blocked, before for refusing to communicate while reverting others in controversial ways. If they don't respond now to this ANI report, it is likely that some admin will indef block them until they DO communicate. An editor isn't required to ever talk to someone, unless they keep reverting or making controversial edits, which disrupts the normal editing process for everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. In fact, here was the case that resulted in him (a male, going by his own page) being blocked previously. Evidently, said user has persisted with similar behaviour after the block. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping for Dennis Brown. Just to note that it's been 2 days and from his edit history the past few hours, apparently he can't be bothered to communicate or justify himself here at all. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can't block him for not coming here, no one is required to respond to ANI. He IS required to respond to the concerns, but his latest edit wasn't related to the reasons for the concern. Patience is recommended. He's only edited once, which was reverted, although I'm not sure why it was reverted as no one seems to use edit summaries. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• I just indef blocked him for disruptive editing. Hopefully, indef won't mean forever, but if they aren't willing to discuss edits that are obviously against consensus, then they can't edit until the issue is resolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Dennis hundenvonPG (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruption by paid editor Topg1985

• Topg1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:William John Titus Bishop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bishop (performing artist)

The paid editor Topg1985 has been tendentiously persisting in working on a draft that was Rejected by an AFC reviewer (and in my opinion the rejection was appropriate) after being declined six times, mostly because a deletion discussion had already found that the subject of the article does not meet notability. As the nomination in the AFD shows, articles about the subject have been repeatedly created since 2020, probably also by his agency's paid editors by the gaming of titles. Topg1985 has now been a nuisance at the AFC Help Desk (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#20:42,_21_April_2024_review_of_submission_by_Topg1985).

Topg1985 continued working on the rejected draft after being explicitly told to stop working on it because it was rejected, at which point the reviewer, User:HouseBlaster, nominated the draft for deletion. But MFD is a content forum, and the user's conduct should also be dealt with. Topg1985 also told User:Theroadislong to stop trolling me and my edits it’s disruptive at best, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Articles_for_creation%2FHelp_desk&diff=1220258953&oldid=1220256037 The allegation of trolling is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

INDEFfed I went with DE, but UPE applies as well. They are an utter drain on editor time and project resources. Thanks for the reminder @Robert McClenon via this post. I saw it earlier at AfC but then lost track of the thread. Star Mississippi 02:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to @Robert McClenon for bringing this time sink here, and to @Star Mississippi for plugging it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Is made by people like making threats

The user Is made by people like started making threats at me on their talk page by threatening me to k*ll myself after I politely warned them that they need to cite a reliable source. I told them this, and said that if they keep making threats like this, I would notify the administrators. However, as you'll see on their talk page, they continue to call me a liar and tell me to die. Is it possible to state an indefinite block for this user? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed with TPA quickly revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That was fast. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ceredigion

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.

---

Apparently Sirfurboy refuses to hear anything, repeating the same disproved arguments over and over. Summer92 (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute under discussion at the article talk page. I will not be taking any further part in this here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (OP asserts repeatedly that Ceredigion is an English word so we should provide English pronunciation for it). OP's February 2024 unblock request included In case of content disputes I'd try to discuss it on the talk page, and if that doesn't work I'll go to ANI or other appropriate boards.[257] NebY (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I did what I promised to do, since the discussion on that talk page is just one person refusing to hear anything. Summer92 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If we go by Sirfurboy's arguments, I would suppose that the English pronunciations of Gdansk, Riga and so on would be removed since they aren't English, which is absurd. Summer92 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned twice already, this is a content dispute. ANI is for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" (emphasis in original), which I'm not seeing at Talk:Ceredigion#Pronunciation 2. You should use WP:DR to determine next steps; a page that an administrator requested you read. I'd advise withdrawing this complaint and moving on. (Non-administrator comment) —Sirdog (talk) 13:36, 23 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.

Newbie is 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.

---

CPSisoAisha is WP:NOTHERE. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've also reported to AIV. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

can you be specific? Did I say somethat IS NOT TRUE? Please cite. Lets talk about this pal. CPSisoAisha (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Liberal liars are cowards. Why can't you tell me I'm wrong? Is it because you'd be wrong if you did? Call out my "lies" specifically. Not with vague virtue signaling CPSisoAisha (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You have just proved my point. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@CPSisoAisha: Before anything, it would be better if you be calm and civil or not being so would be enough for block. If you have done something wrong, the points will be presented if not blatantly obvious. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

They are here having an axe to grind against liberals. They made that point over and over. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

A quick look at their contributions and talk page show consistent POV-pushing and more of an interest in arguing than building an encyclopedia. Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked per the "treating Wikipedia as a battleground" portion of WP:NOTHERE.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 23 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.

Undiscussed, disruptive page moves

• Mets1013! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone have a word with Mets1013! who has now, for a second time, moved War in Afghanistan to a disambiguation page and thence onto a page with a period/full stop on it? I moved them back once already, but I am not going to move war when both of their unilaterally chosen titles are wrong: one has an unnecessary disambiguator, and the other uses punctuation. I have advised them against this. They continued, with no explanation. It is bizarre, considering this must be one of our highest-viewed articles, and I can't really see the point. But when accidental disruption becomes a deliberate disruption, I suppose the point ceases to matter. ——Serial Number 54129 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've pblocked Mets1013! from performing page moves.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo. Poor old Ahecht just spent about 15 edits in as many minutes undoing all their mess and getting the pages back to normal. I couldn't face it! ——Serial Number 54129 16:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Ideological BLP vandalism

Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8490:12E0:0:0:0:0/64 - pretty much all edits from this IP range are ideological BLP vandalism. There aren't that many edits and they're quickly reverted, but this has been going on for over a year now and it's all coming from the same person. Avessa (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the link, it's been 3 years since this started. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Can't spell, either. But seriously, I'm amazed this character is still at large. There was a two-week block in December 2023, that's all, and there has been lots of BLP vandalism since then. I've blocked for six months. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC).

Ash.david

• Ash.david (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has severe civility problems on Talk:Fraser Island including failure to abide by the WMF's Universal Code of Conduct (mandated by ToS) and ad hominem at contributors whom they disagree with. Since I've been directly involved, can someone else take a look at it? --SHB2000 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting that this user has been blocked for similar offenses back in January. SHB2000 (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. If and when that is appealed, I think a block from K'gari/Fraser and its Talk are likely necessary since they seem unwilling/able to edit collaboratively. Star Mississippi 11:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I'd be open for a TBAN on anything to do with K'gari/Fraser Island and place names. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Obviously support a page block and/or topic ban; their behavior has not changed after several previous blocks, this has been going on pointlessly for ages. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd favor a TBAN over place names as opposed to a single page block given their vendetta against First Nations place names. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Ayush219

The account Ayush219 (talk · contribs · count) was registered earlier this week and started editing today, and immediately went on to mass replace Bhumihar (which is a caste in India) with Bhumihar Brahmin, i.e., claiming a specific social status for that caste (despite a lack of consensus for that status in multiple discussions at Talk:Bhumihar). The user did not stop their mass changes despite multiple reverts and several warnings posted to their Talk. When finally stopped, their responses were far from collaborative; while their response to a routine CT notice was essentially a PA. Is it only me that feel they are here only to promote their own caste and not to build an encylopaedia? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

kashmīrī tried to identify me from a particular caste and promoted casteism, which is derogatory in India. I don't come from that particular caste. Ayush219 (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Caste is a sensitive topic in India, so demeaning them is same as raceism. I request Admin to take necessary action against this user. Ayush219 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you are writing about. Your words about the Bhumihar caste: But there should be people belonging to that community also. Its a small community. Outsiders shouldn't dictate the terms which is very personal make it appear that you consider the Bhumihar caste "very personal", and so I responded politely pointing you to our policies about the conflict of interest. I don't think your aggressive tone is warranted, and I don't feel you understand what Wikipedia is about. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said I don't belong to this caste, but you seem to be against this particular caste. Trying to demean it and implement some kind of superiority above them. I didn't like your this behavior towards a particular caste. Its a clear case of casteism here. Your tone represent racial supremacy. Ayush219 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia. It should post only authentic information. As I said some parts of the article is giving half information and misleading people. I requested that only but you started judging me from a caste point of view. I expect admin to consider this. Ayush219 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ayush219, Kashmiri has given you links to previous discussions on the subject and explained that you should get consensus before making these mass changes, but I can't find anywhere that he's written anything demeaning toward Bhumihar caste nor toward you. If you're going to accuse another editor of such things, you should provide diffs as evidence. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I will. As I am doing some research about different communities, I found lots of misinformation in the The current article Bhumihar. I raised a few questions in the talk also. From few discussions What I understood that Kasmiri is a bit aggressive and trying to show a particular part of the information. Using Census reference to show some half information and using another source to counter the census information in some part.

I expect authenticity of the article for the above mentioned reasons. Ayush219 (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ayush219 I'm still waiting for diffs. Also, this is about your behaviour and your groundless accusations. Are you planning to walk them back? Do you have anything to say about your mass edits against consensus? — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ayush219, please be aware that accusing another editor of racial supremacy and saying that the editor is against this particular caste. Trying to demean it and implement some kind of superiority above them is a very grave matter here on Wikipedia. You are expected to immediately provide convincing evidence in the form of diffs showing quite clearly that the other editor is misbehaving that way. You have thusfar failed to do so. Unsubstantiated accusations like this consitite personal attacks and failure to Assume good faith, both of which are blockable offenses. Please be aware that Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups imposes heightened responsibilities on editors contributing to all caste, Jāti and Varna (Hinduism) related articles. You must now do one of two things: Either provide convincing evidence of actual misconduct by Kashmiri, or unambiguously withdraw your accusations. Caste warriors are simply not welcome on the Engish Wikipedia. The choice between those two options is yours. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Before you reply, Ayush219, please also consider these facts which are not dispositive but are certainly worth pondering: Kashmiri has been editing for almost 16 years, has made over 40,000 edits, and has no valid blocks. You, on the other hand, have been editing for one day, have 79 edits, and are at immediate risk of being blocked. Which among you is most likely to better understand Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines? Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Kashmiri, at a glance, this user probably should not be editing this GS/CT-covered (WP:CASTE / WP:ARBIND) topic, but due to WP:NPOV and WP:DE issues, not WP:COI ^(diff). Just because they say: Its a small community. Outsiders shouldn't dictate the terms which is very personal, which is of course nonsense, does not make it so. That community is nearly 4 million strong, so 'small' is in the eye of the beholder, but regardless, COI is more about WP:PAID (loose and outright), so it would not apply here. Now, if they were part of an org benefiting from such edits, that'd be different. So I'd urge you to be more judicious when invoking it (especially since there's no reason to do so and it only muddies the waters). Thanks. El_C 23:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Over 72 hours have passed and all we hear is crickets from Ayush219. That's telling. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

User:AirshipJungleman29

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 you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia.

There are the principles of discussion on talk pages of Wikipedia, such as Communicate (WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE), Stay on topic (WP:TALK#TOPIC), Be positive (WP:TALK#POSITIVE), Be polite, Make proposals (WP:TALK#PROPOSE), etc., that the user User:AirshipJungleman29 did not follow.

I am not competent in interpreting Wikipedia rules, therefore I ask for help. Let me describe the situation so that you could make a fair conclusion. The discussion was at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1219457528&oldid=1219300767 (diff), or see [258].

Generally, User:AirshipJungleman29 engages in a discussion by making an argument but then declines to discuss the argument they made, switching the topic or using subjective terms such as "tedious" to characterize my arguments. If they find my arguments inappropriate or not worth discussing, they should not engage me in a discussion. But if they presented their opinion, they should have respect to my arguments in favour or against their opinion. They should not expect their opinion to be final and indiscussable. They should have respect to the other editors this way.

Specifically, in a Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list - proposal to fix I made a proposal to present data in a GA nominees in a user-friendlier manner and gave arguments on what I thought a usability (design) error in presenting the information on counters. Instead of discussing on substance, such as whether the current counters are correctly displayed or they are not, or whether the proposal of me or another user is a correct way do display data; or whether the change the way of displaying data is worth implementing. Instead of discussing the substance, User:AirshipJungleman29 first objected on form, quote: ("Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site"). When I asked User:AirshipJungleman29 to provide an example of this proposal in a form they find proper, they ignored and instead didn't stay on topic but raised a new topic that I and a user which was later blocked violate GA review rules. When I argued against this claim of User:AirshipJungleman29, they again avoided the discussion on substance but threatened me with ANI: "And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI". This is not a constructive way of discussing. If they didn't want any argument from me, they should not engage me in a discussion, but if they did, they should treat my reply with respect - this is in accordance of the "dot not fuel" principle (WP:DENY). By fuelling the discussion in that they do not intend to duly participate, moreover, ANI treats for "tediousness" is an intentionally toxic behaviour that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia talk.

User:AirshipJungleman29 violates the essence of a healthy discussion, which is the willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and be open to different perspectives and respecting the arguments of others, even if they differ from one's own.

When User:AirshipJungleman29 chooses to characterize my arguments as "tedious" rather than addressing them on their merits, it undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Everyone's contributions or opinions are valuable and deserve to be treated with respect.

Moreover, the use of threats, such as the threat to open a thread at ANI, can create a hostile environment that discourages open discussion. Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation.

The principle of WP:DENY, or "do not fuel", emphasizes the importance of not engaging in unproductive discussions. If User:AirshipJungleman29 does not intend to participate constructively in the discussion, it may be best to disengage and focus on contributing positively to Wikipedia in other ways.

Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have diffs that aren't 50 diffs in a trench coat? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Special:Diff/1219306898
2. Special:Diff/1219320957
3. Special:Diff/1219383414
4. Special:Diff/1219457019

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

lord love a duck, this is seven hundred and sixteen words long. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Almost 13 tweets. Levivich (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Quoting statements with diffs: In this discussion, AirshipJungleman29's comments to Maxim Masiutin:

• [259] Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site. You have been told such before, on this very page—if you can't remember, you will find it in the archives; no need for miffling about with "maybes".
• [260] Yes, you and BeingObjective did not bother with the GA instructions, which clearly explain the GA process. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30, you can find the sections relevant to you, through a process I believe nerds call "reading"—I don't know if you're as unfamiliar with it as you are with "clicking".
• [261] No, the "usability error" affects only those who can't be bothered to read the instructions, such as the now-blocked BeingObjective and yourself. Everyone else has managed to get their heads around this, presumably because they spend their time reading instead of making assumptions.
• [262] And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI to achieve the same result for you. You may take that as a final warning.

