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

Imane Khelif should get 1RR Arbitration Enforcement

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

---

1 RR discussion

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

---

It appears there is large amount of edit warring happening on the article. I suggest it gets set to WP:1RR under CTOPS WP:GENSEX. It also appears that the two users User:M.Bitton and User:JSwift49 may need a temporary timeout as they're well past even 3RR. Raladic (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've filed a report for JSwift49 edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JSwift49 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: ). I must have been filing it at exactly the same time that this was filled. TarnishedPath^talk 02:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Regardless of the outcome at WP:ANEW, I would concur that this should be classified under WP:GENSEX with a 1RR. This is the second time this week the article has made its way to ANI as a result of arguments around that topic area. Grandpallama (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  There's already a CTOP notice for GENSEX at the top of the article's talk so I agree that active arbitration remedies of either 1RR or compulsory BRD should be put into place given the edit warring and incivil behaviour from some editors. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Appears that JSwift49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cast aspersions in that discussion on two occasions based off a quick skim.[1][2], in addition to the blatant 3RR vio. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those is an aspersion. They're characterizations of another editor's conduct based on what's in plain view—whether or not they're accurate characterizations. An aspersion would be something like calling someone a pedophile without evidence. Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time. I have no opinion on whether any of those happened here. Just chipping in because I hate seeing that term genericized to mean "saying something negative". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree there. Any negative characterisation of another editor's conduct which is lacking is appropriate specific evidence to substantiate such characterisation is an aspersion. Per WP:ASPERSION, "On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe". Therefore, repeatedly stating to another editor that they are not engaged in good faith discussions without evidence to back that up is an aspersion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

1RR would be welcome. Note that edit war and incivil behaviour were shareed by both sides. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to strike the "good faith" comment, as it was not focused on a specific policy and that is not helpful. However I'm not sure why the other comment linked, where I mention specific policies, is an issue. JSwift49 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't possibly justify your personalization of the discussion by claiming that your aspersions were in "good faith" (while doubling down on them on this board). The fact that you initiated a 3R report about me, after engaging in this one, speaks volumes.

Your only explanation for persistently violating the WP:ONUS policy, in a WP:BLP article, is according to policy good-faith additions should remain in article pending consensus (another claim of yours that has no basis in reality). M.Bitton (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Re. my policy comment that was a misunderstanding from an essay, which I have corrected. However, you still violated the 3R policy I'm afraid (as well as, as I outlined, sealioning). We have both received warnings and I think that is a fair call. JSwift49 13:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your so-called "misunderstanding" doesn't justify the persistent violations of the WP:ONUS policy, nor does it explain your aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time. That is because this noticeboard, WP:ANI, is one of the few appropriate places to raise such concerns - though even here, only with evidence; without evidence, as they were posted there, they would obviously still be WP:ASPERSIONs. But the purpose of an article talk page is to focus on the article, not to attack other editors; it is completely inappropriate (and obviously contrary to both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL) to outright accuse an editor of bad faith there. And, more importantly, it is precisely the sort of behavior that WP:CTOPs exist to prevent - those are the sorts of comments that routinely get editors blocks at WP:AE. I'm baffled that a longstanding editor would attempt to defend it - do you really believe that a comment consisting solely of It's pretty clear here this isn't a good faith argument or one ending with Sealioning and disregard for WP:NPOV are also issues I've seen with you, I'm afraid are remotely acceptable behavior on an article talk page in a WP:CTOP? --Aquillion (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi; not aspersions, I think it’s reasonable to point out if another editor is sealioning, which consistently was the case here. (This involved repeated asking of the same question while refusing to engage with other peoples’ arguments.) I would support 1RR. JSwift49 10:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is here to WP:SATISFY you. I'm cognisant that your first edit after me leaving you a notice about a discussion concerning your breaching WP:3RR was not to remedy your breach by self-reverting, but to come here and further cast aspersions. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just sitting down now to look at all this :) happy to revert my violation, though someone had already changed it and added their own content. JSwift49 11:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you might have lost your chance at self-reverting then. That's a risk when you engage in 3RR violations. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a baseless claim, just like the one you made about the fictitious policy that you keep mentioning to justify your multiple violations of the real policies. M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sidenote, if Imane gets 1RR, arguably so should Lin_Yu-ting which is another olympic boxer caught up in same controversy with IBA Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Janjaem Suwannapheng should be subject to same rules too. The Thai boxer is vulnerable to same hatred Khelif received. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In agreement with adopting 1RR & it also appears that the disputes have spilled over into this ANI report, as well as the EW reports. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I note that the disputed material, in clear defiance of WP:ONUS, and despite an obvious lack of consensus for its inclusion, has been restored to the article by JSwift49. It takes two to edit war, but policy around BLP matters, and if JSwift49 doesn't remove the challenged material, sanctions should be applied. Grandpallama (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: JSwift49 said above that a self-revert might have resulted in a block since their addition had since been edited by others. In light of administrator Ingenuity's designation of this as a 1RR matter, I just removed the contentious text in the hopes that everybody will stay on the talk page and off the article. City of Silver 17:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver Related question: I understand the policy in this case as this is text that I had added and people objected to. So delete until consensus. However, I also started another discussion Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 3#2nd lead paragraph: "public scrutiny" vs. "misinformation" where consensus seems quite far off re. which term/s to use in the lead. As far as I can tell the current term was added a few days ago and got reverted and re-added twice before I weighed in.[3][4][5][6][7] What is the best practice if no consensus or compromise can be accepted by both sides, and it’s a matter of word choice and not content addition? JSwift49 03:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49: I've reviewed this whole mess as best as I could and I keep having the same question: why hasn't anyone started a request for comment for this? and that? and the other thing? Everybody hates RFCs for all kinds of reasons but it simply doesn't matter because they're the only workable way to get past a situation where every editor has dug in their heels, which has certainly happened at Khelif's talk page in several discussions. Don't you get tired of citing the same policies, the same guidelines, the same essays in response to editors who you have to know won't be convinced by anything you say? Aren't you tired of those same editors over and over citing the same irrelevant stuff to you? (If I were you, I'd have absolutely lost it by now at how many times WP:ONUS has been thrown at me by people who don't know that it can't come into play before a discussion is closed. Every single editor who's cited ONUS in response to you doesn't have the first clue what it actually means.) To my understanding, an RFC is the only way to get past issues where there's a completely, totally intractable "both sides" problem because it'll attract editors who aren't on any side at all. City of Silver 06:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver Why does WP:ONUS not apply here, because there was not a discussion/consensus when the term was added? If so, should the contentious lead material be removed until consensus is reached? JSwift49 10:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your parenthetical is not a correct understanding of the entirety of WP:ONUS. RfC is a good suggestion, though. Grandpallama (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestion re. RfC. JSwift49 14:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama, City of Silver, Ingenuity, TarnishedPath, and GhostOfDanGurney: please have a look at these two edits (12:10 and 14:37) that were made today by JSwift49 (after casting aspersions and accusing me of sealioning). M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that they've at least moved past aspersions and are bringing diffs, but nonetheless, this isn't exactly lowering the temperature in there. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

They are still commenting about me (this editor has a history ...) in unrelated discussions, which is the continuation of the aspersions that they started and doubled down on (in this discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of these comments were in fact direct responses to assertions by M.Boli that I 1) "ignored what everyone else said" and 2) "keep repeating the same argument that has been addressed multiple times". Especially the first comment crosses the line to an aspersion as they assumed I was "ignoring".

In my responses, I took care to only mention the fact that M.Boli had repeatedly asked the same questions verbatim, and I did not (by contrast) ascribe negative intentions. JSwift49 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding this editor has a history ... to a RfC is beyond the pale. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is an accurate statement; and I have intentionally avoided reporting you for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to give you a chance to weigh in. If you don't want other editors to mention that you asked the same question verbatim 4-5 times in a row, don't do it, and certainly don't accuse others of purposely ignoring you. In fact, my RfC proposal is based on a compromise that was in response to your original concerns. JSwift49 17:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, adding this editor has a history ... to a RfC is beyond the pale. As for the above baseless assertions, that's all they are, and serve no purpose other than to exhaust my diminishing good faith stock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jswift has racked up an impressive number of notifications for contentious topics. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, three of those were mine that I provided to them in a bulk message. TarnishedPath^talk 04:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Now subject to 1RR. —Ingenuity (t • c) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1RR should not be used lightly. It effectively "freezes" an article and should only be used for a limited amount of time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Kcmastrpc, I disagree, but I'm sure Ingenuity, who's a bit of a noob, appreciates your opinion. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      You can make snippy remarks all day, but look at the edit history of Marjorie Taylor Greene after May 2023 and prior to see an example of how chilling 1RR restrictions are. Most edits are now superfluous and the activity has dropped nearly 50%. I suppose maybe that's a good thing, I don't know. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      Article stability is always a good thing. Presuming of course that there are no issues with the article. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

      With someone as active of a public life as MTG, I might disagree. However, in this instance, Imane, through no fault of her own, is a very notable public figure now. Perhaps I'll do some research on how heavy arbitration remedies impact the encyclopedia both short and long term. (when/if I get laid off from my FT job). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of JSwift49

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

---

JSwift49 has engaged in repeated synthesis or outright misrepresentation of sources on the talk page in order to insert their POV.

Their current RfC,[8] which has been described by several users[9][10][11][12] as whitewashing the abuse faced by Imane Khelif, selectively uses quotes from sources in order to support their POV, and omits information in the very sources used that support the status quo[13][14].

Between this RfC and the preceding discussion,(version as of writing) JSwift has replied to every single !vote opposing them and has commented on many replies to support !voters. They have engaged in personalization of the discussion.[15]

They attempted to support the inclusion of a meeting between the far-right Italian Prime Minister and the head of the IOC (the locus of the above edit war) based on "textbook synthesis" (struck after this was pointed out to them, only to create the above RfC with a subsequent support !vote based on synth).[16]

I am quickly losing my good faith that JSwift is able to productively edit in the GENSEX topic area based off this behaviour and at this point am close to supporting a topic ban if they don't commit to quick behaviour changes. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok; let's look at each of your points here.

• Main point: the RfC does not selectively omit anything. The point of the quotes is not to say "misinformation" doesn't feature, but to show the ways each source describes other types of attention beyond misinformation. I made this clear below:
  • I believe "misinformation" is important to mention in the lead, but that the lead focuses too narrowly on it. Most reliable sources mention misinformation/false accusations, but these sources also include broader descriptions of what occurred:
• The RfC has nothing to do with the Italian Prime Minister; and regardless the part where I wrongly used synthesis was a small part of the argument. This was my main one [17] Getting banned for a mistake which I acknowledge and strike is nonsense. Learning from mistakes is exactly how we become better editors. It's why I started the RfC and am attempting to work toward consensus/a compromise solution.
• Re. personalization, I am happy to take a step back (was not aware too much involvement was unacceptable unless you were blatantly repeating yourself), however several comments were necessary to respond to. This has included:
  • Stating I want to remove the term "misinformation", which was a misunderstanding I felt the need to correct [18]
  • Providing explicit clarity on a question you had [19]
  • Responding to an aspersion of "ignoring" other users [20]
• Re. whitewashing accusations, this has been a contentious debate, but I believe my arguments are well-reasoned, and users have weighed in on my side re. adding "scrutiny" or "attention" alongside "misinformation". [21][22][23][24] In fact, my RfC is a compromise proposal based on concerns of all editors, as I outlined here: [25] (Also, one editor you cite said they opposed whitewashing because I wanted to remove "misinformation", which was inaccurate.[26])

JSwift49 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, I directly addressed your concerns about the RfC selectively omitting quotes here,[27] an hour before you posted this. JSwift49 20:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple people opposed your proposal as a SYNTH/cherry-picking of sources; your "compromise" still contained the offending part that people were opposing. Obviously the Meloni part isn't related to the RfC, but it's directly related to your misuse of sources to push your POV, which is what you are doing again in the RfC.

The opposers are not looking for a compromise solution; they feel that the status quo is perfectly fine and does not need to be changed at all. Additionally, you are continuing to demonstrate WP:IDHT behaviour by doubling down against the latest editor to enter the talk page and say you are cherry-picking.[28][29] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether the opposers are looking for a compromise solution is immaterial. The facts are, several editors besides myself supported some form of change [30][31][32][33] and the text arguably did not have a consensus to begin with, [34][35][36][37][38][39]

See my below post [40] re. cherry-picking and WP:IDHT. JSwift49 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to undermine the current RfC. The RfC has been described by several users[131][132][133][134] as whitewashing the abuse faced by Imane Khelif, selectively uses quotes from sources in order to support their POV - what??? The "several users" are M.Bitton, TarnishedPath and GhostOfDanGurney themselves, who is literally quoting their own comment, plus Drmies, who apparently misunderstood the RfC: the RfC doesn't propose to remove "misinformation" from the lead - there's been plenty of misinformation about Khelif, and by all means "misinformation" must remain in the lead (no one is arguing otherwise). The point of the RfC is not to "whitewash abuse", but to acknowledge that alongside fake news and hate speech, there have been also legitimate concerns and meaningful public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions.

JSwift49 is very much involved and perhaps they should be reminded of WP:BLUDGEONING, but there is no reason to doubt their good faith and competence. The RfC is the correct path to follow, and should not be disrupted by frivolous accusations at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Gitz, I'm not known for my understanding, but saying there's been "legitimate concern...about eligibility" is just--how shall I put it, absolute fucking bullshit. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, this is the exact bullshit that @M.Bitton, myself and others have been putting up with in the article's talk. Editors constantly trying to POV push language which makes what Khelif has faced to have been on the basis of at least some reasonable concerns. Frankly anyone pusshing that bullshit should be topic banned from GENSEX. TarnishedPath^talk 04:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I plan to post excerpts from articles and op-eds later in the RfC, which show that the "Khelif affair" has also been the subject of a reasoned (not bigoted, not hateful) debate on the criteria for inclusion of intersex people in women's sporting competitions. In the meantime, I suggest you and others take a look at this piece in The Atlantic [41]. You can agree or disagree with Helen Lewis, but you should not dismiss her arguments as "absolute fucking bullshit". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Why, exactly. Or look at the sources posted here [42] by two scientific experts in the BBC and WSJ. I have never argued that misinformation didn’t exist, but that the sources also support other reactions. @GhostOfDanGurney as I explained here [43] and here [44] the quotes I shared were meant to prove the narrow presence of something and not that other things don’t exist in the sources. Why report me to ANI instead of responding to my initial explanation? JSwift49 11:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All three references in that diff [45], [46] and [47] are opinion species. Notably only one of person out of all those is a subject matter expert in developmental biology, being Dr Emma Hilton who is very briefly quoted in the first. The fact that the author of the second reference may be a scientist is entirely irrelevant as they are not subject matter experts in the content under discussion and more seriously for the judgment of their reliability on the subject they make the disinformed assertion that Khelif is a "biological male" when there is no reliable evidence for such a claim. The third reference is again a opinion piece by someone who is not a subject matter expert. Going back to the first reference, Emma Hilton does not directly address Khelif in the parts in which they are directly quoted and the only further information presented is that she is associated with a charity that thinks that Khelif shouldn't be boxing until further testing is perforemd. The opinion of the charity is not attributed to Hilton and no factual basis is given for such opinion. So no those sources absolutely do not support the argument that there are any reasonable concerns. Trying to pass off that there are any reasonable concerns is complete bullshit. Reasonable concerns have a basis in reality and such basis has not been appropriately established. TarnishedPath^talk 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, your BBC assessment doesn't tell the full story. "Dr Shane Heffernan has a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports", and the article both quotes him and says "He believes that the International Olympic Committee is not basing its eligibility criteria on the best available science".[48]

But to avoid getting bogged down in details: the threshold of my claim all along has been that Khelif prompted "attention" that did not only include "misinformation". [49] Given that people including scientists have weighed in with reasoned arguments helps corroborate that fact, in addition to how reliable sources both use "misinformation" and broader terms to describe the reactions. JSwift49 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if they are scientists if they start weighing in and making statements about reality without sufficient evidence then that is misinformation. Statements about the nature of reality are not and never will be reasoned when there is no evidence to support such statements. TarnishedPath^talk 13:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But that's the thing: the sources do not support that. The sources, as I outlined in the RfC, support that there was misinformation, and at the same time she received attention that was not. To state we should disregard the opinion of a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports as "misinformation", whose opinion was published in a significant, reliable source (might I add, as part of a news story) it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. JSwift49 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an opinion peice. Per WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. The source made a statement about facts and notably did so without a providing a reliable evidentiary basis. Sorry striking that last bit because I got confused between the sources we were discussing. However in regards to Dr Shane Heffernan, he does not address Khelif and concerns himself with discussing DSD. Notably there is no reliable evidence that Khelif has DSD and Hefferenan does not make that assertion. His words do not demonstrate that there are any reasonable concerns about Khelif. You continuing to push it as some example of reasonable concerns which demonstrate that there was anything other than misinformation is a further example of your WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 14:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not basing my argument on the opinion piece; reliable news sources mention that Khelif was the subject of "scrutiny" or "attention", or caused a "debate", in addition to mentioning abuse and misinformation.

Besides, if we can't consider the opinion of a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports re. the IOC's criteria for women's sports eligibility, by that standard what opinions can we consider? JSwift49 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The hate campaign was exclusively because of the misinformation that was propagated by celebrities and the like (and their millions of followers). Whitewashing what really happened by cherry picking (again) part of the NPOV policy (while ignoring WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:WEIGHT) is wrong on so many levels and speaks volumes about your inability to edit a BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll address the repeated "cherry picking" accusations here:

• Cherry picking, according to Wikipedia, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position"
• My RfC position is this: reliable sources describe that Khelif was the subject of both misinformation and other types of attention.
  • I believe "misinformation" is important to mention in the lead, but that the lead focuses too narrowly on it. Most reliable sources mention misinformation/false accusations, but these sources also include broader descriptions of what occurred:[50]
• I looked at thirteen major, reliable mainstream news outlets, I didn't find any sources that only mentioned "misinformation". Each also referred to some broader form of attention ("scrutiny", "debate", "accusations", "controversy") Khelif was the subject of.
  • If I was cherry picking, I would specifically ignore sources that described misinformation only.
  • In fact, I explicitly invited both M.Bitton [51][52] and TarnishedPath to share such sources. [53]
    • M.Bitton replied with an opinion article from The Nation, a partisan source.[54][55][56]
    • TarnishedPath simply replied by stating Many reliable sources say "misinformation" or "disinformation", which is what actually occurred. I have never disputed this.[57]
• As I outlined in the RfC, I support Khelif being the subject of "misinformation" remaining in the lead. So did the editors who opposed my proposal. The term "misinformation" was not a subject of debate.
• The main subject of debate was whether the term "attention" should be added, changing "misinformation" to "attention and misinformation".
• Therefore, all I needed to do was show that reliable sources referred to other forms of attention, in addition to referring to misinformation.
• I explained my rationale to GhostOfDanGurney in response to his concern,[58] and instead of replying or asking questions, they reported me to ANI.[59]
  • I later asked for more of an explanation, and did not receive a reply.[60]
  • I had previously engaged in good faith discussion with them about concerns they had.[61][62]

In short, I do not understand, nor agree with, these accusations at all. JSwift49 15:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are simply refusing (at this point) to listen to multiple editors who are telling you that any other type of "attention" was the direct result of mis/disinformation and that your repeated proposals dilute that fact. Until you get that through your skull, I have nothing to say to you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the crux of our disagreement is, you say if it's a reaction in response to misinformation, we should count it as misinformation. I think if misinformation brings attention to a situation, and non-misinformation discourse/debate occurs as a result, then we should mention both misinformation and attention more broadly as sources do.

Assuming (for argument's sake) that a reaction prompted by misinformation counts as misinformation, I had another look at sources. Most sources describe the IBA and/or Carini fight as causing the reactions toward Khelif, but they don't describe IBA/Carini as misinformation. So since the sources don't describe all reactions as misinformation, or all of their causes as misinformation, I still see a reason to include some other term. [63] JSwift49 00:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, he wasn't even quoted with his opinion on Khelif's eligibility. He was quoted discussing DSD and eligibility in general. There's not even an assertion from them that Khelif has DSD and if there was it would speak against their reliability on the topic given that there is sweat fuck all reliable evidence for any such assertion. That you try and spin it as evidence of reasonable concerns about Khelif demonstrates that you are engaged in WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Why, I think it's usually good to defer to experts unless we are experts ourselves. :) As I've always said though, let's look at how reliable sources describe this discourse.

"A frenzied debate has raged over the International Olympic Committee clearing the duo to compete in the women's boxing in Paris, despite them having been disqualified from last year's Women's World Championships for failing to meet eligibility criteria."

Sounds like the BBC views this as a debate that was spurred by Khelif's/Lin's disqualification, not just "misinformation". JSwift49 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? The expert didn't address Khelif as a subject matter. They were quoted in regards to DSD and eligibility and nothing else. You continued pushing just confirms what I and others have said which is that you are POV Pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t dispute that re. the expert, that’s why these opinions were never the crux of my argument. My argument is based on how reliable sources describe the attention she received. (As I said I do think generally disregarding expert testimony, unless they already have serious credibility issues, is not something that should be normalized.)

No point continuing to discuss ad nauseam, we’ve both made our points multiple times. JSwift49 10:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just further WP:POVPUSH. You presented these sources because they had experts in them, but close analysis of the sources shows that any subject matter experts don't support your position of reasonable concerns because any reasonably put positions don't even address the subject. You have not made any point and continue to engage in WP:IDHT. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are doing POVPUSH, by engaging in a conversation with me where I simply stated my opposition to a suggestion. I am only stating facts that there is no evidence against. I elect not to engage in further discussion with you on this topic. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps you replied from the incorrect account there. MrOllie (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I hate when that happens. Remsense诉 11:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They pinged me saying that I am doing POVPUSH under my comment. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems that I replied under the wrong comment. I will move it to the place where I intended to reply. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie you can check the other subthread where "tarnished path" is accusing me of POVPUSH, replying to my statement about XY chromosomes. Since I have notifications on for the entire discussion and they published a comment about JSwift49 doing POVPUSH shortly after replying to me, I mistakenly thought this message was another reply to mine. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's one explanation. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

These accusations are honestly tiring. I did not expect to face such baseless claims for joining wikipedia. You could just check the first IP address I have used to comment before creating my account, it is from Switzerland. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly a baseless claim. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Then just check the IP address. I have nothing to add. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly stop trying to edit or remove the comment in question. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kindly explain if it is not allowed to edit your own comments? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't. See WP:REDACT. MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one explanation. TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

From a mobile device, it's impossible to read this discussion; one letter per line... JacktheBrown (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they've been called out for synthesizing or cherry-picking sources numerous times in a contentious topic area and demonstrating IDHT in response is not at all frivolous. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See [64] strongly disagree re. "cherry picking" accusations, including w/ your referral of me to ANI while ignoring my explanation/question. The instance of synthesis had to do with one source and I struck it after being informed. [65][66] JSwift49 16:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There has been exactly zero legitimate concerns about Khelif's eligibility to compete. Any such characterisation is an attempt to minimise and at least partially WP:WHITEWASH the misinformation and disinformation which has been pushed by various bad faith actors on social media platforms. TarnishedPath^talk 04:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Seeing the section below that JSwift49 started without signing (a very convenient "oversight"), the persistent aspersions casting (highlighted above, which also suggest that they hold grudges), the cherry picking to push a POV in a contentious topic (as well as in any discussion, including the below section) and their battleground approach to everything (editing, discussing, etc.), I think it's high time the admins started considering taking some kind of action. M.Bitton (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney, I appreciate you've not been part of a lot of discussions, but you missed them engaging in WP:CANVASING to further their POV pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you’re talking about this, [67], I rectified that by pinging all the editors from the (related) neutrality discussion, in response to your concern. [68] so the effect was notifying all editors who had weighed in on a similar topic. (Of course, M.Bitton violated WP:CANVASS on this very board, as I described) JSwift49 11:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of what people do and say has no limits. Pinging (on this board) those who are discussing the issue on this board to highlight your continued aspersions casting is not canvassing. M.Bitton (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you worry about the baseless aspersions you made about me “ignoring” you, and not when someone posts diffs proving you repeatedly asked the same question :) and for the record, you didn’t ping all users in the discussion such as Gitz6666 and GoodDay, only a group you selected, so yes that’s a violation. When you pointed out to me I was violating WP:CANVASS, I rectified it by subsequently tagging everyone in that conversation (as I hadn’t know the policy). Will you do the same? JSwift49 11:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're just being disingenuous as usual (more than likely). M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging any editor in a discussion that they are already involved in is not WP:CANVASSING and never has been. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that they start a new portion of the discussion by selectively pinging five editors it seemed to me like that would cross the line. JSwift49 12:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Further pinging other editors from an unrelated discussion (so that all editors from that unrelated discussion were pinged) does not change the WP:CANVASSING. You should not have been pinging any editors from unrelated discussions in the first place, let alone only those who you thought would agree with your stance. TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It was very much a related discussion; concerning the neutrality of the lead paragraph, which my proposal also concerned. [69] JSwift49 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Now you're just playing with words: unrelated here means not the same discussion (I'm certain that you know that). If that's not the definition of being disingenuous, I don't what is. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that; but I appreciate you letting me know. What is the issue with pinging all editors from a discussion if that discussion is closely related to your own? JSwift49 12:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe you and every reason to believe that you're being disingenuous. M.Bitton (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that was what led to the wrong reply that @MrOllie pointed out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that was what led to the wrong subthread comment @MrOllie pointed out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX

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

---

For failure/refusal to WP:LISTEN to others' concerns about their editing and proposals with regards to their POV-pushing/whitewashing of gender-based abuse faced by Imane Khelif, and their WP:BLUDGEONING of discussion with repeated "compromises" that don't address concerns, JSwift49 is topic banned from the GENSEX area, broadly construed. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - JSwift49's first edit to the Imane Khelif article was to insert their POV that Khelif faced "intense public scrutiny about her biological sex" and removed the word "misinformation."[70] Ever since, JSwift has disruptively persisted in their attempts to add some form of language which dilutes the fact that Khelif was a victim of misinformation. They previously violated 3RR,[71] and since stopping the edit warring, have refused to listen to repeated concerns that their proposals whitewash the abuse faced by the article's subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Lack of basis for this, and here's why:

  • My original addition [72] was based on the use of the term "scrutiny" in multiple reliable sources [73][74][75][76][77] I acknowledge it would have been better if I had sought consensus- at the time, I didn't see my change as controversial. However, the original "misinformation" lead was arguably not the subject of consensus before I weighed in.[78][79][80][81][82][83]
  • My original proposal, or changes along those lines, was supported in some form by several other editors.[84][85][86][87] (update: [88][89] [90])
  • After a discussion on the lead where there was no consensus, I proposed a compromise solution that incorporated the concerns of all editors who had weighed in. [91] This proposal gave "misinformation" prominent weight and changed the word "scrutiny" to "attention", as editors felt gave "scrutiny" gave too much weight to negative attention.
  • After further disagreements, I explicitly, and in good faith, invited editors who disagreed with me to submit sources that promote their POV.[92][93][94]
  • Failing that, I started an RfC, which was also a compromise proposal. I used thirteen reliable sources to promote my argument. [95]
  • I was accused of cherry picking, but don't understand why. The sources were reliable, and the quotes were meant to support the addition of a term, not that the existing term did not exist. Concerns, as I understand, have to do with not including quotes that support the (undisputed) existing term. For more information see my writeup above: [96]
  • I tried to resolve concerns about my proposal, before this, with GhostOfDanGurney in good faith.[97][98]. I explained my argument re. cherry picking accusations,[99] but before I was responded to, I was referred to ANI.[100]
  • Being accused of WP:WHITEWASHING does not hold water in my view; I wanted to account for the variety of attention Khelif received while still noting the significance of "misinformation". (One accusation also mistakenly claimed I wanted to remove 'misinformation' from the article. I want no such thing.[101]) Regardless, my argument was sourced and in good faith.
  • I am guilty of edit warring with M.Bitton, and we were both warned for violating the 3RR rule. [102][103] I have refrained from that behavior since and have tried to find consensus on the Talk page. Whatever other policy violations I was made aware of, I remedied or struck. This has been a learning experience, but I do not believe my conduct merits a ban whatsoever.