Other editors also disagreed with Maxim's proposal but not with such contempt exasperation. edited to repair my initial word choice which I thought about overnight and decided was overly judgemental. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the friendly presentation of diffs. Your way of presenting situation simply as "other editors also disagreed" is misleading because it was at least one editor who agreed. However, this is not relevant to the ANI since agreements or disagreements are normal process of discussion. My point is that discussions should be made in a proper, friendly and respectful way, on substance, without personal threats and intimidation and and should stay on topic - all the attributes of fruitful communications of Wikipedia violated by User:AirshipJungleman29. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I think Maxim Masiutin has made my point quite well for me. Interacting with them tends to leave everyone perpetually irritated and exasperated because of their constant WP:SEALIONing, WP:WALLOFTEXTs, and battleground behaviour. For example:

Examples

from RoySmith: "You are causing a lot of trouble and wasting a lot of people's time. If you don't [walk away] you will surely end up being blocked." (incidentally, MM took this as a personal attack and demanded an apology) also from Roy: "This guy is a menace. Either he's trolling us or this is the worst case of WP:CIR I've seen in a long time. Either way, he can't be allowed to continue to wreak havok on GA. I'm way too WP:INVOLVED so I can't block them. Could some non-involved admin please deal with this? from Trainsandotherthings: "You ought to be blocked for the amount of bloviating you've done to date all based on your inability to follow simple instructions." From Premeditated Chaos: "your behavior has now verged into the tendentious and downright cruel. If you persist, I will escalate this to ANI ... Your behavior is the cause of this. You are the one acting disruptive here. You chose to bludgeon that discussion to within an inch of its life, against half a dozen different editors telling you you were wrong. It is ironic to the point of painful that you harp about violating the rules and spirit of Wikipedia when you have been doing so" also from PMC: "Fucking hell, man, take a step back and realize that every single person who has responded to you here has disagreed in one way or another with your interpretation of the criteria. You are the one who's in the wrong. You have been the entire time, and all the walls of text in the world are not going to change that." From Firefangledfeathers: "Most of the kbs are yours, and it would help if you could provide briefer responses" (MM subsequently accused FFF of "cherry-picking sources") From Serial Number 54129: "Please consider apologizing for wasting several editors' time."

• If you do, for some reason, want to put yourself through the torturous process of reading MM's comments, a good example can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#Understanding of p. 1b of the GA criteria (from which some of the above messages were taken), and the sections underneath it, along with WT:GAN at the moment, where they have contributed over 2,250 words in a day and three hours, EDIT: or their below conversation with asilvering.
• Looking back on it, I should have brought this to ANI a lot sooner, and spent less time thinking that yelling at him on talk pages would somehow work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that I did omissions in the review process, as demonstrated by the link you gave, but you could address them in a constructive manner without personal attacks. I since that improved and the lasted GA drive demonstrated proper quality of my reviews: Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/March_2024#Maxim_Masiutin. We should not put shame to people who can demonstrate that they can learn. Anyway, please stay focused on your behaviour as it is the essence of this ANI. Even if you think that other editors are wrong (and your position can be indeed justified), please present your position in a respectful way, without violating Wikipedia rules, as you show bad example to the other editors. Please cease and desist of your violations and show good example (which you did not in the link that you gave and the diffs that I gave). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• And once again, you miss the point. I was not demonstrating the poor quality of your reviewing, I was demonstrating the effect you have on other editors. Have you ever heard of a WP:BOOMERANG? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that the effect was inappropriate. Still my mistakes can not serve as an excuse for your bad behaviour, please respect the cooperative spirit even if you think somebody is wrong, there are civilized ways to address somebody's wrongness. You show bad example for other editors. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  As for WP:BOOMERANG, you probably mean that there is no "immunity" for reporters. I don't want to seek immunity, if I made something wrong I would like to hear it in a constructive way and/or take proportional punishment if needed to make lessons -- it should come from competent, calm and uninvolved person. You used of the term "yell" to describe your behaviour as a hint that you were not that person. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Maxim Masiutin, I am one such uninvolved person, and I cannot for the life of me understand what you hope to achieve with this. I was astonished by the responses to you on the GAN talk page here, [263], and wondered what on earth prompted multiple people to respond to you so curtly and rudely about something so minor. Then I found this ANI thread, and now I perfectly understand. @AirshipJungleman29 wasn't very kind when they said Well, I think Maxim Masiutin has made my point quite well for me, but I have to admit that I agree. More than 700 words to complain that someone was mean to you on the internet! Sealioning indeed. You say if I made something wrong I would like to hear it in a constructive way, but is that really true? I look at all of the exasperated responses AJ29 brought to this thread. Have they changed your behaviour? Do you know why people are annoyed with you? -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You raised a good point. Let us try to reconsider the old good rule of not fueling the discussion in which you don't like to participate. If you give an argument, be respectful for a counter-argument. If you don't have stamina to take a counter-argument with respect, simply avoid the discussion. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Seriously, does anyone else have any idea what he's on about? I have no clue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please answer my questions? -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot answer your questions in this thread because I think they are not relevant to my ANI for User:AirshipJungleman29, still, you may create a different topic instead. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, let no one say I didn't try. -- asilvering (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• AirshipJungleman used some rather blunt language that I would have suggested rewording, but it was not unwarranted. Maxim's accusations about failing to properly engage are unfounded, and these drawn out sealioning arguments that say nothing of substance are standard for Maxim. This is not the first time that he has been a timesink at WT:GAN, as Airship's examples show. Particularly telling is this post in which he blames others for his own misunderstanding of process before criticizing the block of a wikifriend over similar behavior, comparing the block to a wrongful execution by hanging that occurred in 1882. At a minimum, there needs to be a ban from the Good Article process for Maxim Masiutin, though I would not fault anyone for saying that there are broader CIR issues present. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I found working with User:Maneesh and User:BeingObjective immensely beneficial, until their unexpected for me but indefinite ban/block. I view this action as unjust because of disproportionality, likening it to an irreversible mistake, as their absence is permanent and we can no longer seek their input. While I found our collaboration to be positive and effective, other editors strongly disagreed, resulting in indefinite sanctions. The starkly contrasting opinions on User:Maneesh and User:BeingObjective reveal the critical role of compatibility among Wikipedia editors, a puzzle I am yet to decipher. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• The sealioning is absolutely out of control with this guy. If he's a troll, he's one of the most dedicated I've ever seen. But I think it's more likely he is just really like this, and if that's the case he's not compatible with the project. Block him. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• AirshipJungleman29 was uncivil, and should probably take that on board, along the lines of "less time thinking that yelling at him on talk pages would somehow work". However, I presume these reactions emerged not from this one post but from long-term frustration with similar behaviour. I would not disagree with Thebiguglyalien's assertion that "it was not unwarranted". Maxim Masiutin should wind back on their lengthy posts and examine their discussion style. CMD (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I will practice in Wikipedia:TLDR to get better. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I cannot answer your questions in this thread because I think they are not relevant to my ANI for User:AirshipJungleman29, still, you may create a different topic instead. Wow--talk about shooting oneself in the foot when claiming others are the problem. Clearly needs a break from GAN (or it needs a break from them), at the very least. Grandpallama (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  We have to follow the rules including WP:DENY and WP:TALK#TOPIC. The topic is ANI AirshipJungleman29. Let us keep in topic here, don't let the topic drift away. We can also discuss in an appropriate topic, and we have to be watchful. Therefore your analogy of shooting oneself in the foot is inappropriate as it encourages to change the topic in a current discussion rather than creating a new one in violation of WP:TALK#TOPIC - a rule which in my understanding applies to the current discussion as well. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Maxim, your understanding is incorrect. Anyone who brings another editor to ANI can expect to have their own conduct scrutinized. You should read WP:OUCH before trying to moderate this discussion any further. You presumably don't mean to come off like this, but I assure you that everyone else is reading your replies as condescending and out-of-touch. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a moderator here who will tell me which questions should I reply? Without the moderator I think that this question is irrelevant to my ANI as they relate to a distant case in the past, not the case I brought up for ANI. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:ANI advice may be helpful, especially points 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 17. I would also recommend reading WP:BOOMERANG, if you did not do so when I linked it above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You mentioned ANI against me in the GA talk page, now I don't understand why you mentioned the essay on boomerang. As for the ANI advice, it tells "don't assume that everyone who comments or gets involved with the matter is an administrator". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You have not tried to understand. I rest my case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I can propose a friendly amicable settlement: if you seem that your objections can be settled by my commitment of not participating at all in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for at least a year, I can do so easily. I don't want to escalate conflict, and this page is of no vital importance for me. I want to make as productive environment for writing Wikipedia as possible. If you think that my proposal will serve the goal, please let me know. Still, I am interested on whether your behaviour that I indicated in this ANI was appropriate as an example for the other users to behave the same way. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Maxim Masiutin's behaviour is pure sealioning and I think this thread should be closed. As a couple of others above have commented, AirshipJungleman29's language was harsher than needed at times, though I sympathize as Maxim's behaviour is very annoying. (As one's parents used to say, controlling your language when you haven't lost your temper doesn't get you any good behaviour point.). But there's nothing to be gained by extending this thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Maxim Masiutin

Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, and editor time is our most valuable resource. The diffs provided by Schazjmd show that Maxim Masiutin has been a major timesink and has already exhausted the patience of numerous editors at WP:GAN. In this thread, even those editors who have been somewhat sympathetic to Maxim Masiutin have still acknowledged that AirshipJungleman29's frustration is both understandable and justified; that feeling of exasperation has expanded to include uninvolved editors participating in this discussion. I propose a 6-month topic ban for Maxim Masiutin from WP:GAN and its talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, with the hope that Maxim Masiutin would use the time away to improve their collaboration skills, and to read some of the links that have been provided in this discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. MM does good work on articles, so he should be allowed to continue to contribute there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am OK with the proposal, and I find it reasonable. I have a few pending GA nominations/reviews, can you not abandon them so I could finish them without new nominations, can I contact you directly if I will have issues such as abandoned review, I promise to be succint? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  As an alternative, I can avoid GA talk for one year as I proposed earlier, but be allowed to finish existing GA reviews or nominate new articles for GA or do GA review without limitation. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  No. If this topic ban is enacted, you must stay away from GA. If you interact with GA, that will be a violation which can result in you being blocked from Wikipedia entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's clear, thank you for the additional caution though. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  If this topic ban is enacted what will happen with the articles that I already nominated or that are being reviewed? My understanding is that editors pointed to my activity in the GA talk page as inappropriate. There were no complaints about my latest GA reviews or GA nominations. My first few GA reviews were bad, but since then I improved I hope. Still, I would be grateful if somebody re-review my latest GA reviews and give me feedback. By the way, what purpose then will serve the ban on reviews and nominations if there are no objections on my behaviour there? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I will be unhappy if my GA nominations will be cancelled, as they already stayed in the queue for too long. Can you please review (complete GA reviews in a due manner) them and then ban me? Or handle the GA process by addressing the questions of a reviewer for the articles I nominated? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, User:Phlsph7, User:Fritzmann, User:Femke, User:Ward20, User:The Quirky Kitty, User:Lindsay658, User:Sammi Brie, User:Epicgenius, User:Maplestrip, User:Generalissima! You participated in a GA review process where I was the reviewer. Editors pointed out that my behaviour in the Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations was inappropriate. I sincerely regret about my inappropriate behaviour and even proposed (as a remedy) to abstain from any edit for this page for at least a year to calm down. Additionally, there is a proposal to ban me from Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations for six month, with which I agree, this is justified. Still, this proposal also includes banning me for six months from the GA review process overall, so I will not be able to review or nominate or in any way participate in the GA review process for the article I nominated that are in a backlog. I am willing to improve but sometimes I have no idea how. Since you have first-hand experience in working me on GA review, can you please help and let me know what I did wrong in the review process that I merit to be banned? Your opinion is important for me because after the six months period when I come back to the GA review process I must not commit the same errors again. Thank you in advance! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't ping a bunch of uninvolved users to drag them into this. I have no context for this and very much don't like getting involved in ANI stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I asked you whether you can you please help and let me know what I did wrong in the review process. I asked your feedback on my review process. I see that you provided your form of feedback, I understand that you think I should not participate in GA review for at least six month. Thank you for your involvement. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  How you have still not understood that your reviews are not the problem is beyond me Maxim Masiutin. Just read what people are saying, for goodness sake! It really isn't that hard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I understand your point, I wanted to address your attention to a concern that if my reviews are not a problem, why ban me from reviews? Why cannot you only ban me from where there were problems? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am quite curious, I don't remember which GAN/review this is about. I can't quickly find a GA discussion we were both involved in, could you link it for me? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  In Talk:Kentucky Educational Television/GA1 I asked second opinion and you helped. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In composing...

In composing, as a general rule, run your pen through every other word you have written; you have no idea what vigour it will give your style.