  JSwift49 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. As an uninvolved editor, the rationale for a tban doesn't add up. Wikipedia never required every edit to be perfect nor prevent editors from having opinions. The WP:3RR violation was already dealt with at WP:ANEW and the bludgeon often swings both ways. The content dispute is just a content dispute even if a handful of editors strongly oppose it. Yvan Part (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: JSwift49 has constantly WP:POVPUSH to insert language that would at least partially WP:WHITEWASH or minimise the misinformation and disinformation in regards to Khelif by suggesting that there were legitimate concerns. This sort of POV pushing has no place in the CTOP area and therefore JSwift49 should be topic banned as a preventative measure to minimise the current disruption that they are causing. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support:: It is exhausting to even skim this thread. No wonder M.Bitton sought help with this. The gender topic area is already highly toxic and absolutely does not need this sort of contribution. I may have more to say later if I can find time to look at this in more detail. JSwift49, answering every single post is not required and is in fact strongly discouraged as counterproductive to discussion. Elinruby (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Elinruby (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (email with M.Bitton on day of TBAN proposal, No wonder M.Bitton sought help with this)

  PS - I am uninvolved in this article.Elinruby (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  [104] this is NOT evidence of canvassing, @JSwift49:. I urge you to strike the accusation of canvassing. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi; I based this on WP:STEALTH. Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions and the use of email, IRC, Discord, or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is strongly discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Given the emailing and phrasing I believe I have expressed a reasonable concern, and of course the closer/others can judge its significance. JSwift49 16:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  wut. And you decided that I was trying to persuade them to join a discussion in which they were already deeply involved??? Check the time stamps. He's an editor knowledgeable about Algerian topics. I have been working for months on an Algerian topic. Nice try. Next? Elinruby (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  M.Bitton has been involved in this discussion before Elinruby. Your claim that there is canvassing going on because Elinruby sent M.Bitton an email (which you no nothing about the contests of) is absurd. You need to strike your accusations of canvassing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as uninvolved: based on the section below, the overall picture is much more complex than what is described by the topic ban request, the other faction of the dispute is guilty of the same behaviours, particularly with regards to the "failure/refusal of WP:LISTENING" and "WP:BLUDGEONING of the discussion", as well as being WP:BITEy and hostile towards anyone slightly disagreeing with them. I would certainly be in favour of banning from the article both JSwift49 and M. Bitton (and perhaps others), as we need a more collaborative environment and not a war between opposing POV pushers. --Cavarrone 09:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am happy to step away from the article voluntarily; I and my opponents have made our points multiple times, so I agree it’s now better to let others pick it up. This is definitely a learning experience re. not feeling the need to weigh in on every point you disagree with.

  I will emphasize that I think a difference here with some is that I have made efforts toward compromise/consensus, and to revisit arguments in response to others’ concerns. (More examples: [105][106][107][108][109][110][111]) JSwift49 11:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Given that it is not clear whether the person is a victim of all the claims or not (the claims about them having XY chromosomes are neither proven nor disproved), it is better to use a neutral word about controversies in this topic. While it is not true that the person is male or transgender, the XY chromosomes is a question without definite answer. The article currently looks as if both the male / transgender claims and the "XY claim" are misinformation. There is at least a need to point out that the "XY claim" is not disproved and therefore cannot be classified as misinformation. Therefore, I support JSwift49 and think that they are right. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"the XY chromosomes is a question without definite answer". The person has stated that they are female. Any assertion otherwise should require appropriate reliable sources. This muddying of the waters is entirely inappropriate and constitutes WP:POVPUSHING. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am simply stating that while the gender is not under dispute, having XY chromosomes (or the claims about it) is worth mentioning. Most of the sources that I have seen are saying that the person has XY chromosomes, not that they are male or transgender. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think your previous statement is mudding waters by intentionally interpreting my statement as something that I did not state. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point with your further comments. TarnishedPath^talk 11:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are doing POVPUSH, by engaging in a conversation with me where I simply stated my opposition to a suggestion. I am only stating facts that there is no evidence against the person having XY chromosomes in addition to reports that state they do have. I elect not to engage in further discussion with you on this topic. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice WP:GASLIGHTING. By your logic you could argue that there's no evidence that the earth isn't flat. I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is the report by IBA about XY chromosomes. While that one cannot be regarded as proof, it can still legitimately raise doubts. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

IBA as a primary source is completely and utterly unreliable. For you to even put forward any suggestion about a report from the IBA is further WP:POVPUSH. You need to stop now. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Where do you justify your claim of it being unreliable? Is that not POVPUSH? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They were suspended by the Olympics in 2019 and completely banned in 2023 for lack of governance and transparency. Their boss has been described by US officials as having close ties to Russian organised crime and heroin smuggling. Claiming that it is POVPUSH to state that the IBA is unreliable is absurd. TarnishedPath^talk 01:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That is just one point of view. Even if what you said were true, the US officials' statement should not be taken as veridical either, especially when it comes to Russians, given the political tensions that are enough to justify why they would not be fair and neutral towards Russians. And describing other points of views as "absurd" is also absurd and POVPUSH. But I will not discuss any further in this topic as it is a waste of time, does not lead to anything and it is going in circles. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And last part really means: I will not reply to this subthread from now on. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

after accusing people (and countries) of Russophobia it is probably a good idea to stop talking, yes. Look, if you are the good-faith new editor you say you are it would probably be a good idea to re-read WP:RS with particular attention to what is a primary source. I also would recommend Firehose of falsehood or if you prefer, some other source on disinformation. Elinruby (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

One can only argue this if they choose to put weight on the position that the configuration of one's sex chromosomes is ever of note to nearly anyone else for any reason that is unrelated to social categories of sex and gender. Remsense诉 11:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Not getting involved in further arguments; but for clarity I do not support mentioning XY chromosomes in the lead.[112][113] JSwift49 12:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• 'Support at minimum' Given the IDHT-ness displayed above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that JackkBrown (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
• Support, given what I've seen here and at the talkpage. The bludgeoning alone is exhausting, and it is not equally distributed on "both sides". Grandpallama (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support There is no evidence that this poor women is anything but a biological female, indeed not a single iota of real evidence has been presented to show any facts that support an alternate thesis, yet a whole of series NPOV positions have applied to the article by JSwift49, in what is essentially misinformation and conjecture. I sincerely hope she is not reading this article. We must have a higher standard of quality, on what is WP:BLP article. The churn on it for more than a month has been shocking, for such a small article. I've never seen that. Topic ban is ideal. scope_creep^Talk 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  My RfC proposal of “Khelif became the subject of attention and misinformation regarding her gender” – which I arrived to after learning and hearing concerns from both sides of editors, and which seven other editors have at least partially supported – has a basis in reliable sources and is certainly not an NPOV violation. Disagreeing on content is one thing and I welcome it, but your characterizations and arguing for a ban based on that do not hold water. JSwift49 21:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  No. I see you still trying to WP:BLUDGEON folk on here instead of letting the conversation develop naturally. I don't think you know what WP:NPOV is or how to apply it. The clearest evidence for it is that RFC you presented, which should have been never been posted. That RFC is a form of misinformation, because its based on false conjecture because there is no facts to support it. It exists in own pocket universe detached from the original facts. It doesn't add anything and instead if passed would have npov'd it further. You shouldn't be working in this article or indeed any article of this type. I could say more about the sources you presented. Everyone (ones I was able to read) are categorical in their statement that she is a women and no evidence has been presented otherwise. Yet the quotes you are stating in the RFC, don't represent the full article or even the gist of the article. They are completely arbitary in nature and NPOV and don't represent reality. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I started the RfC based on above recommendations from @City of Silver [114] and @Grandpallama [115]. JSwift49 14:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Those editors did not give you recommendations on the specific wording of an RFC. Don't put words into other editors mouths. TarnishedPath^talk 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. Jdcomix (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a dispute about content, not behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support No,the contemt dispute became a behavoural one. Opposing because it was a confuct dispute at one time is incorrect. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The WP:BLUDGEONing, failure to WP:AGF, and misrepresentation of the sources are all serious conduct issues that are way below the standard expected for a WP:CTOP. And the fact that their responses here continue to try and rehash the content dispute rather than engage with the fundamental problems with their behavior makes it clear that they're unlikely to improve. Things like "It's pretty clear here this isn't a good faith argument"[116] and "Sealioning and disregard for WP:NPOV are also issues I've seen with you, I'm afraid."[117] are obviously unacceptable in a WP:CTOP and I'm baffled that people above would try to defend them - these are both straightforward WP:ASPERSIONs and clear failures to WP:AGF. And the behavior here and in the section immediately below it is classic WP:BLUDGEONing; by my count nearly half of the comments in that fairly massive section are from them. --Aquillion (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to directly address each point re. behavior:

  • The 'good faith' comment was a response agreeing with another editor who initially questioned M.Bitton's good faith.[118][119] I later decided to strike the comment anyway,[120] as I agree it was not constructive and did not reference Wikipedia policies.
  • The 'sealioning' and 'NPOV' comment, I believe, has validity, As I detailed in the below thread, M.Bitton asked the same questions five [121][122][123][124][125] and four [126][127][128][129] times near-verbatim, and repeatedly cited an opinion article from a partisan source in support of their POV. [130][131][132]. If I should have phrased it differently or posted about it elsewhere, that's fine, but it was in no way an aspersion.
  • It's also worth noting that there was a clear pattern of incivility on their side in response to me and other editors, which I detailed in the thread below.
  • As Tamzin said re. my comments:[133] Neither of those is an aspersion. They're characterizations of another editor's conduct based on what's in plain view—whether or not they're accurate characterizations ... Accusing someone of proceeding in bad faith, POV-pushing, and violating NPOV are the same sorts of accusations that get made at this noticeboard all the time.
  • I did a count of the comments in the sections you mentioned: '2nd paragraph'[134] and 'Meloni again' [135], plus the RfC [136], all per the following diff [137]. (Note figures could be off slightly each way).
    • 2nd paragraph. JSwift49: 48, M.Bitton: 35, TarnishedPath: 10, Others: 19.
    • Meloni again. JSwift49: 20, M.Bitton: 15, TarnishedPath: 4, Others: 5.
    • RfC. JSwift49: 12, M.Bitton: 13, TarnishedPath: 13, Others: 36.
  • I fully acknowledge, in the first two sections, that I weighed in too much. I had originally thought it was OK since I had started/prompted the sections and had made some efforts to find consensus.[138] In context, it is nonetheless important to point out that those two threads were primarily two-way discussions between myself and M.Bitton (and to a lesser extent, TarnishedPath).
  • After those two sections I posted the RfC. The numbers show I have taken a much more proportionate role in the process since receiving feedback. I have still responded to editors if I felt I could meet them re. their argument [139][140], address their concerns about something I did not spell out in the RfC, or if I felt they had misunderstood my proposal, but not to everyone who opposed me.
  • This has been a learning experience about discussions in many ways (yikes: [141]) and I think it will serve me well.

  JSwift49 14:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  This very reply encapsulates why people are supprting a TBan, by continuing to bludgeon/badger with repeated points that have been stated before, by cherrypicking the lone established user to (wrongly) say "no these weren't aspersions" and by continuing to defend their personalization of, and casting aspersions in discussions in a CTOP. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  It’s not bludgeoning when someone raises a concern that you didn’t address a certain topic, and then you address that topic. JSwift49 16:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I don't like people misusing the word "aspersion". It's part of the toxic "Okay when I do it, sanctionable when you do it" culture here at AN/I. That does not mean, however, that I think your statements were correct, or that I think you have behaved appropriately here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Imane is busy dealing with hatred as of this comment. A TBAN is enough to stop JSwift from further disruption. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined by other users. For transparency, I have been involved with the discussion at Talk:Imane Khelif, but my direct interaction with this user has been minimal. --AntiDionysius (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The accusations of "POV pushing" and "whitewashing of gender-based abuse" are completely false. And the other accusations, even if true, are not sufficient to justify TBAN.

Vegan416 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (uninvolved). Having reviewed the talk page, archives, and this thread, I see no reason to think JSwift's actions have been done in anything other than good faith. Moreover (and I'm willing to back this up with diffs if need be), I think sanctioning them for being uncivil or capricious in their editing would be unfair, as they cannot be said to be more guilty of any of those things than any of the editors conflicting with them. Mach61 21:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would love to see that bold assertion be backed up with diffs. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Put simply, I think this subsection is an attempt to get an editor on the opposite side of a content dispute with you done off with for the crime of being in the minority. You say that JSwift's talk page conduct constitute failure/refusal to WP:LISTEN to others' concerns about their editing and proposals. The LISTEN page defines itself as [perpetuating] disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. I do not think this applies in this case; JSwift is clearly in the minority, but their position has not been unanimously rejected, and does not appear to be so prima facie unreasonable as to warrant a sanction. If anything, starting an RfC is their attempt at reaching a final, concrete solution to the content dispute.
  • You are correct in noting that JSwift had been bludgeoning discussions. To this end, I note that, Of the last 1000 revisions to Talk:Imane Khelif, ctrl-f brings up 135 hits for "JSwift49", but also 235 for "M.Bitton", and 79 for "TarnishedPath". That the talk page has been bludgeoned by other editors does not absolve JSwift, but it does make me doubt that T-banning them alone would help matters.
  • You claim that They have engaged in personalization of [a] discussion, and to support your assertion you provide a diff of them noting that M.Bitton repeatedly gave verbatim replies within a discussion. This diff was a direct reply to M.Bitton accusing JSwift of the same thing (repeating ad nauseam while ignoring what everyone else said). Clearly, this specific discussion was already "personalized".

  Mach61 04:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  My initial comment in this discussion was Appears that JSwift49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cast aspersions in that discussion on two occasions based off a quick skim, in addition to the blatant 3RR vio. The two diffs I cite, [142] and [143] contain JSwift accusing others of arguing in bad faith, and then of sealioning and NPOV vios, all without evidence, and with the earlier claim assuming bad faith coming in response to M.Bitton asking him "What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article?", strictly a question about content.

  It was my mistake not including these diffs with my TBan proposal; I didn't figure that the top section would get closed before this one and I also didn't want to repeat myself too much. I find JSwift to have been the primary force raising the temperature in the discussion, and I find M.Bitton and TarnishedPath to be defending Wikipedia policies on BLPs and thus, the reports on them to both be retaliatory to this one and highly frivolous. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (uninvolved). It makes a mockery of our policies when content disputes are routinely escalated into behaviour disputes. I understand that the editor has engaged in heated discussion, but we are creating an incentive for one partner in a tango to rush to the drama boards as a way to enforce their perspective. Riposte97 (talk)

Uninvolved here, perhaps, but your talk page shows a very recent interaction history with TarnishedPath, specifically them bringing you to AE, with the result being a logged warning. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I also proposed they be topic banned from Indigenous peoples of North America during a WP:ANI discussion. There was community consensus for the proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re quite right. Although, I don’t really see this proposal as personal for TP, and nor is my position. I am uninvolved in this dispute. Riposte97 (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (uninvolved). I echo others who stated this discussion is exhausting. I saw the WP:CR for this discussion and it was far from neutral. I was surprised that an involved editor described this discussion as a clear community consensus for a TBAN.[144] I do sympathize with the WP:BLUDGEONING and this seems like a WP:TROUT situation. Although, I will add there's been a bit of bludgeoning going on here as well. Nemov (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I frankly think everyone involved needs to step back and take a breather, honestly. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Question re. below thread closure

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

---

Hi; I don't intend to distract from my own case here, but I would like to ask: how come the thread on M.Bitton I started was already closed, without as much of a substantive discussion about the points I had brought up especially re. sealioning? Given that I and M.Bitton are accused of similar behaviors re. bludgeoning, NPOV violations and incivility, and that Liz identified at least some of my examples as not frivolous, I'm not understanding why my conduct in particular resulted in more scrutiny. I believe the diffs I brought merit more consideration, especially since many of the personal attacks that caused the thread's closure came from M.Bitton themself. Pinging @HandThatFeeds as closer and @Liz as admin who had asked for more information. JSwift49 00:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh good lord. The closing statement was clear, the situation was becoming an excuse for people to snipe at each other, no other admin action was going to be taken. Admin Doug Weller suggested it be closed for generating more heat than light, but was unwilling to do it himself due to being pinged to the discussion. So I did it.