— Sydney Smith

Maxim Masiutin, You ask how you can improve. Use the "show preview" next time you write something and delete at least 90% of what you have written. You simply write far too much, which is what nearly everyone has been telling you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the best advice I ever received to resolve my issue (apart from stopping contributing). Thank you! I will follow it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel like the particular interactions I had with you were problematic. However, this was the first or second GA review I participated in, so I don't know if the feedback was excessively detailed or long-winded, which seems to be one of the problems other editors have. I don't have much to say in this matter because I'm not really involved in the dispute. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support The walls of text and sealioning are pernicious and egregious. In a case like this, where an editor can write content—there seems to be a consensus that they can, and after all that's court bottom line, so great—but not get on with colleagues so well, it makes sense to give them the opportunity to focus on what they can do without bogging everyone down in trivia. However, this is a collegiate project, and collegiate behavior should be a given, so a TB should be without prejudice to addressing the interaction issues if they don't change. (And as we speak they appear to be trying to negotiate the terms of their sanction?) ——Serial Number 54129 11:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I admit that my way of communication is inefficient to put it mildly and I have to improve my collaboration skills as suggested by User:Grandpallama. Still, I would like to hear an official position on whether the behavior of User:AirshipJungleman29 I mentioned in diffs in this ANI is appropriate, did User:AirshipJungleman29 commit violations of rules I mentioned? It will help me know the interpretation of the rules. My understanding of the rules is that they clearly violate rules. I don't understand why you avoid the topic I raised in this ANI. If there was no violation by User:AirshipJungleman29, please explain. If it was a violation, please admit it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You could probably read the discussion yourself, but I can summarise if you want Maxim Masiutin: while some of my comments were harsh, they were perfectly understandable in the context of your sub-par behaviour, which has been detrimental enough to Wikipedia that your fellow editors think you need to be sanctioned. In this case, the sanction applies just to the GA process; in the future, the sanction may be a project-wide block, so I would recommend changing your behaviour ASAP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I first ran into MM back in November and it took a lot of effort to stay my hand from an indef block for some combination of CIR, TROLL, and/or NOTHERE. I can't believe he's still at it. GA is a critical project function and can't function with problem editors like MM sucking up everybody's time. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You wrote about me (see [[264]]) "Personally, I think he's being an ass". I considered it a personal attack. You wrote that you were an admin, but admins should not be awarded to people who commit personal attacks. Or maybe my interpretation of the term "personal attack" is wrong. It was my first GA review and I was incompetent, but when I read the rule on don't bite newcomers it did not definitely apply. I don't understand why you were enraged on a newcomer. You know how to avoid troubles. Long text - you don't have to read. Don't feed discussion you don't like. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  People who know me will recognize that I generally wave the WP:CIVIL flag more vigorously than most. That may give some insight into what it takes to goad me into using such language. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Still people who don't know you see that you use "ass" and may think that it is a welcome behaviour on Wikipedia, especially considering your various administrative statuses. They may not have same merit as you still they will think that if RoySmith behaves this way why shouldn't I? Please avoid personal attacks at all and do not seek any excuse. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you will apply to admin in the future, please ping me so I could bring the argument I mentioned about personal attack, or simply attach this link to you the application as a disclosure of your past behavior so the people who will decide on your application could make a weighed judgment. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  While I probably wouldn't use the phrase myself because of the possibility of it being misconstrued, FWIW I would not consider saying that someone is 'being an ass' is a personal attack. If I say that you are an ass, I am insulting you directly; if I say that you're being an ass, I am saying that your behaviour is unacceptable and that you need stop being an ass; to change your behaviour, in other words.

  If an experienced editor in good standing (which Roy undoubtedly is) told me that they thought I was being an ass, my first instinct would not be to wave around the personal attack rulebook, it would be to try to get my head around what their perception of my behaviour was, and what the problem with it was, and whether there's anything I need to change about the way I go about my editing here. (Feel free to hold me to this, all editors in good standing, if you ever think I'm acting like an ass.) Using the terms in which an argument is expressed as a reason to disregard the argument feels like some sort of logical fallacy to me; it's probably got a Latin name that I ought to know. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think Tone policing covers it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the arguments that Roy gave on my behavior on substance, but the form (using word "ass") was what I didn't like. I didn't know it is not insulting in some native language speakers (but I guess it was impolite anyway); still, Wikipedia is used by people with different language skill, so better to be careful. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) I admire RoySmith's restraint. I have read the discussion in question, and I'm sure I would have called your behaviour ass-like or something stronger much sooner. The same goes for your original complaint about AirshipJungleman29. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation, English is not my mothers tongue, so I might understand incorrectly. @RoySmith please forgive me for the wrong interpretation of your phrase. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as the bare minimum at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I don't expect things will have improved in six months so this may just be kicking the can down the road but as Trainsandotherthings says this seems like the minimum. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from WP:GAN and to be clear, all parts of the GA process broadly construed. The process isn't compatible with sealioning or such an unrestrained sense of one's own importance that could produce, just now in this very thread, addressing RoySmith, "If you will apply to admin in the future, please ping me so I could bring the argument I mentioned about personal attack, or simply attach this link to you the application as a disclosure of your past behavior so the people who will decide on your application could make a weighed judgment." NebY (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, with the understanding that if MM brings similar behaviour to other areas of Wikipedia, they should expect to face not a topic ban, but a project wide one. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  exactly what I came here to say. This is the minimum. The behavior is inappropriate @Maxim Masiutin and if it doesn't change you will be blocked further. I was hovering over doing so before this subthread. So Support TB+ Star Mississippi 17:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Having read through several of the GA archive discussions involving Maxim, it's clear that his participation is sometimes more of a hindrance than a help to those processes. @Maxim Masiutin, I don't know if your approach to discussions is something you can change; I get the impression that you really don't grasp why so many other editors have become so frustrated. But I hope I'm wrong and that you can find a new approach. Schazjmd (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. He just doesn't get it. I've said this before but it bears repeating: editor time is the most precious commodity we have. People who waste it continually as MM has need to be shown the door sooner rather than later. Hopefully MM can stick to writing content without causing similar issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I initially did not want to touch this with a ten foot pole, but after getting randomly pung I feel that I ought to look it over and... yeah, this is a clear cut case. Maxim, the more walls of text you write trying to explain this, the worse it gets. I agree with PMC; wasting other editors' time in this respect is one of the most unhelpful things you can do, and Maxim seems dead-set on eating up as much of other editors' time as possible. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support (I was not aware of this ANI thread until the earlier ping.) Maxim is a good writer who makes commendable biology articles, but this thread and my experience with the KET review have unfortunately shown that he lacks communication skills. I regretfully have to support the topic ban proposal. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support if I'd gotten to this thread earlier, I might have proposed an indef. Maxim Masiutin should consider this tban to be a final chance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Seems to me that the issues could be resolved with a narrower block/ban from all GAN-related talk pages. "Blocks are preventative not punitive" and it's not clear to me why it is necessary to prevent MM from doing GAN reviews or nominations, if he doesn't interact with the talk pages. (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  It would not be a good idea for a user to be conducting GAN reviews while being barred from the GAN talk pages. Further, many of the root issues here stem from misunderstandings of the GACR, which would directly affect reviews. Nominations may be another matter that would require looking at some of their past GANs (I have not done so), but a ban from GAN talkpages should include a ban on reviewing. (Although it may be a good idea to grandfather in any ongoing nominations/reviews, simply to ease the flow of things.) CMD (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm torn about allowing submissions while banning reviews. Although there is no quid-pro-quo at GA, there is a general expectation that participants in GA (or any area of the wiki) will give back to the community by helping to keep it running. Allowing submissions while banning them from reviewing would subvert that. On the other hand, allowing them to continue to make submissions and get them reviewed will expose them to how a review is supposed to work, which may be educational. RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I may abstain from reviewing GA articles for as long as needed and only handle review process for the articles I already nominated (four at WP:GAN#BIO) without any new nominations. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support: MM has proven the case within this discussion alone. Toughpigs (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support - other editors shouldn't have to deal with this, it's too much to ask of volunteers. Levivich (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I recognize that good intentions may be at the heart of this complaint, but the complaint is, frankly, unfounded. This has been a time sink for all those involved and I hope MM takes the time to reflect and better understand how their interactions are coming across. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support MM has good intentions, but good god, half their replies here read like an AI chatbot whose only instruction was beating around the bush while completely refusing to engage with any actual points made in the course of the discussion. AryKun (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is true that I sometimes not understand what the Wikipedia editors mean. For example, on my usability proposal in GAN talk, AirshipJungleman29 replied with an ANI threat which I was not sure to materialize, so I was proactive and filed an ANI request where I explicitly asked to check my behaviour (Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation). After uninvolved editors explained me when I am wrong, I thanked and proposed to abstain for at least a year from GAN talk, which is a kind of topic ban volunteerly accepted. Therefore, I don't understand some points: (1) why editors need discuss a topic ban for a lesser period (6 months), it is for the proportionality of punishment principe to put a lower punishment instead; (2) isn't letting the discussion go the waste of people time when it could be concluded a few days ago already on my proposal to abstain from GAN talk; (3) why people spend time adding and removing boomerang shop picture whereas boomerang is a projectile designed on target miss to return to caster to be reused against the target when I don't intend to file another ANI threat, and checking my actions and punishing them if needed was my initial intent of this ANI complaint, isn't a waste of people time to cyclically add and remove such a boomerang shop picture? Wikipedia is still a big puzzle for me. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Maxim, this very reply illustrates part of the problem. Your replies are overly long to the point of exhaustion and you post way too many of them; I get that you might want clarification sometimes, but everyone here is a volunteer and it can get annoying trying to address every paragraph long reply. WP:BOOMERANG is referring to how ANI reports can sometimes end up in the one who filed it getting sanctioned if their own behaviour has been less than ideal, analogously to an actual boomerang coming back to hit its thrower.

  Honestly, my only tip to you would be learning how to say what you want in a lot fewer words and realizing that some things about Wikipedia can only be learned by yourself; everyone here is a volunteer and not everyone has the patience to spend significant amounts of time teaching other experienced editors what they should be doing. AryKun (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that boomerang is when your complaint backfires but this is not my case where I explicitly asked to check my behavior and literally filled an AI against myself on behalf of AirshipJungleman29, but people played back and forth with boomerang shop images that falsifies statement that they don't have time Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that boomerang is when your complaint backfires but this is not my case where I explicitly asked to check my behavior and literally filled an AI against myself on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 That's not true. Literally the first sentence of this filing: Could you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Take difference between form and substance. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's the difference between truth and blatant falsehood. Grandpallama (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  You could have just said "I can't be bothered to apply what people are saying in this very discussion, so here's another tedious comment demanding that others tell me yet again what I've been told dozens of times" Maxim Masiutin. You could have followed Phil's advice to delete 90% of your comments before posting, as you said you would above. But no, we had to have another 300 words of tiresome prattle. You have 29,300 edits—you're not a newcomer—get a grip on yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't use AI to respond @Maxim Masiutin. That does not help your case. Star Mississippi 00:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this is AI... -- asilvering (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I wasn't insinuating that MM is using AI, just that their replies sometimes seem like one in terms of verbosity. AryKun (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said that (cc @Asilvering) and I stand by it as I'm not sure what human speech would render why people spend time adding and removing boomerang shop picture whereas boomerang is a projectile designed on target miss to return to caster to be reused against the target when I don't intend to file another ANI thread, specifically the bold. Google translate, etc. are also AI. If I'm wrong, then I apologize to @Maxim Masiutin Star Mississippi 13:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  It was not a Google translate but my awkward way of writing (I write more software code than human text and it harms in my case). The correct version would have been "A boomerang is a projectile designed to return to the thrower when it misses the target." Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I hope your software code is a bit more concise that your human text. I know the days have long gone where writing a program of over 4KB was frowned upon and writing one of over 12KB was absolutely forbidden (as in my first job in IT), but there are still some limits. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• support - reading this thread was exhausting enough. hopefully 6 months is enough to prompt some self-reflection. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:23, 22 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.

Abrasax123

• Abrasax123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was warned in the past. He didn’t treat me and other Wikipedia editors with respect. He is not being neutral and he is biased. He has already being warned in the past couple of times but he still keep doing it. Bezea2691 (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Bezea2691 Did you notify them of this discussion as required?(see the top of this page) Admins do not settle content disputes. Have you made use of dispute resolution? 331dot (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

And be advised that your own actions will be examined as well. See WP:BOOMERANG. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

For reference the content is very similar to content added by Hzted6[265] before they were blocked. It was re-introduced by Besea2691's first edit in November 2023.[266] It's been removed and re-added repeatedly since then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks the same to me, too. I've blocked Bezea2691 without tags. Hzted6 was CU-blocked by Ponyo but not tagged. I suspect that both accounts are socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi838r. Am I right, Ponyo, or is it a different master?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

When I checked Hzted6 in November it was part of an investigation of socking at Oromo people, which includes my bock of Yeozg0 (talk · contribs); I guess I didn't know who the master was at the time or I would have mentioned it in the block log.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo. I still think it's likely Gabi838r, based on behavior and username similarity, but I'm not going out on a limb and tagging as that master. Instead, I've tagged the three accounts as socks of each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Nearly impossible to block these Sydney IPs

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.

---

• 1.144.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 1.145.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Sydney has been adding unsupported recording dates in music articles, especially songs by Crowded House, Sting, Billy Idol and INXS.[267][268][269] They have also changed release dates with no reference. This has been happening for more than a year,[270][271][272] but has recently become much more disruptive. The behavior includes edit-warring at the same articles; Special:Contributions/1.145.116.112 broke 3RR on one day in March. The IPs change frequently, with six IPs including Special:Contributions/1.145.74.230 used in less than one hour today. The IPs also span a wide range—a /21 group and a huge /16 group. If we block these ranges there will be collateral damage. Is there a way we can target this vandal more precisely? Pinging Ss112 who has also been dealing with this disruption. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• 49.181.77.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.144.108.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.144.108.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.15.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.23.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.24.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎‎1.145.28.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.42.251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.55.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.74.230 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.79.187 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.83.240 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.86.226 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.90.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.91.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.108.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.111.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.115.216 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.145.116.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎1.145.127.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note that Special:Contributions/1.145.104.250 was blocked two weeks ago, but the style of that editor is different. They focused on music sales chart results and certifications. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Is the first IP(49.181.77.72) related? They were removing the word Australia, nothing to do with dates. – 2804:F1...E7:923 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right. That one got in the list accidentally. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've notified 1.145.57.84, from the second IP range, who is doing this right this moment. – originally a reply posted 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Huh nevermind, here's another range: 1.129.0.0/16 (examples: diff1, diff2, diff3). I won't notify them anymore, because there's reports on the 1.144 and the 1.129 from 2019 of them doing the same thing (if it is the same person): WP:3RR.