Honestly, just let it go for now, or else the boomerang is going to look more and more appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, I do... I just don't understand why personal attacks (including from the subject) can cause real concerns with the subject's behavior to get less attention. Will leave things there and see what others say.

(What's a boomerang?) JSwift49 01:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49, WP:BOOMERANG. Required reading for anyone before opening a complaint at ANI. THTFY is giving you good advice. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Behavior of M.Bitton

This has devolved into personal attacks and is not productive. Closing. (non-admin closure) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the record, I would like to submit these cases of sealioning and personal attacks/aspersions by M. Bitton on or regarding on Talk:Imane_Khelif, as I am questioning whether their conduct is conducive to editing contentious topics. We have argued back and forth a lot, and I have not been blameless myself, in part due to lack of experience with applicable policies and in part due to not questioning my own assumptions (has been a learning experience). However, the pattern of personal attacks and sealioning by M.Bitton seems quite consistent here, not just toward me. I don't see any will by them to compromise or address concerns of editors who disagree, even after I worked on a compromise solution, [145] started an RfC based on that, [146] struck a remark I made that they saw as an aspersion [147] etc. Sealioning Same question 5x near-verbatim, despite receiving replies [148][149][150][151][152] Same question 4x near-verbatim, despite receiving replies [153][154][155][156] Opposed incorporating description based on in five, later thirteen, reliable sources (including AP) due to "cherry picking" [157][158][159] while repeatedly citing an opinion article from a partisan source in support of their POV. [160][161][162] Pretty blatant example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT [163] Attempted to discredit three opinion articles (two of which by scientific experts) published in significant, reliable sources as "nobodies" by tying them to opinions from "nobodies" [164] Stated "I don't want anything" in response to editor seeking to understand what they wanted [165] Violated WP:CANVASS to assemble people in response to my pointing out sealioning (specifically, the 4 and 5 question repeats, with diffs) [166] Personal attacks/aspersions Accused me twice of not reading/ignoring their POV [167][168] Called my statement (with diffs) that they asked the same questions 4 and 5 times "aspersions" [169][170] Reverted a 17-year-old new user twice asking to resolve a dispute on their talk page, stated "you're not welcome here" [171][172] Reverted user who posted to talk page expressing concerns about archiving of a Talk thread, stated "you're no longer welcome here" [173] Said "what a surprise" in response to editor who disagreed with his position [174] Stating "not an improvement (that's a generous way of describing it)" in response to a good faith proposal by a new editor [175] Goaded users on their "lack of courage of conviction" to report them three times in a row [176][177][178] even after asked to stop [179] "You're not fooling anyone with that extremely poor excuse" in response to a concern about unsourced lead material [180] Stating "you have an issue with silence" to editor during discussion [181] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSwift49 (talk • contribs) JSwift49 01:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Violated WP:CANVASS to assemble people in response to my pointing out sealioning (specifically, the 4 and 5 question repeats, with diffs) [182]"; I read it now. M.Bitton accused me (rightly) of being improperly invited to this discussion (obviously I'm not at fault); however, the user in question has violated this rule. A very serious incoherence, which adds to all the other problems. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Adding to this (new) point re. incoherence, M.Bitton accused me of violating WP:CANVASS for pinging one editor who was already part of a discussion [183] even though they pinged five editors here. [184] JSwift49 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC) That diff of M.Bitton's comment is clearly not an example of WP:CANVASSING. Pinging edtiors already involved in the discussion in which you ping them is not and never has been canvassing. TarnishedPathtalk 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC) This retaliatory hollow section by JSwift49 (who conveniently "forgot" to sign it) is a perfect example of their out of context cherry picking to mislead the readers while pushing a POV. It also highlights their battleground approach to everything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC) This is confusing, it looks like M.Bitton filed a complaint about themselves. But, M.Bitton, do you have any comment about these specific instances? It would help if you provided a more thoughtful response as these do not all seem frivolous complaints. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton's behaviour has been very poor - very confrontational and harsh, and frankly unwarranted, since no one is trying to dismiss or belittle the notion that Khelif was subjected to idiotic fascist abuse. They are presenting a relatively minor disagreement over article content (should we mention in the lead that there's been also public debate about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions?) as a fight between Right and Wrong, the ultimate resistance against fascism and bigots - I find it ridiculous. Anyway, their behaviour towards the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) is appalling. It's also worth mentioning (as a sign of their battleground mentality and WP:ownership) that they've made 8 (eight!) non-consecutive reverts in less than 24h (as I documented here) and the result was... that TarnishedPath reported JSwift49 at 3RR/N and not M.Bitton! These two users are blowing things out of proportion and disregarding common sense and civility - admins should step in. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Thanks for glossing over that JSwift49 had pissed all over WP:3RR in as much as the third revert shown in my report had a message in the edit summary in which JSwift49 lectured M.Bitton not to breach 3RR and then they breached it 4 hours latter. TarnishedPathtalk 10:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You're very much part and parcel of the problem, so don't pretend to be a third party. no one is trying to dismiss or belittle the notion that Khelif was subjected to idiotic fascist abuse then, why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources (that you described as RS) that violate BLP? Their behaviour towards the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) is appalling. that's a lie. The so-called newcomer is more than likely, like a sock who started casting aspersions (your stance is not neutral and that you are biased towards) and kept doubling down on them (this means you admit you are biaised), etc). M.Bitton (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC) The fact of the matter is, you have made personal attacks against several different users on this one topic. At some point it becomes a concern for all contentious topics. Re. 3RR this was reported and dealt with with a warning, and we’ve both done a good job since sticking to the talk page. JSwift49 11:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC) The section that you created to justify your aspersions casting and your usually cherry picking and misrepresentation of the sources, as well as what editors said, has been addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC) @JSwift49, the fact that you lectured another editor to not violate 3RR in an edit summary and then proceeded to violate it yourself is not reason to say that you've done a good job. It was demonstrably wilful behaviour engaged in to push your favoured version. That fact that you both got away with only a warning is largely due to the existence of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Let's not forget that JSwift49 was edit warring while citing a fictitious policy to justify their multiple violations of the WP:ONUS policy (in a BLP article). M.Bitton (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I meant we had done a good job since receiving the warning :) JSwift49 12:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC) that's a lie - I think you're wrong, M.Bitton. I have reviewed Fanny.doutaz's contributions - which is easy to do, since they amount to 79 edits - and I'm persuaded that they are a newcomer, not a sock, and that they are sincere when they describe themselves as 17y || Swiss || CSE @ MIT on their user page. You can check their comments in this thread - they are sensible, but are the comments of someone who is not aware of WP:RS. No experienced editor would make this comment. it will be up to Wikipedia to verify it in this comment is also the talk of a newcomer, as well as chat history in this comment. Here they ask M.Bitton about the meaning of ONUS - M.Bitton's reply? Onus is an English word. If you don't know what it means, you look it up in a dictionary. M.Bitton's behaviour in this thread and on their user talk (hereand here) was a disgraceful violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOBITE by an experienced user who should know better. I'm pinging Bbb23, who closed the previous thread at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Others disagree with your baseless assertions about the potential sock. Regardless, what you said about me is a big fat lie given that they started casting aspersions and doubled down on them (see my previous reply to your comment). Regarding the "Onus" word, they filed this report on the 9th and my response to their so-called question was on the 10th. The fact that you didn't provide the diff for my response cannot be an oversight. Also, why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources that violate BLP and that you falsely described as RS? This explains why you're defending those who share your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Since you pinged the admin, I will also ping the other editors (10mmsocket and GoodDay) who shared their views on the so-called "new editor". M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Uninvolved, but I also doubt that the "new editor" is all that new. The fact they immediately referenced IP addresses and UUID's on M.B's talk page makes it kind of obvious. WP:MANDY. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Friendly reminder to WP:AGF - looking at their edit history of another very young student from Switzerland and the talk page there with mention that they know the other student, I believe that this editor may very well also be a young talented student, which per their user page is studying computer science, which means they would be well aware what CS terms such as IP and UUID's are, those are not magical terms of Wikipedia, but of computing. Some of the behavior cited above definitely does look a bit WP:BITEy as it appeared to come from a position of assuming a new user would know policies without having linked them from looking back at the discussion. Raladic (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC) That's what they claim. They started casting aspersions and doubled down on them. That much, I know for a fact and see no reason to let myself be attacked by a so-called "new editor" (who strangely found their way to ANI after a handful of edits). M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Could you please share the diffs with the serious personal attacks by the newcomer that provoked your hostile responses? They are needed also to assess the "big fat lie" accusation that you just levelled at me, when I said that that newcomer's behaviour was overall civil and cooperative - they just happened to disagree with your POV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I already have cited some of them (in green) and highlighted your bad faith comments (in bold). Now, feel free to answer the question that I asked you (about your POV pushing in a BLP article). M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Ok... So in conclusion it was not a lie? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC) the young newcomer (who was quite civil and cooperative) since they most definitely were not "civil" (see this and their talk page), what does that make Gitz's baseless assertion? M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC) If I understand you well, their personal attack on you was to say so this means you admit you are biaised. Well, keep your chin up... But what did you spotted on their talk page? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC) The above response wasn't meant for you (as far as I'm concerned, you made yourself irrelevant the moment you exposed your bad faith). Your refusal to answer the question about your POV pushing in a BLP speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Your refusal to answer the question about your POV pushing refers to the question why did you keep citing the crappy Italian sources that violate BLP and that you falsely described as RS?. I think this is called deflecting, grasping at straws and wasting my time, but WP:EQ and civility require that I share the relevant diffs: [185][186][187]. Anyone can check them and assess whether my behaviour on that talk page was questionable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You can call your POV pushing in the BLP whatever you want. Collecting some shitty Italian newspapers (that you falsely described as RS) to refute "there is no RS to support such a contentious label" speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC) The shitty Italian newspapers were ANSA [188], Adnkronos [189], la Repubblica [190], Il Messaggero [191], La7 [192], Radio DeeJay [193], and I shared them on the t/p not to argue that they should be used to describe Khelif as intersex, as they do (we shouldn't) but to argue that we should not suggest that the allegation that Khelif has DSDs is false: that allegation may be true, and many professional NEWSORGs and subject-matter experts ([194], [195]) either take it for true or debate the potential presence and nature of her DSDs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You cited those shitty Italian newspapers (with shitty headlines) and described them as RS to refute "there is no RS to support such a contentious label". I don't believe for one second that you didn't know what you were doing (you've been around long enough to know what RS and BLP are). M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I found my way to ANI after that you have threatened me to report me to ANI. Now you are using this to spread false information about me, saying that I found it without any context. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I said I will report you if you continued to cast aspersions. I specifically said "you're new, so you get a pass". This is how you thanked me for giving a chance to concentrate on the content. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I have not been involved in anything here except for the one day when I reverted Fanny.doutaz's contributions and subsequently posted in support of M.Bitton when Fanny.doutaz took the matter to ANI. I stand by my assertion that Fanny.doutaz was not a new editor, was someone very family with Wikipedia editing and Wikipedia administration and was, in my opinion, very likely a sockpuppet account. New editors simply don't gain that level of knowledge within a few hours of coming to Wikipedia. On that occasion I thought M.Bitton's behaviour was entirely reasonable in response to an antagonistic editor. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I am not a sock puppet account. The knowledge that I have about Wikipedia comes from a friend who used to be active in this community. Apart from this, "M.Bitton" did not act in an acceptable way and nothing justifies their actions, given that my proposal about the article was legitimate, but they started to refute it without enough justification, and eventually started attacks such as the ones that I have mentioned. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I am replying after being pinged. Thank you for raising the issue about "M.Bitton". I have not raised it before, because I am currently busy with an academic project and therefore would not like to be overly involved in online disputes. I am glad that other nice people are helping to report this person, for their (in my opinion unacceptable) attitude towards multiple people including me. This attitude includes, but is not limited to, calling other people's opinion "useless" and saying that other people's proposal is bad without any justification. "M.Bitton" provoked me multiple times saying that I lacked courage and that "empty barrels make the most noise" when I pointed out their disrespectful behaviour. I found this behaviour unacceptable for an encyclopaedia community, especially given that they also refuse to resolve an issue that started to consist of personal attacks, while I proposed to resolve it. I will not be able to bring much more information in this discussion, but I wrote this message to thank the people who raised this issue, for their help to make this community more welcoming (to be honest, "M.Bitton" scared me quite a lot as I make my first steps in this community). Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC) +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC) @Fanny.doutaz: I remain available for any questions or curiosities you wish to ask me; I'm here to help you. I advise you not to focus on users who don't treat you well (in this case the user you're referring to), as you would only waste energy that you could use in a healthier way. JacktheBrown (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Says the editor who has been been canvassed for their extreme views that led to them violating the BLP policy on more than one occasion (discussed at the ned of this report below). M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC) "Extreme views"? Which ones? Extreme views just because they don't align with yours? Furthermore, it's not my fault if, unfortunately, I was improperly invited to the discussion. I advise you to avoid this behaviour towards me. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Bada bing and Bada boom. M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You calling me a sock puppet is defamatory. [I have retracted the rest of the message, I was not aware that it was not allowed here, thank you MrOllie for pointing out] Fanny.doutaz (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC) WHOAH, you can't make legal threats on Wikipedia. That's a big NO-NO. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [retracted]. If this is not tolerated on Wikipedia, then thank you for letting me know. I will not say this again here. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC) That is plainly a legal threat. Per WP:NLT you should retract that immediately or you can expect to be blocked. - MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC) After that you have told me, I declared that I retract it. I was not aware that this is not allowed here. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)  Note: Fanny.doutaz (the "new editor") is now WP:CANVASSING. Please see this comment. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC) @Liz: First part: The first two is what they keep plastering all over the place with this editor has a history ... (to justify their persistent attacks). The claim that the questions were answered is has no basis in reality. They are also part of the edit war in which JSwift49 kept mentioning a fictitious policy to justify their multiple violations of the WP:ONUS policy (I have every reason to believe that this was done intentionally and not reason to believe otherwise, given that this is an experienced editor). I opposed the inclusion and explained why. Their irrelevant opinion of mine. A lie and another example of their bad faith: I described those who started the hate campaign as nobodies (as in non RS). The full comment speaks for itself. More bad faith: pinging (on this board) those who are discussing the issue on this board to highlight the continued aspersions casting by JSwift49 is not canvassing Second part: Their repeated "as I said ..." to what was addressed by multiple editors is a prove that they are ignoring what is being said by others. Stating this editor has a history ... in a RfC is beyond the pale. My right not to discuss anything on my talk page (especially, with a suspected sock who has nothing but aspersions to offer). Same as above. The editor in question violated BLP more than once (I can prove it and I'm certain that they won't deny it). Not an improvement means "not an improvement" (that's my opinion and I stand by it). The previously mentioned sock repeatedly attacking me while refusing to either stop or take it to ANI. I fully stand by that comment: trying to remove the easily attributable content that is being discussed in a RfC (that they started), while arguing that it's unsourced is a very poor excuse indeed. My response to an editor who kept repeating that "silence is often considered an admission" and describing it as "the silence issue", to insinuate that she is what they think she is. M.Bitton (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I think this is quite revealing here. Not least the response to the sealioning by turning it around on me (Whataboutism). Even now, they call me "disingenous as usual"; [196] it seems the default response to any concern is to just turn it around on the other person. I will strike one point as they are right: the "nobodies" on second look was in fact referring to people who started the hate campaign. However, I still think it's concerning that they would discredit articles by experts by associating them with opinions of "nobodies" that happened before. The facts are, the pattern of behavior deals with content that several editors supported some form of change to [197][198][199][200] and which arguably did not have a consensus to begin with, [201][202][203][204][205][206] and this is not how someone editing contentious topics should generally behave. I hate to play into the "both sidesing" of this issue, but I couldn't find a single instance where M.Bitton expressed a desire to compromise or admitted they could have done something better, despite the consistent pattern shown above. And for my faults, I did make a good faith effort to achieve consensus and incorporate feedback. [207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214] JSwift49 12:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Your disingenuous assertions have been addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Noting here that User:Fanny.doutaz made a legal threat in this section and then deleted the subthread after WP:NLT was pointed out. - MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I retracted it, my original message was stating that the sockpuppet claim against me was defamatory [and all the rest], but I was totally unaware that it is not allowed here. I have retracted it since MrOllie pointed it out. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. @Yamla told me that I should only edit my own message. Therefore the thread stays and I have now only edited my own one. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Did Yamla say that you can engage in WP:CANVASSING (like you you did with that comment)? I will also ping Doug Weller (the admin who warned you on your talk page) and see what they have to say about your continued disruptive behaviour. M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC) If you ping them, then you should make sure they see the entire conversation. I did not say anything for days, until I have been pinged in this conversation. I pointed out your continued disruptive behaviour, and warned you about your defamatory claims. I was not aware that it was not allowed here to make such warnings, and retracted it immediately after that other people told me. But it does not make defamatory actions better and you should be aware of that. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Their behaviour proves beyond doubt that they are a new editor. WP:NOBITE is there for a reason. By disregarding this guideline, M.Bitton has made Fanny.doutaz's experience on Wikipedia quite unpleasant. I hope that admins will take action without repeating M.Bitton's mistake. It is clear who deserves sanction here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC) It's your POV pushing (in a BLP) that they should look at. A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors. For the rest, even if they are new (which I and others doubt), that still doesn't excuse their behaviour, and you're obviously defending them for the simple reason that their POV aligns with yours. M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC) @Gitz6666: "By disregarding this guideline, M.Bitton has made Fanny.doutaz's experience on Wikipedia quite unpleasant. I hope that admins will take action without repeating M.Bitton's mistake": exactly, it's not correct for a collaborative project like Wikipedia to allow this kind of behaviour. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that JackkBrown (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) First of all, when you get canvassed, it's usually good practice to state it before commenting. Did you or did you not violate WP:BLP? M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I forgot to ping (to make sure you don't miss the question). @JackkBrown: Please answer the above question. A simple yes or no will do. M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Was your behaviour, based on what is reported here at ANI, disrespectful to several users (including me) or not? Answer my question and I will answer yours. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC) No. Please answer the question about your violations of the BLP policy. M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC) What I imagined; you never realised your repeated disrespect towards other users (you admitted it yourself: A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors), and, unfortunately for you, this is very serious for a collaborative project. I'm fair and respectful towards users, so I will answer you sincerely: yes, I made an error in a comment that I later deleted; for the rest, I didn't make any mistakes. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You violated BLP on more than one occasion. This is important to note because it explains what you've been up to and why you've been canvassed to this discussion. I'll let the admins draw their own conclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC) No, I was invited to this discussion because I, unlike you, was kind to the user: [215]; however, I'm not responsible for the invitation, don't accuse me. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I wasn't asking (you were canvassed because of your extreme view, as evidenced by your BLP violations). Also, please don't refactor your comment once someone has already replied to it. As for your "I'm fair and respectful towards users" claim: Why did you write these (on the article's talk page) and can you please substantiate the last part of the second? unfortunately, a user (you already know who I'm referring to) is too convinced of their (questionable) ideas M.Bitton is a good user, but, unfortunately, also because of them the article isn't neutral. I'm leaving now, so you have all the time you need to justify these and your other baseless assertions. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Really? After the enormity of disrespectful comments you've written over the weeks do you think I'm the user who's wrong? Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself, because in the second comment I wrote: "M.Bitton is a good user" (are you complaining about a compliment?). Anyway, I wish you a very good night. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC) because of them the article isn't neutral is not a compliment and neither are the other baseless accusations that you're throwing around to whitewash the fact that you violated BLP to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC) You never realised your repeated disrespect towards other users (you admitted it yourself: A living person's reputation is far more important than the feelings of some random editors); what do you think about this? You admitted it yourself. Let's talk about what you were reported for, don't change the subject. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC) This is generating far more heat than light. It needs to be closed, but as I've been pinged I'm not the right person to do this. And yes, it's more important to enforce WP:BLP than worry about editors' feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC) @Doug Weller: "And yes, it's more important to enforce WP:BLP than worry about editors' feelings." Of course I'm aware of this. I quoted their comment to demonstrate that they themselves have confirmed their lack of respect towards other users, a lack which unfortunately occurred in many situations. I have nothing against this user, in fact I have said and repeated that they're a good user; however, it's their behavior that's not at all cooperative and collaborative. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Your disingenuousness knows no bounds. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC) The insincere user isn't me: [216]. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC) @JacktheBrown: As a regular at BLPN, IMO anyone who cares more about editors feelings than BLP should probably just leave Wikipedia. But failing that, they should voluntarily refrain from editing anything concerning living persons, before they are rightfully topic banned. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Yes especially if editors are new, there is room for education, but this cannot come at the expense of BLP. If the editor isn't able or willing to understand that they have a lot to learn, and while doing so they need to take great care how they handle anything concerning living persons, then we should warn and block them in short order. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC) @Nil Einne: so is it right to insult all users? In any case, I believe that when working on Wikipedia the BLP is, fortunately or unfortunately, more important than people's feelings, but if a user exaggerates and, even more seriously, is allowed to do so, in my opinion it's right for them to take a break from Wikipedia. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC) @JackkBrown: also if you care a lot about new editors, maybe consider changing your signature to match your username. While it's allowed, even as a long term regular, I find it needlessly annoying and occasionally confusing. I'm fairly sure most new editors find it very confusing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC) @Nil Einne: no, I only added "the". JacktheBrown (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Fanny.doutaz and legal threats