With a history like that, talking isn't going to work, is it? – originally a reply posted 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Also some insightful commentary in this ANI thread about a geography vandal who shares a range with a music vandal, along with some info about the network of these IPs.

Also info about previous range blocks on the ranges of these vandals - so range blocks are definitely an option, just more specifically targeted at times. – 2804:F1...E7:923 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

For example, Special:Contributions/1.145.0.0/17 has been blocked for 3 months one time and 6 months two times. The IP I notified above, is part of this range.

*I'll stop spamming this thread now, sorry* – 2804:F1...E7:923 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked both ranges (the /21 x 1 month and /16 x 3 months). The latter range has been previously blocked. In both cases there is likely to be some collateral damage. Unfortunately, I think the level of disruption requires some kind of intervention. Both blocks are Anon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! We're done here until the blocks expire. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 24 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 needs autopatrolled revoked

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

---

I have noticed with alarm that User:ElijahPepe has been creating one-sentence stubs and expecting others to do the work of filling them out. ElijahPepe has autopatrolled, and I believe this pattern of page creations to be inconsistent with the standards we expect of editors with this permission. His creations should be reviewed by new page patrollers, especially since so many have ultimately been redirected. He also cannot be bothered to add any categories to his article creations, which is really the bare minimum for an experienced editor.

Examples:

• created today, one sentence stub
• created yesterday, and I'm being generous by including his addition of 1 further sentence
• created April 12th, never expanded beyond 1 sentence
• created April 9th as one sentence, all other additions were by other editors
• created as a 1 sentence stub on March 27th, no further additions by ElijahPepe
• created as a 1 sentence stub on March 22nd with no further additions
• two sentence stub created on March 21st, once again other editors had to turn it into a viable article
• created as a 1 sentence stub on March 14th, other editors had to do the work of making it an actual article.

I could name many more examples, but I think I've made my point. Elijah should not have the autopatrolled user right, as it is for editors whose contributions can be expected to have no issues. To be clear I am not expecting anyone to be writing GA-level articles right off the bat, but at minimum they should be writing a few sentences and including more than one reference - this is a low bar to clear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not like perma-stubs but how has this person violated a policy? Are they creating articles which are clearly not notable? They have added at least one source to each article. It is mildly aggravating but did they show that they are not to be trusted with AP? Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Should probably also ping Schwede66 since they granted the AP. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, the bar for AP is a lot higher than the bar for an article not violating policy. If someone makes a 1 sentence stub, they aren't breaking any policies. However, someone making 1 sentence stubs should have their creations subject to review by NPP.

To answer your question on non-notable creations, the following are creations of theirs which have not been kept at AfD. Out of fairness, I am only considering events since the granting of the AP permission in September 2023.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Republican Party presidential primaries (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Beechcraft Bonanza V35 crash (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Initial public offering of Arm Holdings (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) (deleted, recreated strictly as a redirect)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Austin hospitalization controversy (merged)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion (merged)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Nevada air ambulance crash (still being discussed, but participants so far all are in favor of deletion)

There are also a number of articles by him which have been redirected, but those are not as easy for me to dig up as the ones where an AfD was initiated. Nobody is perfect, and I do not consider it a black mark if someone has an article not kept at AfD on occasion. However I believe the track record since September shows non-notable creations on a frequent enough basis that more oversight would be appropriate. I also want to emphasize that I am not seeking to restrict him from mainspace editing in any way, just simply to have his page creations subject to review by NPP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This list seems damning, but I think it's a little misleading to post only a list of the times he has taken an L. For example, here is a list of all the articles he's created that haven't been deleted:

jp×g🗯️ 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Of perhaps greater concern is that they're still not using edit summaries for content edits (as opposed to all of those image removals, which appear to have automated summaries).Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A valid point, and I'd argue another point in favor of AP being pulled. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's absolutely not on. For the record, I granted AP here: User talk:ElijahPepe/Archives/2#Autopatrolled granted. ElijahPepe, I won't clutter your talk page with a message about AP removal (and add to your stress levels); I trust you'll find this note when you follow the ping. One-sentence stubs are easy to patrol and editors who write them do not get assigned autopatrolled. And for the record, the user's editing patterns have changed as you can see from my approval message. Schwede66 03:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting here, that AP users can (as of a few weeks ago) unpatrol pages they want to have go through the feed. Elijah could just do that for short one-sentence stubs that they are creating. Sohom (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of this feature. Had I been, I would have used it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing you were wrong in granting AP initially, Schwede. All of these examples are of behavior after AP was granted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A warning would have been fine enough. I create stubs in order to create articles with everyone's involvement. If that is not acceptable, that is fine, but I was not given a warning until today. As for the articles for deletion, I only created the primaries articles, the Lloyd Austin article, and the Arm Holdings article. I am still trying to get better at edit summaries. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a setting in the preferences tab if I recall correctly that alerts you when you are about to save without adding an edit summary, you may consider enabling it so you can get in the habit and remembering to add one. 173.172.215.80 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Preferences > Edit > "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)". Just don't get into the habit of double clicking of the save button, ya? – robertsky (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't bullshit me, Elijah. You were warned earlier this month and made it clear you had no intention of changing your behavior. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Very respectful. Your thinly-veiled passive-aggressiveness has not been sly throughout our conversations, and your tendency to accuse erroneously attributed AfDs I was involved in to articles I wrote. As for the substance of your comment, I did not recall that I had said that when I wrote that comment. Ecrusized did not provide a policy against creating one-sentence articles and did not follow up after my comment; his clarification was that it was acceptable given the article was being worked on before being linked to a high-traffic page. Obviously, I'm aware now that is not acceptable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe this AN/I thread should have been a Discord argument. jp×g🗯️ 01:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Do let me know if you have any useful contributions to make, Jpxg. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Lack of autopatrol simply means "new articles need a look by a second person". That's the norm, not some remedy for an egregious violation. Conversely, Autopatrol means "new articles never get a look by a second person" IMO should be a very high bar. IMO when in doubt, go with "the norm". North8000 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  And here's another thing: unlike other "rights", autopatrol has zero effect on what an editor can or cannot do. It's about reducing load on patrollers. It should be given, or retained, only when an editor is 100%, unambiguously, trustworthy. EEng 02:43, 25 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.

Continual creation of non-notable pages and drafts by Numspan33

• Numspan33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After multiple warnings by User:Whpq (here) and myself (here and here), they have continued the creation of problematic pages (predominantly clear failure of notability), most recently Draft:Penta (river), which was draftified by User:Wham2001 just now. For the most part, they have not been responding to talk page messages with a total of one, evasive, response to those three talk page messages. Generally it seems that they have a WP:IDHT or even a WP:CIR issue here as they are diving in too deep too quickly into article creation. It's unlikely they will improve if they continue this evasive communication style, so I'm requesting admin attention on the issue. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for sockpuppetry. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

tagged most of the creations for CSD save for a couple that were too close to Editer344's block date. Star Mississippi 03:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

Deman2003 continues to remove sourced information at Ergan, Erzincan. I've encouraged them to expand the page instead of removing info. I've also used their talkpage to both explain how Wikipedia works and to warn them of the consequences of their continued disruption. Semsûrî (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: The tribal population information is taken from Faik Bulut's Dersim Raporları, which itself states to have taken the tribal information from 'Erzincan' book by Ali Kemali which is as old as 1930s. So the information is too old and should be considered historic, but I am not sure. Also that may have been the reason for Deman2003's lack of information. However there behavior is not acceptable, and also this discussion has nothing to do at ANI, and should have been in dispute resolution. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyright violations (and nothing but)

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.

---

All five edits by Siddhipalande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been copyright violations, two revdeled and three awaiting revdel, all copied from and even usually citing https://insightcommerce.blogspot.com/ . They were warned on 16[273] and 18[274] April 2024 but have persisted on 20[275], 23[276] and 25[277] April. They've also been warned about spam links. Time to block? NebY (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Siddhipalande was warned about copyvio from their first edit but has persisted each day. Account blocked indefinitely and their additions rev-del'd. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:47, 25 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.

Harassment & Disruptive editing of User: Versace1608 -Topic /article and interaction ban proposal

1. Previously @Versace1608 engaged in disruptive editing via me simply correcting an article as per sources [278] , was uncivil in interaction via foul language, WP:USERTALKSTOP, nationality commentary "you South Africans etc." aimed at myself and @Dxneo - similiar interaction/incident with @DollysOnMyMind here at, ANI and proceeded to list incident ANI: Behaviour of Qaqaamba, here which @Swatjester and @Mackensen, interacted and engaged with.
2. The editor then proceeded to nominate article Afro fusion , I had created as AfD ( [279] ) as "This particular music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail.", As per procedure, I edited/modified the article, expanded it and cited a lot more sources.
3. @Star Mississippi relisted the article to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus as well as to hear from more independent editors.
4. The editor, then proceeded to remove sourced information from the article and added "citation needed" templates in the infobox whereas sources provided in the article already substantiate the information as per stylistic influences/ cultural origins and genres sourced in the article itself do not necessitate a seperate source within the infobox. (Special:Diff/1220615604), the same article had a new user vandalize it, recently. (Special:Diff/1218715580)
5. The article is still under AfD debate, consensus has not been reached and although the editor previously demanded WP:USERTALKSTOP , has added a section on my talk page ([[280]]) bordering WP:HARASS accusing me of not providing sources and "claiming a musician/band as a pioneer" whereas nowhere in the article is that currently stipulated , as well as "threatening" to revert sourced information, as well as that "I am not a credible editor ", "I will monitor all of your edits moving forward", amongst other stipulations.

Qaqaamba (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Versace1608 Is still doing race comments on South African editors even after being warned for it two separate times on "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents"??? This has to stop. At this point I think this repetitive uncivil behavior is block worthy. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Where did I make race comments? If you're going to make a wild accusation like that, you will need to provide proof. For your info, I am black man from Liberia. I only acknowledged you being South African (your nationality, not race) to suggest that you can spend time creating SA-related articles. I never told you that you must stick to editing SA-related articles and cannot edit the Wizkid article. I have created several Nigerian, Ghanaian, Kenyan, and South African-related articles despite not being from these countries. I listen to music from a lot of African countries and since I feel like Wikipedia is still lacking in terms of African-music content, I decided to invest my time creating African-music related content.

You can edit any article as you please. You took my comments the wrong way and opened an ANI case, accusing me of commenting on your race. You failed to justify why you removed the genres I added to the Wizkid article. I added sources to support my edits and you didn't provide a single source to justify the removal of the genres I added.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This report is very light on diffs. It is also unclear how you allege Versace has violated the policies and guidelines linked.

• Please link to the "you South Africans" comment alluded to in point 1. If you're referring only to the one in the previous ANI thread, I think it's fair to say that was dealt with. If it's a new one, we need to see it. Similarly, foul language is not in itself policy violating.
• Nominating an article for AfD is not against policy. If you could show that it was targeting you specifically, that'd be different, but it's clear Versace also has an interest in the topic.
• I have trouble even parsing the sentence Versace alluded to in your only supplied diff of their edits. A talk page discussion to work out what it should say and if the sources support are preferable to wholesale removal, but removal is not against policy. Especially when it's a sentence so filled with subclauses that I lost the subject half way through.
• The only thing objectionable I've seen from Versace is You aren't a credible editor, which seems like a mild WP:NPA. Bad, Versace. No cookie. This ANI actually well illustrates why WP:CIV is important; it promises to be a time sink which may have been avoided by keeping cool. Versace, I trust in the future you intend to comment on edits, not on editors? With that understanding, I see no need for further action.
• However, I think Qaqaamba misunderstands WP:USERTALKSTOP; unless Qaqaamba has asked Versace to not post on Qaqaamba's talk page, there was no USERTALKSTOP violation. If Versace was asked to stop, we need a diff of that request.

I believe an interaction ban is premature at this time. However, if the two continue to lock horns over Afro Fusion, some sanction may be necessary. I'd suggest, since Afro Fusion has been the source of contention, a time-limited topic ban for both from the subject may be preferable. However, that's a thought for the future; for now, I'd prefer to see them discussing sources and guidelines to sniping and filing ANI reports. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck if I am not a mistaken, you are not an admin. During the previous ANI incident (Behaviour of Qaqaamba) you appeared to repeatedly WP:BLUDGEON additionally insistently claimed to not be able "to see diffs" although, admins could, you are entitled to your opinion however with all due respect you are totally uninivolved and as per last incident tend to suspiciously stipulate one-sided favored comments, thank you for your contributions however if possible, please steer clear. Thank you so much. Qaqaamba (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Qaqaamba Being an admin is not required to participate on this noticeboard. As for WP:BLUDGEON, accusations of misbehavior without evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. Please provide evidence or retract the claim. I also don't recall any admin stating they found diffs where I did not. I could be wrong; that's what diffs are for. If an uninvolved party suggests I steer clear, I will likely comply. I am reluctant to do so on your request, however, given that it sounds like you just don't like my take on your report. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck I didn't insist it was obligatory. I merely expressed my viewpoints, referenced past incidents, appreciated your contributions and requested, if possible, for you to please avoid involvement. Qaqaamba (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Prior to nominating the Afro fusion article for deletion, I believe that the genre originated in South Africa without checking the sources. I believed Qaquaamba was a credible editor. It turns out that he isn't. I have the right to challenge info that doesn't support the sources cited. Qaquaamba claimed that Afro fusion was developed in South Africa; he also claimed that Freshlyground pioneered the music genre. None of this is true. The sources he cited doesn't state any of this. Anything added to Wikipedia must be backed by a reliable source. How is Qaquaamba a credible editor when he has failed to provide a reliable source to support the things noted above? I left a note on his talk page and instead of addressing my note, he chose to open an ANI discussion. Does he expect admins to block me for inserting citation needed templates in the info box and removing a sentence that isn't supported by the sources cited in the article? This is ridiculous. All of this can be avoided if he provides a reliable source to support his edits. It's as simple as that.