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

---

Earlier in this discussion, User:Fanny.doutaz made a clear legal threat, which they doubled down on after an initial warning. After more warnings they edited those comments to remove the threats, but did not really retract them. Just now, they made what looks like another such threat to me on their user talk page. I think something needs to be done here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I wish you two would stop fighting. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown I do not know how to forward edit history to another page, could you please help me showing the current version of the page where the "legal" statements happened, where I clearly stated that I retracted my statements (unlike what @MrOllie is trying to make others believe by showing an older version of the page)? Thank you Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: date and time of the edit? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown I cannot find the time of edits, but a message where I stated clearly that I retracted it was on 21:16, 13 Aug 2024, in UTC time. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fanny.doutaz: here. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just so this is clear: I stated that defamation is bad (literally just this), because @MrOllie accused me of things that are completely untrue. Stating that defamation is bad does not mean that any legal measures would be taken. It is just from a moral point of view, and I do not see where the legal threat comes in. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I also did state clearly that I retract all the legal statements yesterday. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie As I clearly stated on my talk page before you brought it here: it was not a legal threat, and it was only a moral blaming against you. Would you explain what your intentions are, as you accuse me of legal threats in a statement like "defamation is bad", despite that I already explained clearly previously that it does not mean any legal actions will be taken? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the admins can handle it from here, I don't plan to argue back and forth in this section. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Summary message for admins: @MrOllie is making fake accusations of 1) me not retracting a "legal threat" after it being pointed out, I was not aware of it being disallowed on Wikipedia (I am new) and I did retract it clearly after being told it was not allowed, contrarily to what he claimshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1240155873

2) Calling a message from me, namely "you do know that defamation is bad, do you not", a threat, and bringing it to here after being told clearly that it was only moral blaming and not a threat. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• @JackkBrown. please stop pretending to be a third party: a) you have been been canvassed by anny.doutaz and b) you violated the BLP policy on more than one occasion (discussed at the end of this report). M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Are you stopping me from expressing my thoughts? Could you kindly finish justifying what you were reported for and stop trying to accuse and blame other users, including me? I can't stand you anymore. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Fanny.doutaz: a veiled legal threat (after making explicit legal threats) is a legal threat whose intimidating purpose is crystal clear. What you think is neither nor there. M.Bitton (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton I never explicitly threatened @MrOllie nor veiled legal threats. Also you seem to be obsessed with me, following discussions about me even where you were not involved. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Fanny.doutaz: This was certainly a legal threat. Thank you for retracting it. If you feel you have been the subject of a defamatory statement on Wikipedia, you should email info-en-q@wikipedia.org with details of the article and situation. Please do not post any further legal threats like this, as they will lead to a block on your account.

Re the other comments mentioned in this thread: you're certainly correct that calling something "defamatory' is not the same as threatening to personally take legal action. However per WP:LEGAL it is important to refrain from making comments that others may understand as a threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret it as a threat. This appears to be how other editors have interpreted some of your recent comments. Can you therefore please stop using this terminology to describe posts by other editors, as it is disruptive to the editing environment. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Euryalus thank you for your message, I will keep that in mind. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of JacktheBrown

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

---

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

This list of some of the statements that were made by JackkBrown (JacktheBrown) should highlight a) what they think of the subject (Imane Khelif) and b) their behaviour towards those who stand in the way of their POV pushing.

• I also think they are a transgender.
• we still know little about her (or them, in the case of transgender).
• I believe Imane Khalif is Intersex, but it's largely correct to report the official comments (via social networks) of her opponents. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view This is the edit summary of their addition to the article.
• I think Imane Khelif is intersex, but the attitude of not deciding to include different opinions of important people is very strange; this is an encyclopaedia, not a political campaign. When I asked them to delete it, they did, but not without making another point in their edit summary.
• in my opinion it's not correct; it's right to leave the freedom of criticism, and not only what interests you, even if the user (in this case the IP) isn't very good at writing a thread. This is their response to me after I reminded the IP. who wrote what follows, that Wikipedia is not a forum: IMO an issue with the article is that it looks as if Khelif is a VICTIM of false allegations. Right now the situation is unclear and the tendency is to believe that she does have XY chromosomes.
• Undid revision 1238981048 by Mellamelina (talk) everyone is free to express their thoughts, whether it bothers you or not. Here, they restored a comment that states most likely Imane has Swyer syndrome.
• @JSwift49: unfortunately, a user (you already know who I'm referring to) is too convinced of their (questionable) ideas. This comment is clearly about me.
• @JSwift49: M.Bitton is a good user, but, unfortunately, also because of them the article isn't neutral. If there was any doubt about the target of the previous comment.

There are others, among their "exactly" and "I agree" to any comment that aligns with their POV, that I didn't bother mentioning (the above statements are more than enough). Personally, I believe that they should be banned from the Khelif article, and ideally topic banned from BLP and the GENSEX area, but I'll let someone else propose what's appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I never wrote the following sentence: "I also think they are a transgender." Please report truthful comments, thank you very much.
To avoid making further mistakes, I suggest you post the links (obviously only the latest version, because some comments were changed a little later). JacktheBrown (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear M.Bitton, although I know very well the singular they, I kindly ask you to address me with "he" (not "they"); see here. Thank you and have a great day. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I never wrote... this diff says otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear M.Bitton, what you didn't understand about "obviously only the latest version, because some comments were changed a little later"? SEE. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You cannot say "I never wrote that" and then cover it with "because some comments were changed later". You did write that. It's good that you took it back out, but the fact is that you still initially wrote that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: yes, correct, you're 100% right. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the speculative comments re. transgenderism/intersex. But re. personal attacks, that has very much gone both ways between you two (see 'Behavior of M.Bitton' thread for more examples) JSwift49 02:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Link: Behavior of M.Bitton. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown, I don't know what possessed you to wander into GENSEX, but it's not a good place for anyone who doesn't understand the intersection of BLP and GENSEX well enough to know that we don't call someone intersex/transgender unless they've called themselves that, we don't speculate on people's pronouns, and we don't speculate on a medical diagnosis, even if other people -- even "important people" -- are doing so in RS. I see you've now received a notification of contentious topics on your user page. If I were you I would back away from this, as you clearly do not know what you're doing there.

For future reference, your posts never go away, even if you revise them. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: yes, I think I should stay in my area of expertise. However, a few hours before your comment I disabled all notifications of every discussion in Talk:Imane Khelif. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I note that the previous discussions have occurred in relation to JackkBrown

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:JackkBrown (arcived without action)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Partial_block_for_JackkBrown (archived without action)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#JackKBrown_again (one month block)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1158#JackkBrown_further_disruption (archived without action)

TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown)

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

---

Due to their comments as outlined above, JacktheBrown be topic banned from the GENSEX area, broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. It's clear from JackkBrown's comments that they have no place editing the the GENSEX area. TarnishedPath^talk 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBan or indef - Repeatedly making the outrageous claim that Khelif is trans/intersex/XY show a complete incompatibility with productively editing in this topic area.

― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC) Edited ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks like an attempt to win a content dispute by removing dissenting editors. Since a staggering amount of mainstream Italian news organisations have described (in their own voice, without attribution) Khelif as "intersex" (as explained here), it is not surprising that an Italian editor shows up on the article talk page arguing for a POV which, from their perspective, is a "significant viewpoint" worthy of inclusion per WP:DUE. The user in question has retracted his first erroneous statement "I also think they are transgender" (31 July) and since 10 August has stopped claiming that the article should include that she is intersex (all quotes in the OP are prior to 10 August). Like others on the article's discussion page, he was exasperated by the battlefield mentality and lack of civility of two experienced users, including the proposer, who lash out at anyone who does not align with their POV (i.e. that that BLP should convince the reader that Khelif is not intersex); however, their behaviour remained overall civil. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Valereee has already explained to them that we don't call someone intersex/transgender unless they've called themselves that, and we don't speculate on a medical diagnosis.

  What's your excuse for violating BLP (by labelling her as intersex, including on this very board)? M.Bitton (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Whose excuse are you asking about, mine or JackkBrown's? If you're asking about me, I've never labelled her as intersex on this board or elsewhere - if I'm wrong, please provide a diff. If you're asking about JackkBrown, I've already explained why I think he called Khelif intersex (preponderance of Italian sources) in the very comment you're replying to, and you're just bludgeoning. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666: and M.Bitton: to avoid confusion, my new nickname is "JacktheBrown". JacktheBrown (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  We shouldn't damage Khelif by pushing the well-intentioned but questionable POV that she is not intersex did you or did you not write this and is there any part of what Valereee said that you don't understand? M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and I stick to it. Doing otherwise would be WP:ADVOCACY and a serious BLP violation, detrimental to Khelif herself. We should not frame that BLP to push the POV that she doesn't have DSDs. Can you please provide one RS stating in unequivocal terms that she doesn't have DSDs? If you can't, can you at least provide one RS (apart from our article on Khalif, which is not a RS) suggesting or implying that she does not have DSDs? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Let's see what Valereee has to say about your statement and your justification. M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't ask you what Valereee says, I asked you to provide at least one reliable source suggesting or implying that Khelif does not have DSDs. If we don't have such a source, then what are we discussing? why the hell are we saying the lead that Khelif was born female - horrible and transphobic expression, frawned upon by LGBT organisations, that you and TarnishedPath want to keep in the article? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like Valereee to know that my opinion on the "intersex issue" has never changed and was already expressed at 11:36, 6 August 2024: We must strictly abide by WP:BLP, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, which means that we shouldn't be suggesting that Khelif does or doesn't have XY chromosomes: we just don't know anything for sure about chromosomes. Therefore as to her gender, we write what we do know: she was assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman. We don't speculate about her genetics and the lack of information about chromosomes. See also 07:58, 7 August 2024: We should say that she was assigned female at birth, that she identifies as a woman and has lived her entire life (including sports) as a woman, without speculating on who has seen the gender tests. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your opinion is highlighted in this comment, in which you falsely claim that the Italian newspapers that labelled her as Intersex (because she beat their darling) are reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why do you think la Repubblica and Il Messaggero are not reliable sources? Looking at their wikipedia articles I see absolutely no reason for your smearing of them. Vegan416 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  What makes you think that they are reliable for the statement that they are making? You see what you want to see, because just like JacktheBrown and Gitz, you too insist on shifting the burden of proof. M.Bitton (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't work like this. These are respected mainstream newspapers in Italy. If you think that they are not GREL you should open a discussion/RFC about this in RSN and see what the Wikipedia community thinks. Until you do that and get consensus for your opinion you cannot smear them as unreliable just because you don't like what they say. Vegan416 (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you unilaterally inserting "generally" here? M.Bitton's saying they're not reliable for these claims specifically. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Then we all misunderstood their comments; no offense, but they should have explained themselves better. In any case, these two sources are reliable for this article. Finally, I would like to clarify that although, unfortunately, the Imane Khelif page has serious problems regarding neutrality, I no longer want anything to do with either M.Bitton or the article. Regards. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's made fairly clear in most of our infrastructure related to reliability of sources (e.g. WP:RS, WP:RSN, WP:RSP...) that reliability often heavily depends on context. It's hard to come to that assumption if this had been kept in mind. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  @JacktheBrown, if you're referring to la Repubblica and Il Messaggero, no they aren't MEDRS, which means they cannot be used for statements about a medical diagnosis, nor for speculating on one. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee: all right, I understand everything. Thank you very much and have a great day. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, they've amplified a totally spurious claim about a public figure's biological sex without a shred of evidence. Seems like a dimension of claims you shouldn't trust their word on. Remsense ‥ 诉 12:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Vegan416, you do not have a thorough enough understanding of sources w/regard to GENSEX/BLP/MEDRS to be working in that area. I strongly suggest you stop participating here in this discussion and at the Khelif article. Valereee (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee: to circumvent your suggestion, Vegan416 started a discussion on BLPN to continue their argument that silence is often considered an admission. Luckily, it was collapsed by another editor who saw it for what it is. M.Bitton (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  False claim. That discussion doesn't argue that "silence is often considered an admission". Rather is asks why it is ok to mention "no comment" response is some BLPs that I show there, and not here. How can one learn how BLP is correctly used without asking questions? Vegan416 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  The way one learns how BLP is correctly used in a nondisruptive way is to work in less contentious areas until one has learned the basics. Do not disrupt Wikipedia under the guise of "But how else will I learn?" Please stop. Valereee (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to remain an admin here, so I'll try to parse this along that line. Frankly a lot of the argument over content at that article looks like people who dislike working with one another and want to win and keep letting themselves get taken off on tangents by editors who don’t really understand sourcing when it comes to the intersection of GENSEX, MEDRS, and BLP. For instance, saying “No RS are saying (whatever) just begs one of those less experienced editors to go dig up the Italian media, who absolutely are reliable but not for MEDRS, and especially not in a BLP. Both of you should know better than to let yourself get dragged off task on that when literally all that’s needed is for someone to note those sources can’t be used ‘’in this case’’ and point those editors at the relevant policy.

  I’m going to AGF that Gitz6666 sincerely believes "born female" is asserting in WikiVoice what Khelif’s chromosome makeup/medical condition is and is not. I’m going to AGF that M.Bitton sincerely believes pointing out "assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman" actually calls into question Khelif’s chromosome makeup/medical condition. And that both of you are arguing BLP from that sincere belief. If the two of you (and the other experienced editors at that article) could take a step back from your suspicions about one another, you should be able to find some compromise position that is both useful to the reader and protects the rights of this living person. If you can’t, then it becomes a behavior issue, and admins may have to start removing people from the discussion. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Their attribution of the opposition to use AFAB (for reasons that have nothing to do with chromosomes) solely to me and TP is disingenuous. There are others on that discussion, including an admin, who share the same view. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  If the admin is weighing in on a content dispute, they're actually now an editor for that content dispute. Their opinion is no more important than that of any other experienced well-intentioned editor. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that they are attributing something to me and TP, while ignoring the others who share the same view. M.Bitton (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for AGF. I have no personal beef with M.Bitton, and I certainly have no "suspicions" about them, if that means attributing bad intentions. I disagree with them on a few content issues, which is everyday business on Wikipedia, but I also find that they were quite rude (not towards me, to be honest) but towards other less experienced and undoubtedly good-faith editors, with whom I happened to agree (partially) in talk page discussions. If this combative approach changes, I will happily compromise on content. If it doesn't, I will "step back" by banning myself from that article, so to speak, and leave it to others to deal with the damage that approach is likely to cause both to newcomers and to the quality of that BLP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your baseless claims about me have been addressed in the closed discussion, so no need to repeat what was said. The fact that you "partially agree" with those who were rude to me is perhaps what's clouding your judgment about me and those who are enforcing the policies. M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I see it, those who were rude to you accused you and TarnishedPath of bad faith while you and TP were accusing them of POV pushing. You and TP were also warned by other uninvolved editors about your lack of civility and disregard for WP:TALK as early as 06:42, 7 August 2024 and 20:31, 10 August 2024. You bit a newcomer, bludgeoned the talk and edit warred. TP ran to dispute resolution noticeboards (3RRN and ANI) to remove the dissenting editors with futile accusations, and you seconded them. This attitude of yours exacerbated the content dispute and resulted in an impressive waste of time to secure an unbalanced BLP that suits your POV and prevent it from being corrected. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  those who were rude to you accused you .. of bad faith for no reason whatsoever. Yet, here you are defending them because you agree (partially) with their POV. What does that say about you? In the meantime, I have provided the quotes that prove that you have been pushing a POV that is a violation of the BLP policy, and to be honest, given this reply, I'm not convinced that you fully understand the issue. In any case, my patience has limits, so unless a valid argument is put forward, I'll simply ignore the time sink that you're creating with your hollow assertions. M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  "TP ran to dispute resolution noticeboards (3RRN and ANI) to remove the dissenting editors with futile accusations"

  Firstly, I didn't start this ANI thread. Secondly there was a demonstrated violation of 3RR that was actionable. You need to strike your WP:ABF. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are right, it was GhostOfDanGurney the one who started this thread, I was wrong. You, however, argued that Editors constantly trying to POV push language which makes what Khelif has faced to have been on the basis of at least some reasonable concerns [...] should be topic banned from GENSEX and proposed that JacktheBrown be topic banned. On 3RR/N you reported (without warning) JSwift49, one of the users you disagree with, who had made 4 reverts, and you chose not to report or warn M.Bitton, who had made 8 reverts (eventually they both were warned). This selective use of the noticeboard suggests to me that you were not interested in enforcing the 3RR but in winning the content dispute. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Violating the BLP policy and defending those who do (in the most disingenuous way) tells me that you should stay away from the article and BLPs in general. M.Bitton (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  When I opened up the article history, prior to submitting the 3RRN report, I saw an obvious violation by JSwift49 at the top of the article history. I didn't go looking further. That in no way makes my report selective. Additionally I did warn them as required and you can find the link in the 3RRN report if you care to look. You have absolutely no basis for your WP:ASPERSION that I've been weaponising noticeboards in an attempt to win disputes and you need to strike your WP:ABF. TarnishedPath^talk 08:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Gitz is clearly being disingenuous, a fact that I highlighted previously in the closed discussion. They commented on the 3AN (to support the editor who was citing a fictitious policy to violate a real one) before me, making their you seconded them look as ridiculous as the rest of their comments. Their only interest here is to defend, at the expense of a living person, the editors whose POV align with theirs. M.Bitton (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  re I did warn them as required and you can find the link in the 3RRN report. I don't understand why you want to drag this out. You warned them at 02:40, 11 August 2024 and reported them 10 minutes later, at 02:51, 11 August 2024, without any new revert or edit being made between 02:40 and 02:51. This means that JSwift49 was not given the opportunity to comply with your so-called "warning" (Self revert your last revert immediately or the next stop is a noticeboard) because they did not edit between 00:20, 12 August and 03:56, 12 August. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  You wrote "On 3RR/N you reported (without warning) JSwift49". This is demonstrably false as you now admit. Strike your false WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:ABF. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, I won't strike my "false aspersions', which i have supported with diffs. If I misunderstood anything, I hope that someone will explain to me how posting "Self revert your last revert immediately or the next stop is a noticeboard", followed by an immediate report to 3RRN, makes sense on a collaborative project and qualifies as a "warning'. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666, @TarnishedPath, @M.Bitton, all this extra sniping at one another is not helping here. You are all making it nearly impossible for any admin to help. I feel like you've all had your say here. Please stop talking to/about each other in this thread. Valereee (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee: Gitz continues to make speculative medical claims about Khelif by using statements such as If Khelif has DSDs... as a basis for their reasoning. When JustAnotherCompanion removed their comment that steps over the line, they restored it.

  Could you please point out where WP:BLP prohibits making hypotheses about the medical conditions of a living person? is their response to this comment, which means that they still don't fully understand the policies despite claiming otherwise (in response to your explanation). M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, but it's not enough, there disruption will just move elsewhere as it already has following prior AN* discussions (this is the editor formerly known as Jackkbrown until @FlightTime: completed the rename). A site block is unfortunately probably what's ultimately needed. Star Mississippi 00:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

My extreme apologies, I saw/had no indecation of this discussion, or the rename wouldn't have been done. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not your fault at all @FlightTime and apologies if that's how it came across. I don't even think Jack meant it to deceive/escape sanctions although he did seem to be forum shopping the question, but it was enough and I didn't want folks to think it wasn't the same editor in a new issue. Disclosure, I opened at least two of the AN discussions for their prior disruption. Star Mississippi 01:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all @Star Mississippi: Just wish I knew, I would of held it till after the discussion :P. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

FT, Jack had been using that as his signature, which someone else complained about, so I think Jack was simply making his username match his signature. I don't think there was anything nefarious going on. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: yes, exactly; I matched my nickname and signature ("which someone else complained about": here). JacktheBrown (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support; because of the above comments, and because this user agreed with this comment, which basically argued that because Khelif never explicitly disagreed with the IBA’s assessment, she tacitly confirmed it. This blatant misunderstanding of the burden of proof, along with previous issues with this user, show that they can't be a net-positive on a contentious BLP talk page. Mach61 05:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support but widen to ban from contentious topics altogether; Like Star Mississippi stated above, the disruption is chronic with this user and it has also spilled into WP:CT/EE where JacktheBrown has violated WP:DUE, edit warring to do so as seen on their recent edits on Russo-Ukrainian War. This shows a wider lack of understanding and etiquette that makes them a poor fit for CT areas. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Slatersteven wrote to me to "include them" (SEE), so I added the information; I did what they wrote.
    I didn't want to start an edit war. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Err, no I did not [[217]], as I said here [[218]] an edit summery is not a good place to raise complex issue. Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support this topic ban, and I think we are getting close to the point where a sitewide block will be necessary. While I have no doubt of the editor's good faith and he is certainly knowledgeable about Italian cuisine, JackkBrown/JacktheBrown seems incapable of editing without serious problems with adhering to the neutral point of view. Now that he has strayed from the relatively innocuous area of Italian cuisine to contentious topics areas like gender/sexuality, Russia/Ukraine and controversial BLPs, I see nothing but pitfalls along that road, ending in disaster. Maybe he can pull back from the precipice, but this topic ban is the bare minimum required. Cullen328 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: "Russia/Ukraine": simply because what I write doesn't coincide with a certain way of thinking; it's very sad to try to prevent the plurality of information. For the rest of the comment I might agree. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Plurality of information does not mean wp:false balance! Also this edit [219] clearly misrepresents sources—blindlynx 13:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I completely disagree with JacktheBrown's comments but I am also troubled by the tendency to punish users who hold divergent opinions. We already have policies for unacceptable behaviour, but I am far more worried by the slide towards banning users for holding opinions we don’t like than by the occasional user going too far. Jeppiz (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  In my view, removing this editor from a highly contentious topic area is preventative rather than punitive when his expressing random opinions becomes disruptive, impedes development of consensus, and wastes the time of other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agree. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Exacty. These statements the editor has made are at complete variance with estabished facts, and in complete variance with the expectations needed to write an accurate a WP:BLP. Much worse than the previous tban request. They are all over the shop. There is no constistency in approach. No understanding of WP:NPOV. This could really serious problem in the future if there is an attempt to edit a popular BLP article. I wouldn't like that all. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support ban on CT topics very reluctantly. I have tried to help JacktheBrown in the past, but it seems they are not just a new editor, but a new editor who does not know when they should stop and ask for advice. Had I been asked, which I was not, I would have recommended in very strong terms that they stay away from. BLPs, trans topics, and especially Russian/Ukraine. The fact that they have not only gone there but been quite belligerent about going there concerns me a great deal. Elinruby (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support but widen to ban from contentious topics altogether as I have been mentioned, this user has a very odd attitude towards neutrality. As this thread shows [[220]]. Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per all the clear evidence above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Behaviour of TarnishedPath

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

---

TarnishedPath has been repeatedly accusing Vegan416 of POV-pushing in response to good-faith contributions to talk page discussions:

• 10:47, 14 August 2024 Quite frankly it strikes me as WP:POVPUSHING to be making fringe arguments on the basis of sourcing which doesn't explicitly back you up (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 12:12, 14 August 2024 I'm not going to waste my time and read the rest of your WP:POVPUSH (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 12:32, 14 August 2024 You continue to push a position which is not based on "reasonable concerns" while stating that it is (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 10:13, 15 August 2024 Referring to others who are engaged in POVPUSH as backup isn't the victory you think it is (in response to this comment by Vegan416
• 10:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC) No, I'm suggesting that YOU are engaged in POVPUSH by seeking to selectively use quotes (in response to this comment by Vegan416)
• 23:52, 15 August 2024 Now a better question is why are you pushing material in a manner which is presumptive that the IBA (an unreliable source) is correct? (in response to this comment by Vegan416)

None of these accusations are warranted: please see Vegan416's comments that prompted them.