He mentioned that I have been disruptive; this is completely false. I only told him to stop posting those warning notes on my talk page. He is the one engaging in edit warring and even when I undid one of his revision to my user page, he kept posting. I had to open a case here before he stopped posting on my talk page.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Just noting to expand on @Qaqaamba's assesment of my relist, in order to hear from more independent editors it might be helpful if those who have weighed in extensively already take a step back. Star Mississippi 16:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

RainbowBambi

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 refuses to stop adding ridiculous PRODs (1, 2, 3, etc.) to articles after being warned several times, continues to insist every article is "vandalism" or a "troll page." Also has months of spam edits and pointless reverts. Almost all of their edits are vandalism. Swinub (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This person appears to basically be trolling, so for the moment I have p-blocked them from article space but also informed them they may still comment here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Either this is a big case of WP:CIR or a troll. Former or latter, you decide. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've undne your close, as this was a partial block intended to allow them to make their case here while unable to edit article space. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry on my behalf. When I looked at the talk page, I only read the part where it said "You have been blocked indefinitely" and immediately assumed that the case was closed. Didn't realize they were blocked from article space, and you invited them to the ANI thread. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 20:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This person is trolling. The names and nature of the articles they decide to PROD on are quite telling. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: This user has made personal attacks on my talk page 1. I ask that the ban is not removed, and extended to all spaces. ElENdElA (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Im sorry, I made one inappropriate comment stating that "you are a troll" which is incorrect, please un ban me RainbowBambi (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to fight vandalism, but I am still new to that process, I just want someone to teach me how to properly fight vandalism, I want to make a difference on Wikipedia RainbowBambi (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If this isn't trolling, it is incompetence at a level beyond any reasonable hope of rectification, and since functionally the end result is the same in either case, an indefinite block seems entirely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I need teaching, please give me a chance RainbowBambi (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to pop in unannounced, but a couple days ago they tried to PROD a bunch of stub articles for “not containing enough information” or for no given reason. At least 27 articles in short succession. They also changed their username soon afterwards. This person is just a troll. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I went to random articles, I did not know how to put in the stub template. I am not a troll, I was just trying to help RainbowBambi (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

All of those articles already had the stub template on them and obviously going around marking random articles for deletion isn’t helping anyone. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@RainbowBambi: If you are really in good faith, then an advice I have for you, whenever going beyond the simple editing task for beginners, is to ask to self if I am experienced enough for this new task or not, and what is the probability that some lack of knowledge I apparently have will cause disruption. Using tags like PROD requires knowledge of basic policy and guidelines of Wikipedia, which I think is natural to a new editor like you to lack. Be bold in making decisions, but don't rush. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

ok, I will look into all the editing tools now. May I please be unblocked now, I promise not to incorrectly label or edit articles. RainbowBambi (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If I'm being completely honest, I simply do not believe you. There are too many tells that you have been being deliberately disruptive and dishonest. Also, I also generally don't review my own blocks, so you'll need to convince another administratot to unblock you. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Normally I would just indef block as a troll, but since there is a discussion here, I guess I'll join the timesink to say: "Does anyone object if I block as an obvious troll?" Taking all their edits together, there is simply no way this is a clueless newbie. Based on the editor time spent replying here, the trolling has already succeeded. May I end it? --16:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs)

  Bring down the bridge. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  We've heard enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I misread the thread and thought someone didn't think this was trolling. I think we're unanimous. Blocking now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 23 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.

Spermworld edit war

Ree609nj and Josephwheels1980 have a long standing edit war on Spermworld which is distruptive. Jerrykolt123, Charlesgordon123, Mikethebeast123 may be sockpuppets of the users. ElENdElA (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked everyone as socks except Ree609nj.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Frenchprotector29

Frenchprotector29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has done nothing but non-stop disruption, vast majority of their edits have been reverted, been at this since they started editing on 19 December 2023. Talk page is full of warnings (see also this old ANI report which unfortunately got auto-archived [281]). Mainly changes sourced information in a infobox, some examples [282] [283] [284] [285] (notice they tried the same thing twice at Turkoman invasions of Georgia). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think they deserve maybe a 1 week block or something. It seems like warnings aren’t enough for this user.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely‬ think they should get indeffed, as they have shown zero care to the warnings they have received, engaged in personal attacks (seen in the previous ANI link) as well as disruptive pov pushing. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

They have continued disruptively editing as can be seen with this edit. I think a block is warranted if they don't heed any warnings and repeat the same mistakes. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, and recently here too, removing sourced info [286]. They are WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

They are also misusing WP:RS [287], and have made long term edit warring at Siege of Krujë (1467) [288] [289] [290] [291]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

They're still edit warring.. [292]. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Now they're also creating copyvio articles [293] [294], and even despite that they still look poor. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an obvious WP:SPA here solely to push an agenda. Blocking is certainly warranted in this case.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Another day, another WP:NOTHERE. Too busy with their SP quest, so they have no time to respond to this ANI report. Should be indef-blocked already. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree that this user should be indef-blocked as per WP:NOTHERE. I hope this doesn't fly under the radar so that the admins respond accordingly. Botushali (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been asked to have a look and it seems that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (fails to engage in consensus building; rejects and ignores community input) applies, so before continuing to edit, Frenchprotector29 is now required to create an unblock request, addressing the concerns that have been silently ignored after the initial incivility. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ToBeFree! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

User:AManWithNoPlan being disruptive and abusive

User:AManWithNoPlan posted disruptive content on the phage therapy page, as seen here. After I gave them notice of revert, they proceeded to use abusive language, as seen here and here. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AMwNP put a warning that the link, if followed, would take you to a virus. That was half right, in that the link just takes you to a ULR usurpation nonsense site. You templated them, and they reverted it, as is their right to do. Perhaps rudely, but templating veterans is also seen as rude, especially when you accused him of being disruptive when he clearly wasn't. This tempest in a teacup doesn't belong to ANI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting the first warning while calling the OP clueless just made the OP escalate the warning, and then calling the OP an idiot just escalated it even more, that's precisely why no personal attacks is a policy, at least the templates are worded politely. Still, even if you minimized that, I do agree that this likely doesn't need intervention (yet). – 2804:F1...07:DBA8 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AManWithNoPlan, I cannot imagine any scenario where calling a fellow editor an idiot is anything other than a personal attack and a policy violation. Would you like to take this opportunity to withdraw that insult? Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AManWithNoPlan, also, since I decided to look because of the summary, what is this?: Special:Diff/1220775010.

If you really think the website tries to install malware (it sure looks pretty suspicious, but more in a scam way with the crypto ad it took me to), don't insert a link to it in the middle of the text, see also WP:ELNO and WP:ELOFFICIAL about not linking(or hiding if it's official) URLs with malware. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:3468:323E:5807:DBA8 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh it did try to install a fake antivirus after claiming I had a virus on the second visit(even though websites can only prompt you to select a file, not read any file they want), lovely. – 2804:F14:8092:9F01:3468:323E:5807:DBA8 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I was still trying to decide how to still have the doi, but bot the link. That link varies from car ads (I am currently helping a friend buy a car) to malware, phishing, scams, and failing to work at all. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Mind you, the doi link didn't redirect me to anywhere suspicious, though I didn't try downloading it as it required logging in and that's a sure way of getting spam. The link in the diff I gave was a different one, to the website of a journal. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:7054:6078:F91D:3B4A (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If Headbomb's assessment of the link is correct, the OP should be reminded of AGF and the reported editor should be reminded of NPA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Please think before templating someone. A malicious link should be removed, not highlighted. AManWithNoPlan did not remove the link but added a note. That was not desirable but putting a template on their talk was breathtakingly inappropriate. What about the actual issue? Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• How about someone revdeling that malware link before someone comes to grief? EEng 11:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. As it was the "Official Publication of Pakistan Research Evolution Scientific Society", not the university's (2014 archive), I've removed it from the current article but would be glad to see it revdel'd. NebY (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Ugh. It seems the URL was added in 2013, 216 edits ago. NebY (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Turbo cancer

• Turbo cancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Scott Adams has taken to Xitter to complain about an article I created, on the nonexistent "turbo cancer". Can I please ask people to watchlist. I will brace for incoming shit because my RWI is easily established, and Adams is beloved of (Redacted). Guy (help! - typo?) 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist to keep watch. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Let's try and stop a battle from happening. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Simonm223 (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Same. Will be fun blocking the (Redacted), should any arise! Acalamari 17:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Between "deranged fuckwits" and "racist / anti-vaxxer trash" I'm not seeing how this is in line with the civility policy, regardless of who this person and/or their following is/are. Imagining the controversy if editors here were referred to with those terms. Anyway, not like I can do anything but complain about it and hope people try to be more civil... JM (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, you can make a useless symbolic gesture, like the one I'm making by redacting the comments. jp×g🗯️ 03:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

But JM2023 has conveniently memorialized them independently, so everyone's happy. EEng 03:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

JzG, Just a note, the article is semi-protected because of a CTOPS action through June 12th, 2024, protected by Daniel Case on December 12th of last year, so we may be fine for now. I will still watchlist the page as well. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks much! Guy (help! - typo?) 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

RWI? Putting square brackets around it didn't help me, I don't think you're talking about any of the things on our disambig page. I'm a teacher, so my mind went to Read Write Inc., an educations supplies/software company, but I don't think that's what you mean either. Throw me a bone here? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

From the context, I'm guessing "real world identity"?? Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That would make sense. I thought about it for a while, but it didn't occur to me. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

New editor mass producing copyvio

I don't know what it is about steam locomotives, but I've been fighting people creating copyvio articles about them for months now. The latest account (and at this point I don't know if it's one person or multiple) is User:Cqww who made a whole bunch of drafts in March, and then woke up the other day after a month to do a page move. I've checked 4 of the drafts and every single one is blatant copyvio - can we block them? I also could use some admin assistance deleting their copyvio drafts. They're clearly not here to do anything besides copy from preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com. This editor may be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christian40213. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: I looked at Draft:SECR P Class 178 Nettle and it doesn't seem to be a copyvio of the source given there. It doesn't seem to be a copyvio of [295] either. Am I missing something? Zero^talk 12:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That draft is (was) the only one that wasn't an unambiguous copyright violation. The rest were all deleted by Whqp last night following my speedy deletion requests. It's deleted now anyhow since it was created by Aecws in violation of their block. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, Cqww (at least with that username) did not "make a whole bunch of drafts in March", but actually has only created one draft ever and moved one existing article in April. Zero^talk 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If you look at Cqww's deleted contributions, there are nine deleted drafts from March. All were deleted as unambiguous copyright violations. --Yamla (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Confirmed socks found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Christian40213 (but not to Christian40213). I'm blocking and tagging. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; of course you are correct. Zero^talk 08:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and personal attacks by User:MRWH359

• MRWH359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irish indentured servants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2023 Dublin riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Black people in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:MRWH359 is a new user with less than 75 edits. On Irish indentured servants they have blanked large passages sourced to reliable, secondary sources. On 2023 Dublin riot they have added unsourced commentary to the article while altering phases in the article so that they do not align with cited sources. For example, they have removed terms like "Far-Right" in sentences sourced to reliable, secondary sources such as France24 which does use that phasing.

After I reverted them and explained clearly in the edit summary I was doing so on the basis of Wikipedia policy in regards primarily to sourcing, they launched into personal attacks. For this, they were warned to cease doing so by an Administrator, User:Acroterion.

After being warned to stop using personal attacks at 02:24 UTC, 02:50 UTC and 02:50 UTC, they continued to do so in the edit summary of this edit [296] to Irish indentured servants at 03:10 UTC and in this edit summary of this edit [297] to Black people in Ireland at 03:13 UTC.

I believe their most recent edits to Irish indentured servants and 2023 Dublin riot should be reverted and they should be warned for disruptive editing and temporarily blocked from editing. Thank you. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I was in the act of typing a long response to them on their talkpage and was edit-conflicted. We'll see what their response is - they need to start taking advice seriously and lose the "i'm right and you must be my opponent" attitude. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I independently noticed that on Black people in Ireland, relevant text was excised by MRWH359 for no apparent reason other than "clarification". I reinstated it, but am aware that there's a POV being pushed here - Alison ^talk 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved observer) MRWH359's edits reek of POV-pushing, and their aggressive edit summaries fall afoul of several behavioral policies and guidelines. The sooner they are prevented from editing on these topics, the better. --JBL (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

- Hello,

Not sure what the procedure here is as was mentioned I am new, I think my tone comes across sharper than intend as we are on keyboards not face to face so it's likely misunderstandings can happen on both sides of the fence. regarding "After being warned to stop using personal attacks at 02:24 UTC, 02:50 UTC and 02:50 UTC, they continued to do so in the edit summary of this edit [1] to Irish indentured servants at 03:10 UTC and in this edit summary of this edit [2] to Black people in Ireland at 03:13 UTC." to clarify as far as I'm aware I never made any personal attacks I don't believe pointing out someone's political bias is a personal attack epically if they proudly display on their personnel page, you may feel differently if they majority do then I apologies. Also I launched no "personal attack" on Acroterion I just asked if he was friends with Celtbrowne as only I was being talked with and not him as an edit war takes two to tango so I wanted to be sure he was asking in an official position and not doing a friend a favor which he then clarified.

I removed terms like Far-Right because there was absolutely no proven claims then or since of any far-right activity there was no skin-heads no nazi flags no far right organizations nothing at all the term was bandied about as a catch all phrase. Countless 1st hand video from the event easily found on twitter which I was attempting to add as source (put I'm still trying to figure that part out) can back this up as well as the fact that many there where peaceful and condemned looting from all members of the community.

If celtbrowne messaged me personally we could have discussed he just reverted and accused me of editorializing which is what he too was doing so I did the same as his edit comment thing was a couple of words with no reasoning (as far as I could see)

The Black people in Ireland one I added further details to the peoples named lives their own biographies back up what I stated and changed a line which confused a philosopher with a historian and said multiple historians but listed only one and the philosopher.