At 09:16, 15 August 2024 I warned TarnishedPath that this conduct was not acceptable, especially since we already had this thread at ANI for discussing user behaviour. It didn't work. I repeated my warning on their user talk page, and they asked me to never post there again. They also opposed a proposed edit, and when I asked for the reasons, they twice refused to give them (03:38, 16 August 2024 and 13:40, 16 August 2024 ^[corrected]), showing unmitigated hostility. Since it is impossible to cooperate on that article talk page, I'm reporting this user. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC); edited 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

But not telling them I see. They seem to have logged off. perhaps until tomorrow afternoon. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Since they asked me to never post on their user talk page again, I thought that pinging them here in my OP was enough. Prompted by your comment, I just left an ANI notice. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want be involved in this, and I am against this complaint that was filed without consulting me. I have already stated in the past with regard to other attacks that were made on me (by another editor) that I do not need any protection from the admins, and I can handle aggressive behavior against me on my own.

I won't comment here any more. Vegan416 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I warned TarnishedPath that this conduct was not acceptable you're in no position to judge an editor who's enforcing BLP. I already mentioned an instance of your POV pushing (based on some garbage sources that you collected online). M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have already replied to you here. Please clarify which sources were garbage: ANSA [221], Adnkronos [222], la Repubblica [223], Il Messaggero [224], La7 [225], Radio DeeJay [226], Corriere della Sera [227] - one of them in particular or all of them? As I explained on the article talk page, I didn't cite these sources to argue that Khelif is intersex and that we should say so in the article, but to argue that we shouldn't suggest that she's not intersex (e.g., Khelif was born female, as is stated in the lead), because both professional news organisations and subject-matter experts (see Public debates about eligibility standards in women's boxing competitions) openly discuss the possibility that she may have DSDs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: as an Italian I can confirm that most of the sources you cited in your comment are, objectively, (very) reliable (e.g., la Repubblica). JacktheBrown (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Behaviour_of_JackkBrown explains why you think that. M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you kindly stop attacking me all the time? I simply wrote that most of these sources (e.g., la Repubblica) are (very) reliable, and this is objectively true; it has nothing to do with my idea. Please stop provoking me, I didn't reply to your comments. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I already did (my answer is just above what you wrote) and don't intend on repeating myself. The fact that you keep collecting speculations (literally, anything you can find) about what you think she may be (despite the fact that there is no evidence that she is anything but a woman) speaks volumes about how far you're willing to push it into the BLP (to victimize her even further). This is exactly the kind of POV pushing that has plagued the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

A person with DSDs can be a woman, as Khelif undoubtedly is, as she was assigned female at birth and identifies as a woman. To use her BLP to suggest that she doesn't have DSDs is disrespectful to her and does not reflect what RSes report. It is disrespectful to her because it implies that if she has DSDs then her gold medal is undeserved - on the contrary, given the IOC's eligibility criteria, it is clear that she was fully entitled to compete and win at the Olympics. Since your POV does not reflect what RSes say, it drives editors (mainly newcomers and inexperienced editors) to come to that talk page and argue, sometimes clumsily and in violation of WP policy, that the article is unbalanced and/or that Khelif has DSDs (which has not been verified and should not be included in the article). As a result, you and TarnishedPath mistreat them, provoke them, exacerbate them, and eventually ask that they are blocked or banned. You are damaging the encyclopaedia without being useful to anyone. This needs to stop. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

to suggest that she doesn't have DSDs is disrespectful to her to suggest, without evidence, that she does (like you've been doing again and again) is what's disrespectful and harmful to her. If you still don't get this, then I suggest you stay away from the article (your POV pushing, that is bordering on BLP violations, serves no purpose other than prolonging her victimization). M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides, I was not the one who first ran to dispute resolution. At 3RR/N, I tried to mitigate the disruption you and TarnishedPath were causing, and I did not ask for sanctions against anybody. See this comment of mine, this report should be enough to prevent further disruption without having to sanction anyone - the report could work as the "warning" that was missing. Yet you didn't stop and became more and more confrontational, reaching a peak in your interactions with Fanny.doutaz, which in my view were inexcusable, as I argued here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't damage Khelif by pushing the well-intentioned but questionable POV that she is not intersex this is you declaring in no uncertain terms that she is Intersex (while violating BLP and pretending to care about her reputation). Comments like this literally sum up your contributions to the talk page. I'm now more than convinced that you should stay away from the article. M.Bitton (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Gitz, with all due respect, your tactics on the talk page have been similar (though more subtle) than JSwift49's. You are repeatedly WP:BADGERING people. Your "proposed edit" that you link to in your filing (again, similar to JSwift) cherry-picks sources to fit your POV (The NBC article, for example, you omit the fact that your quoted line starts with "However, the [IBA] test results were never published..." and your proposal is to state that after the content supported by the line you quoted). You then badger TP with a "why don't you support this" which again, came only moments after they had just had aspersions of censorship cast on them, so of course the answer was going to be a bit snippy. I think a BOOMERANG is more likely to come from this than any action against TP from this disappointingly and highly frivolous report. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the more subtle, if it is an expression of praise. The sentence you criticise me for omitting from my proposed edit is already in the body of the article and in the lead (... criticized the IBA's previous disqualification ... No medical evidence that Khelif has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone has been published), so I'm not convinced we should repeat it again. If you feel differently, you can explain your reasons on the article talk page.

As for WP:BADGERING, I disagree: TP had reverted an edit and had raised BLP's concerns in the edit summary and on the talk page; I had proposed a new draft of the reverted edit that attempted to address their concerns and those of another editor; TP should have explained why they were not satisfied with the new draft, otherwise this is WP:STONEWALLING and using BLP as a bludgeon. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I did provide adequate explanation in my edit summary. I advised you of that and that I wasn't going to repeat myself. You choose to badger me and ceased when I wrote to you that I was not there to WP:SATISFY you. TarnishedPath^talk 08:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, your question Please clarify which sources were garbage: ANSA [223], Adnkronos [224], la Repubblica [225], Il Messaggero [226], La7 [227], Radio DeeJay [228], Corriere della Sera [229] - one of them in particular or all of them? was from two days ago, I trust you now understand that none of these can be used w/regard to a medical diagnosis or speculation about one? FTR, even reporting in such sources that a recognized expert had done the speculating isn't good enough when it comes to MEDRS, and especially not in a BLP. Valereee (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that none of these sources can be used for a medical diagnosis. On the article talk page I explicitly acknowledge that we should not use them to state or suggest that she is intersex. I said I wouldn't use these sources for our article and cited WP:NOENG. I could have also cited WP:DUE (preponderance of sources that do not define her as intersex), but I agree with you that WP:MEDRS provides an even stronger and clearer basis for a conclusion I fully agree with. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the complaint right now, but heads up, Gitz your last two links are both to the same diff. CambrianCrab (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, corrected. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Gitz, I would hope that an editor of your tenure would be aware that TP need not answer to what they feel (and I tend to agree) was WP:BADGERING from you, coming only an hour after Vegan416 had baselessly accused them of wanting to censor content.[228] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to say, especially these comments from TarnishedPath seem to me like examples of WP:Cherrypicking:

• Just because some sources use specific words doesn't mean we should use the exact same words. There are reliable sources available which use the term "misinformation". E.g. [1][2] [229]
• Even if they are scientists if they start weighing in and making statements about reality without sufficient evidence then that is misinformation. Statements about the nature of reality are not and never will be reasoned when there is no evidence to support such statements [230]

JSwift49 02:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

(Note the second comment was in response to a PhD in molecular genetics in elite sports criticizing the IOC's eligibility criteria) JSwift49 02:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This filling is entirely retaltory for my steadfast enforcement of BLP and my involvement in above discussions. This should result in nothing else than a boomerang.

Per WP:POVPUSH:

POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas.
The term "POV-pushing" is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article, including on talk page discussions.

As has been noted by other editors above there has been a group of editors in article talk who have sought to selectively use quotations from sources to push a narrative that there is reasonable debate about Khelif's gender/having DSD. The sources cited in support of their positions, where experts are involved, often have generalised discussion about eligibility standards (refer to Special:Diff/1240179585 for the largest grouping of sources) and the editors have sought to push quotes of such discussions as evidence that there is reasonable concerns about Khelif specifically in the absence of any reliable evidence stating that they have DSD. It is notable that some of the sources where they do address Khelif have experts categorically stating that there is insufficient evidence that Khelif has DSD (E.g. "When it comes to Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, we don’t have enough information to know if they have a DSD"). TarnishedPath^talk 03:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

OS needed? Maybe I am not seeing something here. It looks to me like a new page patroller is valiantly trying to prevent a Wikipedia editor from making a medical diagnosis that a qualified professional would refuse to make without examining the subject. Why is the retaliatory thread repeating and repeating and repeating this not getting shut down with extreme prejudice? Policies only apply to certain editors and not others? Some BLP subjects are less worthy of protection than others? This discussion is at the intersection of at least two contentious topics, three if you add medical. Why is this thread even being allowed? It should be revdeled. Elinruby (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You're correct that the topic is at the intersection of three contentious topics which Valereee has noted elsewhere. Therefor I would expect that statements which make diagnosis or speculate about it should have the appropriate sourcing. TarnishedPath^talk 01:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

User:Holydiver82

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

---

This editor is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior at The Acolyte (TV series). Despite multiple attempts to steer the user to finding a consensus, Holydiver has accused myself and others of being a sock[231] and of ownership[232][233]. After urging Holydiver one last time to AGF they responded by filing a malformed 3RR request against me.[234] Last week, I reported the user to the edit war noticeboard, but the admins instead pointed me to WP:ANI. I was just going to leave this alone, but this latest incident means I'm bringing it here. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I reported you because you revert every edit anyone makes on that page, in violation of the 3RR policy. all anyone has to do is look at the edit history of that page to see that you both revert every edit, and in the last 24 hours you have made 3 reverts. I have no idea why you have decided to take ownership of the page and refuse to allow anyone to edit it, including multiple people simply rewording poorly written sentences. If you simply allowed other people to edit the page there would be no problem. Holydiver82 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82, you know that content is being discussed at the talk page and there is no consensus for your changes. You can't keep making your edits every day or so and then complain that you keep getting reverted. Stop editing, wait for consensus to be found at the talk page, and then respect that decision. In your most recent comments at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) you pointed out that you are new here and don't understand all the policies and guidelines. You should be taking it upon yourself to learn those rather than doing whatever you want and feigning ignorance. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

multiple different editors fixed some poor wording of 1 sentence, that changed absolutely nothing about what it said. now we need to start consensus every time someone re-words a sentence. hilarious. for reference as I read about all the rules of wiki, The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions. ...this was violated by nemov as evidence by the page history Holydiver82 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're accusing someone of breaking 3RR (and thank you for quoting what it says as it means you understand it) please provide evidence that they have reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours on the article. As I can only see 3. I do however see you doing a slow motion edit war pushing for your favoured wording without consensus as shown by the fact multiple editors have reverted these edits multiple times. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

not sure exactly they the rules are, and what counts as a "revert" but for what it is worth adam has made 5 "revert" edits to change what another editor had done on the article, so far today. no idea how to property link up it, but if you simply go to the page and look at the edit history its all right there Holydiver82 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

speaking of finding consensus, on the page in question multiple more editors have come to the page to attempt to edit it. at least 2 of these editors are making edits pretty much in line with what I was trying to do in regards to the lead, and viewership. as well as going to the talk page about the items, one of those editors included concern over the problem with ownership of the article by adam. who has today made at least 5 revert edits, and looking at the talk page, has basically started some form of argument/disagreement/etc with every additional editor. the talk page is pretty much someone pointing out a change they believe the article needs, and adam reverting it and arguing that no one else is allowed to change the page. not sure how to post references, but the talk page and edit history show a pretty clear pattern. there are now 3 different talk page topics about whip media and other editors disagreement with how adam is attempting to include it in the article in question, by 3 different editors Holydiver82 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe Holydiver82's pattern of WP:NOTHERE editing began with The Marvels where at the talk they showed they would not accept consensus building if the consensus opposed their personal views. Their comments were often WP:BLUDGEONING with accusations that other editors were hiding the truth (ex: "Indeed there is a clearly politically motivated interpretation of the film's Absolutely terrible performance. This talk page is probably the best example of that since people are still trying to manipulate reality even in the face of this clear reliable sourced information on its performance. Will be interested to see if the truth and reality finally wins over manipulation"). From there, they've mostly moved onto other film articles which were classified as bombs and making various arguments around that. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of, Holydiver82 just started an edit war at Nia DaCosta (director for The Marvels) and violated WP:3RR. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This response[235] makes it clear the editor is not getting the message. Nemov (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

trust me, i got the message. any edit i make to any page will be reverted. you guys have made that crystal clear. for instance on the nia dacosta page. the 2 editors who reverted every change i made to it had never once edited that article before i made an edit. now they are all over it. if they give a reason, such as lack of citation, and i fix that problem. some new reason will be given to revert the changes i make. trust me, message received i am not welcome to edit wikipedia. if i do it will be reverted Holydiver82 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