The Irish indentured servants one called them "immigrants" they clearly were not they were servants and slaves there is already an article which supports that view called Irish slaves myth we don't need a second one.

User:JayBeeEll- everyone is POV pushing I'm just attempting to Neutralize the language as it seems to be extreme one way or other it should be centralist and neutral and your assumptions about me and my intent are hostile and frankly offensive. Look at my other recent edits I didn't just focus on these. - I don't see how a minor edit war one time warrants a ban that's a bit extreme like stoning an adulterer or chopping off a hand for stealing bread especially considering I haven't continued the edit war and have continued on with other edits elsewhere.

User:Alison- the "relevant" text wasn't backed by any sources and was just unsubstantiated opinion in the early 20th century the British had the Windrush scheme the Irish government didn't have anything similar until the late 20th century we just had education visas for people from all over the world, we are two separate countries so we have separate laws.

User:CeltBrowne- Your entitled to your opinion I'm entitled to mine it, I'm curious as to why you don't want the language neutralized or the identity and circumstances (which were pertinent & I added fairly) of the attacker to be put early in the article instead of smuggled in at the end, though that's probably best discussed in the talk page or a PM I'm happy to discuss. -- I noticed you added this "Neither my editing or creating of an article equates to me endorsing any views expressed in the article. If I'm writing a biographical article about someone, it's because I find them interesting or significant, not necessarily because I agree with their views. " at 12:38, 26 April 2024‎ I just want to clarify if I had seen this I wouldn't have made assumptions, so apologies for my assumption

User:Acroterion- I am happy to take advice as has been pointed out I am new here and still learning the ropes as it where and thank you for your statement on my talk page that you believe I could be a valuable contributor on Wikipedia I appreciate that.

In closing I'm only trying to make edits in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view this is supposed to be an encyclopedia the language should be neutral.

P.s. Just out of curiosity is there a summary page for rules and regulations and what not because when I've gone looking there is just endless rabbit holes that would make the library of Alexandria blush and no simple ten commandments as it where. - also I don't know how to tag people so I linked your user pages not sure if that does it.

Cheers for letting me say my piece, wish you all the best.

Kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

as far as I'm aware I never made any personal attacks I don't believe pointing out someone's political bias is a personal attack epically if they proudly display on their personnel page

My "political bias" is not proudly displayed on my Userpage: If you're referring to images on my Userpage there is a clear disclaimer at the bottom of the image section that they were chosen on the basis of quality of the image, not my personal feelings about the subjects. The subjects in my images are both political and non-political, and those that are political are from all across the political spectrum.

But even if they weren't, it would not justify attacking my edits as being because of a political bias when I clearly stated my edits were based on Wikipedia policy, and it should have been taken on WP:Good Faith that they were.

You edit summaries, as many users have pointed out, were hostile and personal. If you don't see that and keep doing the same type of edit summaries, I believe you're not going to have a long run on Wikipedia.

I noticed you added this "Neither my editing or creating of an article equates to me endorsing any views expressed in the article. If I'm writing a biographical article about someone, it's because I find them interesting or significant, not necessarily because I agree with their views. " at 12:38, 26 April 2024‎ I just want to clarify if I had seen this I wouldn't have made assumptions, so apologies for my assumption

That notice has been there for literally years; I've just put it in bold and red for reasons other editors can discern from this conversation.

I'm not getting the specifics of the articles, but as I've said from the start: You have to source anything you add to Wikipedia from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. You were adding commentary to the articles that was not supported by cited sources. Going forward, WP:Twitter (generally) is NOT a reliable source. What you personally witnessed is NOT a reliable source. Do not remove things that are sourced to reliable, secondary sources of information such as News Organisations/Newspapers. You should be basing your information on News Organisations/Newspapers for current affairs, and books/journals for historical events.

If you're overwhelmed by Wikipedia policy, please take the tutorials on Help:Introduction. These will help you learn and understand how Wikipedia works. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@MRWH359: This isn't the place for indepth discussion on content but you really need to learn how wikipedia is written if you want to edit here. You claimed above 'the "relevant" text wasn't backed by any sources and was just unsubstantiated opinion' but this is incorrect. In fact the text you removed was sourced to this ref [298] an that ref seems to precisely support the text you removed "Conrad's father was one of many African students who had come to study in Dublin. In the 1960s, the Irish government ran schemes supporting them in learning skills that would help them build up their own newly independent states." Yes the reference wasn't given next to the sentence you removed but it was given after the very next sentence. And it's perfectly normal, often preferred, that a reference will be at the end of multiple sentences if that references supports multiple sentences. So if you see several sentences then one or more references you should generally check those references to see if they support the earlier sentences. And it shouldn't be particularly surprising that a reference that supports the 1962 thing would also support the earlier sentence. Also your Windrush etc comment shows why even when removing something you need to be very wary about WP:OR. Your belief that this isn't something that happened was clearly incorrect, and also this was fairly unrelated to Windrush which involved people often permanently immigrating to the UK (although often without the government really wanting them to), whereas as the text in our article, and the reference explains, many of these people only stayed in Ireland temporarily. As I said, this isn't the place for content discussions but I'm trying to illustrate why OR is very risky since you have removed sourced text based on several misunderstandings on your part. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Mteiritay at Sulaiman Bek

I request administrative action against User:Mteiritay for their repeated unsubstantiated deletions of sourced content at Sulaiman Bek, or, alternatively, a protection of that specific page - whatever you see fit. I tried to discuss their objections thoroughly at the article's talk page and went through both the WP:RfC and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sulaiman Bek processes, where they were unwilling to engage properly. The conflict on the page is ongoing since March 31 now and the user has proven their unwillingness to either engage in a constructive discussion or accept the sourced changes. As I don't believe an edit war would help here to move the issue to the responsible noticeboard, I don't see another way than requesting admin intervention.

• The conflict mainly is about this edit. I have changed a little bit in the latest edit, but the two conflict points remain the same:
• 1. Alternative spelling: The town is commonly spelled Sulayman Beg, especially in languages from the region that have a "g" in their alphabet, such as Iraqi Turkmen. I have added three sources for that.
• 2. Presence of a Turkmen minority: The main point of contestion. I have added three sources, including France 24 and Al Arabiya, supporting that claim, and two sources talking about a tribe that speaks both Iraqi Turkmen and Arabic, which settles in that city.
• The user's responses looked mostly like this; short one-liners without actual engagement with the claims made and the content of the sources.
• They also deleted content they haven't even criticized regardless, like my inclusion of the Arabic Albu Sabah tribe (which was mentioned in one of the sources already used in the article) and the addition of a link to the Wikipedia pages of two other tribes that are already mentioned in the article in my latest edit.
• Sidenote: The user had been in another edit war in March, which resulted in the (probably rightful, from what I see there) ban of the other user involved; however, the admin banning that other user argued in defense for that ban by accidentally also using two edits (12) that were actually done by User:Mteiritay as proof for unacceptable behavior.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for all the time-consuming voluntary work you are doing to keep Wikipedia a good place. I imagine it to be tiring at times; I surely am tired by this conflict; the issue is not even that important to me - I just invested so much time in this already that I feel like I can't just quit now.--Ermanarich (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: The documentation of the dispute resolution process mentioned above has been archived now at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 244#Sulaiman Bek.--Ermanarich (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

As my request for admin intervention seems to have been lost among the many other requests (almost three days without any answer now), I have decided to add it down here again, in the hope that someone will see it.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect Mteiritay is not really a newcomer. Aintabli (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting theory, but looking at their contributions, the user doesn't seem to tend to Kurdish but rather to Arab nationalism. Ermanarich (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ermanarich, the name of the sockmaster should not fool you. I suggest you to compare their edits to those of the confirmed socks. Aintabli (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aintabli, oh ok, thank you for that info. It didn't even cross my mind that the user could indeed be a sockpuppet, but I don't really know how to even confirm if they are either. So how is the issue going to proceed now?--Ermanarich (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have already filed a report, but there is a huge backlog. Mteiritay also does not appear to steer away from edit-warring at Al-Bayati, which they have trollishly moved to Al-Bayat (tribe) to “make shorter”. Not really a good look. Is it the time to take action? They are also ignoring this thread. Aintabli (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This comment of theirs convinces me that they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX by POV-pushing. Aintabli (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Cjhard is WP:NOTHERE, personal attacks and using WP as battleground

User Cjhard demonstrating WP:NOTHERE, specifically "Treating Wikipedia as a battleground". User first began performing repeated reverts on South Park: Joining the Panderverse involving critical reviews, which has already escalated to a WP:DRN. When given his first WP:3RR on the subject, his edit summary included the phrase "Do not edit my talk page again." Since then, he has (purposefully?) made changes to another article I have been involved with, The Pandemic Special, a subject which he had previously had no interest in prior to our interactions. The edits he has been making on this article are reverting a clear violation of WP:NOTBROKEN where another editor was adding a pipe to a redirect. He has been purposefully undoing these reversions with his edit summaries indicating that he believes this is also a difference of opinion. Furthermore, his edit summaries include other WP:PA, including "cross the bright red line, SanAnmAN, and "Please do. In the meantime I made myself pretty clear last time. Fuck off.". It is apparent to me that he is engaged in personal attacks on me. - SanAnMan (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pandemic_Special&action=history
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Park:_Joining_the_Panderverse&action=history

Based off these two articles revision history, it seems you are in fact edit warring here, potentially against consensus. In fact, quick scroll reveals almost any recent change to the article 'South Park: Joining the Panderverse' has been reverted by you. I hear a bird...no a mutual WP:BOOMERANG already. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This report obviously doesn't require a response from me and I'm not particularly interested in engaging with it. However, noting the above suggestion of a boomerang, these users have dealt with SanAnMan's tendentious edit-warring recently and may wish to engage with this conversation: @Alex 21: @Wikibenboy94: @Happily888: @EverestMachine 4001: Cjhard (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Annnnnd it gets worse. @SanAnMan has gone to multiple editors, such as in this revision :[299][300], encouraging them to deal with an 'abusive user' (WP: ASPERSIONS ) and attempts to canvass to support him. I count he did this at least 5 times, saying he would 'fight for he believes is right' (another policy violation). Im deeply annoyed at having to call out a senior editor for this, but this is beyond The Pale Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

To be fair to SanAnMan, it looks to me that he's absolutely in the right here regarding the article changes themselves. I can't see anything wrong with the reviews in the Joining the Panderverse article, and the redirect pipe in the Pandemic Special article is clearly against guidelines.

And why are reversions being made before this incident report has been closed? [301] [302] I believe further discussion is required first. Barry Wom (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

'I can't see anything wrong with the articles changes themselves' and that's fair. But the issue here is that he canvassed for his side of the story, hence my reversion on the first diff, so I acted. On the other diff there is a now 3-1 consensus, so I made the changes. Feel free to revert the second change, but I stand by keeping the first one as is for the duration of this ANI case. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Support for keeping the reviews as is has been established by myself, Barry Wom, Nightscream, and Special:Contributions/109.77.193.78. Please check your math. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, there was erroneous data in my calculator, it's down to this [303] summary where you state there is a 2/1 consensus, which would make me the third. But while we are on topic, why did you canvass multiple editors regarding the most minor of issues? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The only editors I contacted were editors who had already previously been involved in the talk page discussion about these reviews as well as multiple other articles involving South Park, as they had already expressed an interest in the discussion. I did not consider that to be WP:Canvassing, especially when the section states "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." I will freely admit to being a very passionate editor when it comes to WP. And yes, I will also admit that I need to be more mindful of getting into edit wars. I am also adamant about trying to enforce what I believe to be tried and true WP policies/guidelines including WP:NOTBROKEN, especially when other editors seem to purposefully break them without justification. And I never under any circumstance use any kind of foul language or veiled threats ("cross the bright red line"). - SanAnMan (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I will say that in my interactions with SanAnMan, as well as a cursory glance at their talk page history, that I believe that this user likely has a problem with WP:EDITWARRING, WP:OWNership and WP:CANVASSing. SanAnMan frequently is shown to choose to not follow WP:DISCFAIL/WP:DR procedures, including having been previously blocked for this behaviour and choosing to not discuss on talk pages when disputes occur or they are requested to. Whilst I understand that SanAnMan is a "very passionate editor", I don't believe that this gives you the excuse to edit war. Happily888 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

SanAnMan, was it not true that they made it clear they didn't want you posting on their talk page? "Fuck off" is typically not blockable, and personally I'd save my fuck offs for after the third unwanted post on my talk page, but here you are--dragging an editor to ANI, canvassing other editors, edit warring (over a silly redirect/pipe). I strongly suggest you stop that edit warring and not make any more accusations, here or anywhere else, or you're likely to get blocked for harassment/personal attacks/edit warring/disruption. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The only posts I have made to his talk page have been required posts for notices including 3RR and other required admin notices. I have not posted any personal notes to his talk page. SanAnMan (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Not true: this was not required in any way. And "cross the bright line" is not a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Cjhard purposefully was tracking my edits after our initial conflict and purposefully chose to involve himself in another edit war with me on that article. I will apologize for inserting my personal opinion in those comments, but the initial part of the vandalism notice is an auto-complete courtesy of Twinkle. And you and I will have to agree to disagree that "cross the bright red line" is not a personal attack, especially when this article frequently equates the phrase to acts of war. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

the initial part of the vandalism notice is an auto-complete courtesy of Twinkle

I believe that @Drmies was saying that the notice was unnecessary, especially a 4th-level one. I would agree. _Dial^mayo 17:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

SanAnMan, if you're really going to argue that Cjhard was declaring war on you--well. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I never said that he was actually declaring war on me. I do equate the statement as a threat though. My two cents. If he just leaves me alone and stops following my topics of editing, I'm fine, because I do still believe he purposefully followed my editing to another article he previously had no interest in whatsoever for the sole purpose of continuing his battle with me. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Well how do you know he is reverting you with the sole purpose of targeting you? 'Cross the line' sounds like a 'your crossing 3RR and may bear the consequences of it' to me. Let the WP:AGF flow and read up on WP:DISCFAIL Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you decided to break the editing guideline of WP:NOTBROKEN on the article solely because I asked another interested editor to review it so I could try to avoid more warring? The editors I asked to review the article were already-existing interested editors, so I did not intend to be WP:Canvassing. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please answer how Cjhard is targetting you? There is no reason to rush to other editors to support your point of view in a edit war (NOT a discussion) before going to the edit war noticeboard or following WP:DISCFAIL procedures. Except, of course, if you are not entirely blameless yourself. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I did first open a WP:DRN on the debate between us on the editorials on Joining the Panderverse. He refused to cooperate. In regards to the targeting, after he and I starting having our "debate" (for lack of a better term) on that article, I was handling the WP:NOTBROKEN issue on The Pandemic Special with another editor when Cjhard, who previously had no interest or interaction on the topic, decided to start reverting those edits as well without explanation. And for the record, I am not the only editor who has been supporting/reverting the NOTBROKEN edits on that page. It is a guideline for a reason. That, to me, shows me that he was targeting my edits, most likely out of spite. It should also be noted that so far he has not contributed or commented in any way on this matter, same as he did with the DRN. So now that I've (hopefully) answered your question, will you please answer mine and explain why you are also reverting the NOTBROKEN guidelines? - SanAnMan (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOT BROKEN is a guideline,WP:EDITWAR is a policy. You didn't just canvass another editor, you tried to drag them into a edit war under a controversial pretense ('abusive editor'). Removing an edit repeatedly, and asking others to support your side by removing the other persons edit(even if it is over a 14 byte redirect) is always edit warring outside of very obvious and very blatant vandalism (something I misunderstood recently and put to the test), so in this scenario, an attempt to stop editors getting carried away in a WP:EDITWAR triumphs over a edit war over a guideline. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

PS -- I've never said that my hands are completely clean. I'll admit that I most likely crossed the line when it comes to 3RR myself. As I stated earlier, I'm a very passionate editor. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we just close this please? I'm getting tired of getting piled on even though I've admitted that I've done some wrong. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No. This board is to examine problematic user behaviour. You can't ask to close your own report because your own problematic behaviour is being examined. You're not the victim of a "pile on". That's what the boomerang references meant. Cjhard (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, discussions like these User_talk:Barry_Wom#Help needed where someone SanAnMan canvassed says they'd report me for edit-warring but for the fact SanAnMan too would get sanctioned and his response being "If so it will be for fighting in what I believe is right" over a piped link redirect demonstrates that his attitude toward edit-warring will not change without sanction. There also seems to be a very long standing issue of SanAnMan accusing people of vandalism over edits he disagrees with, which you see everywhere in this case, and appears to go back to at least 2020, where he accused people of vandalism over whether an episode of television is a "season premiere" or a "standalone special" and stonewalling the conversation against consensus of four other editors and then threatened to to "take this to the admins" (for whatever it's worth, SanAnMan was incorrect in this content dispute, the four other editors were correct - the episode was the season premiere).

This person is a time-sink who unfortunately doesn't have the competence to collaborate with other editors. Cjhard (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else I can say at this point. I've apologized for edit warring and will try to be better. As for the comment mentioned earlier, it was posted out of frustration, nothing more. SanAnMan (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Socks part 2

Already a group of socks were found globally blocked and its another group continues and found as socks. I request admins to look at this issues and take necessary action. Thanks. AntanO 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

AzorzaI

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

I am reporting this user as per WP:HOUND. Before we proceed, it's important to establish the context. AzorzaI and I have been involved in numerous disputes and edit wars across a variety of articles for months now, such as Andrea II Muzaka and the Battle of Kosovo. AzorzaI was blocked on a separate occasion by ToBeFree for edit-warring on a number of articles with me and a number of editors - I did not share this block. The edit histories and the TP sections of these articles are littered with back-and-forth disputes between this user and myself, but because they are not the purpose of this report, I do not think it is necessary to provide diffs. Anyways, for cyclical, unending TP discussions and long drawn-out edit wars on articles, namely Battle of Kosovo, both AzorzaI and I received a partial block from the article by admin ToBeFree for 3 months. Not long after the block expired, AzorzaI has gone ahead and begun another dispute over the same content as before - [304] - by trying to use the results of a separate RfC to justify the removal of sourced content elsewhere in the infobox - [305]. Keep in mind what was removed was not the subject of the RfC.

Rather than react and immediately edit war over the same content that I was blocked for in the past, I went straight to ToBeFree to ensure that they were aware of AzorzaI's behaviour - [306] - and asked them for advice on how to proceed so that I may avoid a block. I was told that reverting would be OK, and that participating in the TP discussion should definitely occur. Nonetheless, even though I did not actually tag or mention AzorzaI directly (meaning they would not have received a notification about me discussing their behaviour on ToBeFree's TP), they still showed up - [307].

This has set off a number of events on numerous articles. So, I am going to report AzorzaI for three main points which indicate that AzorzaI is actively hounding me.

1. ToBeFree's Talk Page: As I previously mentioned, to avoid engaging in the same behaviour that I was partially blocked for in the past, I messaged ToBeFree directly on their TP asking for advice - [308]. I purposefully refrained from tagging or mentioning AzorzaI so that they wouldn't receive any indication of my discussion with ToBeFree. Nonetheless, they somehow still showed up to the discussion - [309]. Keep in mind I have not been involved in any currently ongoing dispute or discussion with AzorzaI up until this point, and haven't interacted with them in a while, so there is no real reason for them to check my activity or track my edits. Nonetheless, it would seem that after AzorzaI made controversial edits on the Battle of Kosovo, they expected a negative reaction from me and decided to check on my activity; in my contributions, they would have seen that I approached ToBeFree regarding the matter, which is how they ended up becoming involved in the discussion. Now, this on its own may not be sufficient proof that this user is trying to harrass me via WP:WIKIHOUNDING, leading me to my next two points.

1. Peja: So, after AzorzaI became involved in my discussion regarding their concerning behaviour on ToBeFree's TP, AzorzaI decided to stalk my edits and follow me to the article on Peja. I made an initial edit on the 26th of April - [310] - in which I removed a line that was sourced to a dead link since January 2016. I did not remove it simply because it's a dead link (as per the guidelines set by WP:KDL), I removed it because it is not verifiable in the slightest as it was never cited properly in the first place. Not only is the line sourced to a dead link, but there is no title, no author's first and last name, no publication date, no page, no ISBN etc etc available in the citation. WP:KDL is all well and good when we actually have information regarding the source that the information comes from, but in this case, there is no guarantee that this information is not completely falsified or was pulled out of thin air. Anyways, AzorzaI followed me there and reverted me - [311] - and has since begun a discussion on the TP in which they fail to grasp the concept of the Wiki policy they are invoking - [312]. You cannot do research on a source to verify it if there is no source in the first place - WP:KDL doesn't really fit here. So, we've established that AzorzaI stalked my recent edits to follow me to ToBeFree's TP, after which they followed me to Peja, and they've also followed me to another article as well...

1. Thomas Preljubović: Keep in mind that AzorzaI has never edited this article in the past. I initially made a change on the 26th of April, which was reverted by AzorzaI on the 27th of April - [313]. This revert wasn't too bad - I had mistaken Brendan Osswald's source that was already cited on this article (published in 2011) for another source also authored by Brendan Osswald (published in 2007). I rectified this by adding Osswald's other source with quotes to justify the change - [314] - but AzorzaI somehow decided to continue edit warring and reverted me again - [315]. To justify their removal of sourced content, AzorzaI claimed that WP:AGEMATTERS supported their revert - [316]. Keep in mind that there are only 4 years between each source, and the newer source does not consist of Osswald refuting any previous statement regarding Thomas' self-styled epithet, so there was really no justification for the revert. So, even though we can prioritise Osswald's newer work, it does not refute the information provided by the previous work. All in all, AzorzaI stalked my edits and followed me to an article they have never edited in the past to oppose me simply for the sake of opposing me, which is something they have done in the past - see the Battle of Vajkal for example, an article I completely overhauled with expansions and reworkings of sourced content. AzorzaI became involved in the dispute I had with another editor - [317] - and even though they were participating in WP:CPP and brought absolutely zero sources to the discussion, my side of the dispute came out on top since I was the only one using WP:RS bibliography to support my additions and changes. As such, my changes remain on said article to this day, because they are actually sourced.

Overall, more diffs and instances can be provided which indicate that AzorzaI has been following me around on a number of articles by stalking my contributions only to oppose me for the sake of opposing me, even if they are incorrect in doing so. Quite frankly, I've had enough, particularly because they just followed me around on three different articles (ToBeFree's TP, Peja, Thomas Preljubovic) in a single day. They have misused policies and utilised zero sources of their own to back up whatever viewpoint they adopt in order to oppose me, and it's even indicative of WP:NOTHERE to an extent. As such, I wrote a warning on AzorzaI's TP - [318] - in which I asked them to stop harrassing me via WP:WIKIHOUNDING, or else I would have to report them to the admins. In response, they deleted my warning - [319] - with the following edit summary: then don't actively breach wiki guidelines. So, AzorzaI is therefore indirectly admitting to hounding me on Wikipedia and following my edits, but apparently it's OK for them to do so as they are falsely claiming that I am breaching Wiki guidelines. In reality, I am not breaching any guidelines, as I have described in my three main points above. Additionally, I posted an edit-warring warning template on their TP to try and discourage them from continuing to edit war - [320] - but that's besides the point.

This report is not about content; it is focused on AzorzaI's behaviour which fits the description of WP:HOUND: Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia..., The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing... etc etc. AzorzaI's weird, obsessive behaviour is becoming unsettling and annoying. It is an uncomfortable feeling knowing that there is some random online stranger somewhere in the world that wakes up and decides to track my online editing activity on Wikipedia seemingly to oppose me for no apparent reason, even if they are wrong. I don't know if it's a personal vendetta, an act of revenge or some weird obsession with me, but it's not in-line with Wikipedia policies to say the least. I do not want to keep engaging in cyclical edit wars and pointless TP discussions, nor do I want to keep risking being blocked again for disputes involving the same user as last time. It would be greatly appreciated if an admin took some sort of action here, because enough is enough. I do not volunteer on Wikipedia to be harassed by obsessive strangers. Botushali (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

While I am not bothered by admin intervention, I'm confused by the perception of victimization. My interactions with Botushali have consistently been constructive, yet I find myself now labeled as an "obsessive stranger". What's particularly puzzling is Botushali's decision to issue edit war warnings to me, despite having made more reverts on articles than I have;

Peja. 12 (Botushali) vs. 1 (AzozaI)

Thomas Preljubović: 123 (Botushali) vs. 12 (AzorzaI)

Furthermore, the current dispute does not revolve around the content of the articles. Let me emphasize that this isn't about "hounding anyone"; it's about taking necessary steps to rectify what I see as ongoing breaches of guidelines and refusal to listen. I've already reached out to an admin on my user talkpage regarding this matter. However, if other admins are willing to investigate these concerns further, I would greatly appreciate their involvement. --Azor (talk). 20:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Our interactions have most definitely not consistently been constructive… In fact, they’ve been the opposite for about 95% of the time. Some of the most frustrating experiences I’ve had in Wikipedia have involved you.

Also, you’re miscounting reverts - I don’t know if that’s on purpose or accidental. The first supposed “revert” for Peja is not a revert, and the first two that you counted as “reverts” on Preljubović‘s article are also not reverts. You should strike them, because it’s blatantly incorrect. Botushali (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Continued poor article creations by User:737-200fan

User:737-200fan has been warned at User talk:737-200fan#April 2024 about their unsourced or poorly sourced article creations like Draft:Air 1 (airline) and Draft:Air 1 (airline) 2 (were both in mainspace) but continues to churn out airline articles like S-Air (Denmark) or Draft:Aviakompanija S-Air (moved to draft by me). Please topic ban them from creating new articles in the mainspace and require them to use the AfC process, or suggest some other solution for this issue. Fram (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious that the user's creation of non-viable articles is making an unacceptable amount of work for other users. They are pretty new, and should preferably be getting more experience, especially with sourcing, by improving existing articles before creating new articles, which is one of the more difficult things to do. I would be willing to do something about it, but I'm not sure I can. If I partial-block the user from "creating new pages and uploading new files", which is an option, that'll presumably also prevent them from creating drafts as part of the AfC process. Does that mean it has to be done as a topic ban (as Fram says) rather than a block? I don't think a single admin can do that. Aiming for a discussion here with a consensus to community topic ban seems a bit like shooting skeet with a cannon, but perhaps that's what we must do. Unless somebody else has a bright idea. Bishonen | tålk 12:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC).

I don't get the feeling this user is intentionally disruptive, let alone malicious, they're probably just excited about this cool new thing they've discovered and merrily going about creating articles without realising (and possibly caring) that they're leaving quite a mess in their wake. I think it would be a pity if they had to blocked altogether, that's such a buzz-kill (!), but somehow they need to be helped to stay on track and apply the speed limiter so they can become a net-positive for the project, which IMO they currently aren't. The messages on their talk page haven't done the trick, so maybe a short block to get their attention, along with a 'friendly but firm' reminder to revise WP:V and WP:N, and requirement to work through AfC until they can demonstrate they got it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that getting experience by improving existing articles is usually a good way for new editors to start. Continuing to bang away at article creation when they are not yet able to do that harder task successfully is not as good a way to move forward. If their articles really are that non-viable, then creating them via AFC just makes more work for the AFC folks. So p-blocking page-creation would be reasonable IMO. Is it technically possible to yank confirmed to prevent mainspace creation? DMacks (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The user has just created Fosh Airways, again, with no notability. I've tagged the article for CSD under A7, and I support the idea of requiring them to go through AfC, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Could it be user:Jonathan Yip? Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that - not in 2024. I'm just about to draftify Japan Universal System Transport to see if they can work on it to get it up to WP:Mainspace standard. Let's see what happens. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Not much will happen, I guess, since Bbb23 has blocked them as a sock of Aviation fan guy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Problem solved, then. 🙂 Bishonen | tålk 12:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Working on solving the related problems on Commons as well. DMacks (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Shams lnm

The above editor has attempted to enforce their stylistic preferences on the article Spanish battleship Jaime I; there was an initial set of reverts a month ago, followed by a discussion they where they did not behave with particular civility. They abandoned the discussion for about a month, and then showed back up today to edit-war their preferences back into the article. Their responses do not indicate a good-faith effort to discuss the issue, nor does their refusal to actually engage the points I made in the discussion in March. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Your "points" were full of basic/rudimentary errors in grammar and syntax [you were unable to tell the difference between a noun and an adjective] and solecisms that I corrected. Shams lnm (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

We speak in plain English here, and nobody should have to search Google to figure out what on earth you're talking about (which I just had to do with solecisms; just say 'grammar'!). Your time will be ending here soon if you don't stop edit warring about basic grammar, taking your toys and going home for awhile before surprising OP with a threat of blocking over two words and a thread that reads like 'bored English professor was told to stop giving all their students F papers marked all red and decided to fight here about two 'thes' instead'. I also follow the 'comma before name' rule, but realize that it's not a law to get all wound up about. Find something else to do. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Read again what has been written so far and by whom and try (just try) to be more fair, objective, and impartial (if you can...). Shams lnm (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Do not attack other editors, which you should not have to be warned about, but I will now. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep your warnings to yourself. Shall I do the same thing and warn you not to be biased? Is it okay when Parsecboy attacks me with ironies (suggesting that I shall write letters to the editors of The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Telegraph) and threatens to have me blocked? Apparently, this is perfectly fine with you. Bravo! Shams lnm (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, stop attacking other editors. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 09:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Good god almighty. As it turns out there are differences between different Englishes on whether "the" should precede a phrase like "military historian Albert Nofi", and fighting over it is silly. It's not a matter of grammar; it's a matter of style. User:Parsecboy, I don't understand why you let yourself get goaded into that mud fight (and you are confusing function [use in a sentence/phrase] with category [part of speech]). Shams lnm, you actually haven't presented an argument on that talk page besides your own opinion; at least your opponent pointed to a number of examples from reliable sources/authorities. Personally I prefer the version without the determinative (self-respecting grammarians born after the 19th century don't use the category "article" anymore), but I wouldn't be surprised if Shamns lnm would find themselves blocked at some point for an uncollegial attitude. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely an argument over a style issue. Unsurprisingly, we have an article on it: False title. Woodroar (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shams lnm: Let's say you are 100% correct about the issue. You will still be blocked to stop the disruption from your uncollegial commentary if it continues. However, you are not 100% correct. As pointed out above, it's a question of style and assertions of correctness simply reveal limited reading. By all means, argue that your style is superior, but that needs reasoned argument not the debating tactics shown at Talk:Spanish battleship Jaime I#Grammar. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Shams lnm, editors far more scholarly than I have explained why the grammar content dispute is trivial and that there is no right answer for you to impose by the force of your will. I am here to try to explain to you that this is a collaborative project and that personal attacks on your colleagues are simply not acceptable here. Your personal conduct in that whole discussion at several locations was simply not acceptable. If your wish is to insult and attack other people online, then there are many troll sites where that type of reprehensible behavior is accepted. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not among those websites. Consider this a warning. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no right answer to impose by the force of one’s will; agreed. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; personal attacks are unacceptable. Shams lnm (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

217.137.18.193

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

Repeated legal threats at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ratcliff (producer); WP:NOTHERE. Jfire (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I read an admin say on AIV a day or 2 ago that NOTHERE does not apply to IPs. First I'd heard of it, but no reason to doubt them.

Anyways, yeah "[..] Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily."(diff), not only a WP:LEGALTHREAT, but textbook attempt at intimidation. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:5536:1B4B:F45C:3635 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If an admin decides an account is WP:NOTHERE, the account is likely to be indefinitely blocked. An IP is very unlikely to be indefinitely blocked but if edits from that IP are NOTHERE over a long period, the IP will be blocked for a long time.

The IP should be informed about no legal threats but I would not get excited in this case because it is very likely that what the IP suggests is correct and he is very annoyed that a random from the internet is arguing that John Ratcliff (producer) (where the IP is apparently the subject) be deleted. Not everyone has to be satisfied and editors should be willing to overlook venting under these circumstances. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, the IP was template warned by the OP about not making legal threats (which links the policy) on their talk page about ~16 minutes before the one I quoted (they had made more, prior to that one, in the AFD), it's probably why the OP escalated things to here. Knowing if they have read it or not is harder, however. – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:5536:1B4B:F45C:3635 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be blocked, just so they notice that this discussion is happening and stop escalating with phrases like "It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are." (diff). It's odd really, that they decided to go so hard on the person who highlighted 2 sources to help establish notability for the article so it isn't deleted... – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:5536:1B4B:F45C:3635 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for six months for the overt and repeated legal threats made by the person behind the IP address. An IP address cannot be WP:NOTHERE but the person currently using the IP certainly can be. The IP address could be reassigned tomorrow and the new person behind it could start editing constructively about butterfies, rainbows and unicorns. Unlikely but possible. If this person is bound and determined to sue someone for enforcing well established policy on this private website, they can sue me. I disclose my real name, my home town and I am very easy to find. I will, of course, fight back hard against any such spurious lawsuit. Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It also appears that the IP has an account Johnratcliff (talk · contribs) that appears to only be here to create an article on themself. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The account appears to have acknowledged that the IP's edits were his own, so I have blocked the account as well until such time as they explicitly withdraw those threats. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

If it weren’t for the case involving me and Parsecboy, I wouldn’t have noticed this. You are too strict with an individual (John Ratcliff) who is new at Wikipedia and is not fully familiar with how the project works. Try being constructive and show empathy. It is clear (I haven’t the slightest doubt) that John Ratcliff is honest, has good intentions, isn’t trolling around. My understanding is that, as the long-time producer and manager of a-Ha, John Ratcliff definitely deserves to be indexed in Wikipedia. The entry he wrote about himself is good (although additional -independent, reliable, and verifiable- sources would be welcome). The main (the only) problem is that he is the author of the entry about himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_isn%27t_necessarily_a_good_thing). That said, I don’t think that the entry he wrote is autobiographical and I don’t think that a Wikipedia entry will help him promote his forthcoming book. Since he is the author of the entry about himself, the said entry shall be removed per Wikipedia’s standing guidelines and policies. However, after publication of his biography and after publication of articles about him and his book in reputable news outlets, I am sure other users (not John Ratcliff himself) will create a new Wikipedia entry that will be even more detailed and informative. Shams lnm (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not well aligned with our long-standing policies and practices. A person who explicitly and repeatedly makes threats to sue other editors because of their editorial decisions on an online encyclopedia is not acting in good faith, they are attempting to bully other contributors into yielding to their own will. Whether one is new to the site or not, one ought to know not to do act like that, and a half-hearted apology ('I'm sorry if my words made you feel harassed' does not do the same heavy lifting as 'I'm sorry for harassing you, and I withdraw my threat to sue you') is not sufficient. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well-said; I agree. Shams lnm (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous page archiving by ClueBot III

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.

---

ClueBot III (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) seems to be occasionally archiving pages incorrectly to Archives/_1 and ignoring the configuration on the page. Examples from various namespaces: 1, 2, 3, 4. This was reported on the ClueBot Commons talk page yesterday by @MrPersonHumanGuy: ping. Other examples can be found in the contributions log. Local Variable (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a matter for this noticeboard; try WP:VPT. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Local Variable (talk) 13:52, 28 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.

Two accounts?

So Duke of New Gwynedd who sent this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike de Geer and this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boudewijn de Geer, used the signature that links to the account BlakeIsHereStudios when listing his AfDs, however he uses a different signature that he was using to withdraw! So I see two different accounts... So I asked him and got a funny response of I didn't know about that, can you link the account you are referring to for me so I can check? [321] I consider this rather dodgy, do admins know about this guy? Seems really fishy to me. Regards Govvy (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

According to this their account got renamed from BlakeIsHereStudios to Duke of New Gwynedd on the day those pages were nominated based upon this request. Polygnotus (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

For clarification, my username was changed (see WP:RENAME) after I listed the AfD, but before I used the withdraw. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a change of name, it's the same account just renamed.

However, whilst we are here, I am seriously concerned about Duke of New Gwynedd's conduct at AFD - recently they have taken a number of topics to AFD and then had to withdraw the same when it was pointed out to them that they were nominating clearly notable topics, see here, here, and here. See also this where they admit to only reading the Japanese language Wikipedia after taking the article to AFD. They clearly do not understand the requirements of WP:BEFORE or notability. GiantSnowman 18:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I personally feel this type of behaviour with the two different signatures, different account linking is deceptive behaviour and shouldn't be allowed. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Ideally when a user account changes name, their signature changes too. Unfortunately this has serious technical downsides. Polygnotus (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I admit I found the name change after (here, 14:42) I raised concerns with them about the AFDs (here, 14:07) off, but we should AGF. GiantSnowman 18:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for all that. I will act better in the future. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What you need to do is seriously re-think your involvement with AFD. GiantSnowman 20:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible harassment by user

I noticed several potentially harassing comments by User:Polygnotus on my User talk page (User talk:Obversa): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Obversa#AGF, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Obversa#%22voting%22, as well as what appears to be a now-deleted or removed aggressive and harassing comment after I voted against User:Polygnotus's suggestion to delete the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Grant#Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Grant. Due to potentially harassing comments on User talk:Obversa and the "Articles for deletion" page, I would like an administrator to monitor this user's Wikipedia activity, as well as block them, if possible, from commenting or making edits on my User talk page. Thank you. (Also see: WP: Hounding, Wikipedia:Harassment.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obversa (talk • contribs)

Facepalm You can't just use those words if you don't know what they mean. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Obversa:, I can't find any harassing comments by Polygnotus on your talk page or in the AfD. Please see WP:DIFF for instructions on how to link to specific edits so that you can post those diffs here to support your claims of harassing comments, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you're talking about [322], though please link it per WP:DIFF next time. All the other links don't seem to have any harassing comments. Back to topic, whilst being told Ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. What would history read like if it was written by the horses? may feel a bit demeaning, it is objective in nature, and hence not really a personal attack. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

They were not talking about that unless they were a timetraveller and using multiple Wikipedia accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

let's gloss over that... Then I don't really understand what harassment and PAs are being discussed. Don't think templating a regular deserves a block... —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

See page here, as well as User:Polygnotus and their replies to my "Keep" vote, as well as replies by User:Gwillhickers to User:Polygnotus on the page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Grant

I will take a look at the WP:DIFF page to see how to link specific edits, thank you. In the meantime, I do not want User:Polygnotus commenting on my User talk page. If they have an issue with my vote, they can bring it up in a civil and non-accusatory way on the discussion page, rather than posting on my User talk page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Grant

However, User:Polygnotus posting replies like this comes across as aggressive, with further replies on my User talk page coming across as potentially harassing, as Polygnotus appears to have decided to post on my User talk page after I disagreed with his suggested page deletion: "@Obversa: So you are admitting that you refuse to follow WP:AGF? So you are saying that, just because we disagree, I must be of bad faith?"

This is not Mean Girls, and this comment reply came across as aggressive by User:Polygnotus, in addition to their comments on my User talk page.

I'm also note sure why my vote was struck from the page, and I want to make sure that my vote to Keep the page still counts. Obversa (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not a vote (see also WP:XFD#CON), and you are not allowed to !vote more than once, which is why Schazjmd struck the duplicate !vote. Polygnotus (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

In any case, I still vote to Keep the page. Please do not post on my User talk page in the future. Thank you. Obversa (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Posting false accusations on WP:ANI is considered mean. Your duplicate !vote was struck, but the original !vote is still intact. No one gets to !vote twice. Polygnotus (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You really need a better reason than "they voted against me" to ask someone to stop posting on your talk page. They aren't badgering you about the vote, they're (1) taking issue with the implication they are acting in bad faith (2) Discussing fixing issues on the AfD page. It is legitimate to do so because it doesn't clutter the AfD. Neither of these justified the request to stop posting. Please review WP:NOBAN. While it is unlikely Polygnotus will bump into you again, they are entitled to raise legitimate issues about your edits and contributions in the future, so long as they aren't targeted. Local Variable (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It also appears that, on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Grant, there appears to be an additional dispute between User:Gwillhickers and User:Polygnotus where an administrator may or may not need to step in to moderate, but that is just my personal observation. User:Gwillhickers was also notified that their page was nominated for deletion on their User talk page, though User:Polygnotus only decided to post on my User talk page, for some reason. Obversa (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

People disagree a lot on Wikipedia. You can't run to ANI and post false accusations every time people disagree. Polygnotus (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Helluva Boss episodes AfD closure never implemented

Back in July of last year, I nominated four articles for deletion. They were supposed to merge elsewhere, but an IP sneakily removed the merge notices from all four pages, and nobody seems to have noticed it. The first two pages to have their merge templates removed were October 19 and 20, copying the same edit summary in Special:Diff/1180623984. The other two had the merge templates removed on November 6, without an edit summary. I stumbled on to them this evening and thought, "wait what? Why are these articles here again? Did someone rewrite them?" No, and they hadn't been edited much since the closure (see diffs: Murder Family, Loo Loo Land, The Circus (Helluva Boss), Pilot (Helluva Boss)). As far as I can tell, only one citation—a tweet from the official Twitter account—has been added to these four pages.

Is the merge stale now because it's been so long? The IPs used to remove the templates have been blocked. SWinxy (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at WP:MERGE and it mentions nothing about if the merge notices are removed. But as long as there is a consensus to merge (which appears to exist), I think the merge is still valid. Just place the relevant template on the articles and you should be fine. (Non-administrator comment) MiasmaEternal☎ 07:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Just revert the IP. TarnishedPath^talk 08:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

merges done. further summarisation may be required. – robertsky (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Much thanks. SWinxy (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)