To speak for myself as one of the reverting editors, I only began editing the DaCosta article when I added an image of the director. Only after that did I notice the UNDUE statements which raised some BLP concerns. Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia so long as basic policies and guidelines are being followed, especially in regards to biographies of living persons where this is more strict. The reasons why your edits have been reverted in these articles now and in the past has been constructively given, although, you have not followed through with the advice from other editors after several months of similar behavior with these articles, which, from my perspective, appear to be somehow related to the fact that these are Disney projects led by female actors that have received their share of controversy. Not trying to insinuate anything with this assessment, although it does further some WP:POV concerns with what Holydiver's intent or rationale may be with the nature of their edits, especially in this BLP. I would strongly suggest a page block of the articles for DaCosta, The Marvels, and The Acolyte if nothing else permits as necessary to prevent this long-term disruption from continuing, as Holydiver appears to be exhibiting WP:IDNHT. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Each time you reverted you gave a reason. And each time i made a correction to address the issue you brought up. You said exceptional, so i reference reliable sources. You said i didn't use citations. So i did that. Then you said it was undue. The problem is that you kept coming up with more and more reasons to revert. Each time you had some new reason. How am i supposed to edit and article and correct issues with my edits if literally every correction is reverted with some new reason why it's wrong. Holydiver82 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82, this behavior has already brought you to AN/I. Remember the Law of holes: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Toughpigs (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"trust me, message received i am not welcome to edit wikipedia. if i do it will be reverted" is passive-aggressive and WP:IDHT. The editor's POV-pushing purpose is obvious; they are not a victim of over-aggressive reverting. Toughpigs (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: Holydiver82 has returned to Talk:Nia Costa, beating the same drum and responding with outraged WP:IDHT to every comment anyone else makes. I fear that Holydiver is WP:NOTHERE, and just wants to argue. They should be urged to WP:DROPTHESTICK at the very least. Toughpigs (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• This may or may not have much of an impact at this late stage, but my first run-in with Holydiver82 was in the collapsed discussion at Talk:The Marvels/Archive 2#Comments regarding closed discussion. Other editors were accused of misbehavior and editing with hidden motives, without evidence, which led to this warning (diffs provided there). Then another warning after a second instance on a different talk page. This all happened 8 months ago. I can't really speak to any pattern since, except that in a few brief discussions I was involved in, the passive-aggressive behavior was still present – albeit in a milder form. However, what we're seeing at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) is reaching an entirely different level:

• "the goal is to protect and promote the show as much as possible" – 1236818951
• "the talk page makes it quite clear that this page is being protected" – 1237605192
• "Since you are a Disney shill who was accused of Multi accounting I won't hold my breath for a informed response" – 1238660575
• "the fact that you clearly want to add a lot of BS fluff to viewership ... to try to portray this show extremely positively is very obvious" – 1238774437
• "Reality makes the show look bad." – 1238851750
• "but this definitely isnt a WP:ownership situation" – 1240353206
• "it is getting ridiculous how nemov and adam have taken ownership of this article" – 1240283832

Aside from the behavioral concerns, it's quite clear that this editor is committed to Disney-related articles, and in particular, any negative aspect including controversies, financial performance, etc., associated with this company. Combined with their arguments, it is highly unlikely that this editor is able to contribute or collaborate without editorial bias. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Disney-related articles, Sounds familiar. Anyone familiar with this case seeing quacking? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• There's more than enough evidence cited here for an admin to do something about this editor who continues to be a disruption. Holydiver82 has just created a new section on the article's TALK that continues the same behavior. Nemov (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yet another example of the editor making accusations and edit warring instead of finding consensus.[236] Nemov (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  you being so self absorbed that you cannot be bothered to read the edit history and see what i was adjusting the wording to an edit done by someone else. instead assuming that everything must be about you, thats a you problem. again, see the page history. try to understand not every edit needs to involve you Holydiver82 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked - enough of this nonsense. It's quite clear that they are unable to edit in a collegial and co-operative manner. Some evidence they're only here to deliberately stir up trouble which makes them indistinguishable from a troll. Ultimately it doesn't matter, there is no willingness to be a positive on the project. If someone wishes to try and CheckUser against Bambifan101 feel free to alter the block if it comes up, but other than that we're done here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Alhitmi123

Alhitmi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:TENDENTIOUS at Abu Tahir al-Jannabi, attempting to remove "Persian":

• Removed sourced info (Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica) with no edit summary, replacing "Persian" with "Arab" [237] [238]

• Removed sourced info (Iranica), falsely claiming it does not support the info [239], even though it literally does [240]

• Removed sourced info (Iranica) again, this time not only falsely claiming that Iranica does not support it, but also calls Iranica for not "peer-reviewed" [241], which is blatantly false had they bothered to make a 10 second search.

• Earlier they openly demonstrated that they did not even bother to check the citations that they removed (one of them is open access as well..) Not sure why it says WP:RS, do you have the name of the book or the full source? Thanks

• At Qarmatians, they replaced sourced info with their own words [242]

WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA:

• Very mature dig at Persians due to me merely saying their claims are unsourced, replying with another unsourced claim "I guess you are correct, It didn’t make sense at first an original arab would do a genocide against defenseless civilians, his honor wouldn’t allow it. Thanks for clarifying 🙏."

• "It seems that you want him to be Persian so hard for some reason or the other."

• if you are a person of knowledge you would care about learning and not pushing an agenda.

Which are all ironic... considering they were the ones to replace sourced "Persian" with their unsourced "Arab" [243] [244]

Alhitmi123 has been here since July 2023 and made 38 edits. Based on this report, I've no doubt they would have already been indeffed if they were more active (WP:NOTHERE). --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They're still removing sourced info [245] [246] [247] and adding unsourced info [248]. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the fact that Jannaba is mainly Lurs ethnicity and speak Luri and you deleted it for no reason! Why did you do that? Why do you want them to be Persian so bad? Alhitmi123 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I even added a book source behind my claim abd you deleted it! Alhitmi123 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You're referring to this [249]. Not only is this hypocritical because you removed sourced info, but your citation has no page, what "Ph.D in middle-eastern History from Cambridge University" does not even know how to cite a page? And even if the citation you added does indeed support it, it's incredibly irrelevant, so what if the city has a Lur minority in present-day or around that time? What does that have to do with the Qarmatians and the era? Also, more WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No the city has always been a Lurs majority. This area always had a Persian minority not majoriry! The claim that Abu Said is Luri is much closer to reality than Persian. I see why this site is not respected among academic and more of a blog, ill leave this playground to you, im “outta here” Alhitmi123 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As you've been told countless times, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion. And you are certainly not helping this site by adding your own opinion, removing sources, and failing to cite a source properly - no academic would respect that. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Their account was created in 2019, never edited their user page. and then suddenly becoming "Ph.D in middle-eastern History from Cambridge University" after this ANI report[250][251]?! Is that some kind of justification/excuse for their problematic edits or what? It sounds like trolling in my opinion. Already violated 3RR on Abu Tahir al-Jannabi and Qarmatians. Ignoring all edit summaries/messages, non-stop pov-pushing, and refusing any kind of collaboration. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Alhitmi123 is either trolling or has severe WP:CIR issues, look at this revert I just made [252], where they amongst other things engaged in plagiarism of the Iranica source. WP:NOTHERE indeed. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please be respectful and don’t insult me by using words such as trolling and having issues! The source says that the claim in “uncertain” and it is imported to the readers that this is mentioned in the context. Again please stop deleting important information that is found in the source (you have provided)! Alhitmi123 (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  HistoryOfIran is using direct insults to my useful edit saying im trolling and having serious issues WP:PA . Please stop that as we are trying to enlightened readers and not push personal opinions. Alhitmi123 (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, please look at these direct insults on me. Alhitmi123 (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block per my report, WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR issues, as well violation of WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS. They have also violated WP:3RR at Qarmatians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Report on Violations by User “historyofiran”

  I would like to bring to the attention of the administrators that the user historyofiran has been engaging in the following disruptive behaviors, which are in violation of several Wikipedia policies:

  1. Violation of Three-Revert Rule (WP:3RR): The user has repeatedly reverted my edits on the Abu Tahir al-Jannabi article and the Qarmatians article, exceeding the three-revert limit within a 24-hour period. This clear violation of WP:3RR is disruptive and hampers the collaborative editing process. Relevant diffs include: [291], [292], [293], [294].

  2. Personal Attacks (WP:NPA): The user has made several inappropriate comments that amount to personal attacks against me. Examples include: • “You’re referring to this [295]. Not only is this hypocritical because you removed sourced info, but your citation has no page. What ‘Ph.D in middle-eastern History from Cambridge University’ does not even know how to cite a page? And even if the citation you added does indeed support it, it’s incredibly irrelevant, so what if the city has a Lur minority in present-day or around that time? What does that have to do with the Qarmatians and the era? Also, more WP:ASPERSIONS.” • “As you’ve been told countless times, Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not your personal opinion. And you are certainly not helping this site by adding your own opinion, removing sources, and failing to cite a source properly - no academic would respect that.” • “Support indef block per my report, WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR issues, as well violation of WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS. They have also violated WP:3RR at Qarmatians.” These comments violate Wikipedia’s no personal attacks policy and are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment.

  3. Tendentious Editing (WP:TENDENTIOUS): The user has repeatedly removed well-sourced information, including content from Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica, while inserting their own unsourced claims. This behavior is not only against the guidelines of verifiability and reliable sourcing, but it also shows a pattern of tendentious editing aimed at pushing a particular point of view.

  4. Aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS): The user has cast aspersions on my motivations and qualifications, which is a violation of Wikipedia’s no casting aspersions policy.

  Given the above violations, I respectfully request that an administrator review the actions of historyofiran and take appropriate measures to ensure that Wikipedia remains a respectful and collaborative environment.

  Thank you for your attention to this matter. Alhitmi123 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did not violate WP:3RR ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page") as clearly seen here [253] [254], but you did per [255] - in other words, you keep proving my point in regards to WP:CIR. Your whole comment is a poor attempt at parroting the issues that were brought up about you, especially point 3., which is blatant lying and was what you did (which is also why you can't show any diffs). HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have noticed that you are going to every single edit and source i make and delete them. I really hope that you stop doing that and please revert what you did and leave me alone. I really don’t want to get into a conflict with you, i really hope you understand that. Alhitmi123 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef Edit-warring, persistent disruptive POV-pushing, and so on, which continues since the filing of this report. Aintabli (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block Clearly, they are not here to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia, as indicated by the provided diffs. They can continue playing a fool's game elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia - LouisAragon (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Four supports for indef block, would appreciate if an admin would look into this. Otherwise Alhitmi123 is just going to continue. Heck, they attempted to credit their violations of the policies of this website to me in this report, that says more than enough about their character. Here is another of their rude remarks; "I know this place is your life but you don’t have an authority over putting down other cultures and civilizations that doesn’t fit your narrative. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer

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

---

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

Honestly, I don't trust this user, I agree there are issues with the string of articles his just listed on AFD, but the whole process is questionable. At first I was only looking at Tottenham Hotspur (Superleague Formula team) which he nominated for AfD, but as I was going through the process of doing my own google search, I then decided to look at his contrib, hardly any time space between each nomination, which gives me indication he really hasn't done a WP:BEFORE in my opinion. This honestly feels all the AfDs are nominated because he is running WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That and looking at his talk page history, I felt I needed to post to ANI anyway. I am hoping a more sane head can review, I might be overly hotheaded here. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There were some comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 August 7 regarding this editor, that I filed in the back of my mind at the time I closed it. Pinging Hey man im josh, whose comment I especially noted. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That DRV, where I asked the appellant what remedy they wanted and how many AFDs they wanted to reconsider, and didn't get an answer. DRV, like AFD, is a content forum, so that the boomerang principle does not apply, but competency is required. I haven't yet looked at the topic-ban proposal. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy: I had nominated them as a whole before yesterday but I was advised of WP:TRAINWRECK with the advice that they can be nominated individually, so I requested to pull them to nominate them again individually. As with WP:BEFORE they have been done in advance for weeks. Nothing other than the football team they're named after. Does this explain why there was little time in between? What time in between should I do these? As with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you are completely wrong. I nominated them because they have one thing in common, the lack of enduring notability, the series itself might be sort of but everything else is not. The cars and engines is not like most of those in spec series. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I withdrew the original nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China (Superleague Formula team)) despite the sole Procedual Keep vote by 1ctinus. When I nominate them individually, I get this. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you do in your offline wiki moments other than eat and sleep, but in your pattern, it seems you nominated the China Superleague article as soon as you went back to editing wikipedia and you bundled a load of articles together. I've also noticed you like to delete, you like to delete a lot!! Sorry mate, but there are too many red flags from you for my liking. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh it's 100% clear they are NOT doing before searches way too often. What I find more troubling is that, in almost every nominating statement they make, they cannot help themselves from disparaging people who might be interested in the content. Honestly, I think their attitude is incompatible with Wikipedia, especially since they've been given a dozen warnings now and haven't improved on that aspect of things. You can nominate pages without putting people down, but I don't think Space believes that or believes in before searches. If you oppose deletion they'll typically badger to get their points across. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Not to mention he has the hubris to post [256] Given your language here, I shall recommend you to wash your mouth every morning and night with a toilet brush to get rid of those foul language that stains your vocabulary. That way, you could be better than those clowns who congregate at pubs every Saturday afternoon and get drunk till May. BTW, you speak of WP:IDONTLIKEIT given by your response. then template my talk page! How civil! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'd block just for that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

They were blocked last month for 31 hours due to personal attacks, namely this screed at another editor. I also agree they should be blocked, probably for a week on this occasion. While I'm probably not administratively involved even with the DRV closure and my initial comment above, playing it safe and leaving it to others to handle.

Additionally, some more back catalogue evidence of spiteful revenge-warning: revert of perfectly fine message on user talk page followed immediately by NPA warning of editor. Jtrainor (an editor who registered in November 2004) hasn't edited since this rather unpleasant interaction.

Finally, some further reading from the ANI archives:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1155#Uncivility,_profanity_and_name_calling_by_user:SpacedFarmer - April 2024.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Mass_AfDs_despite_warnings_to_gain_experience - May 2024. Outcome inconclusive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#Continued_incivility_from_SpacedFarmer - July 2024. I am amazed this was archived without the consensus for a restriction from AfD being actioned - that is sufficient support in the subsection to implement a community restriction.

Daniel (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• In light of their additional uncivil comments, I'd like to point out there was a conversation about their incivility at the beginning of July, which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#Continued_incivility_from_SpacedFarmer. There was a consensus to topic ban SpacedFarmer from deletion, broadly construed, but it seemed as though nobody wanted to close/enforce the consensus. I think that, at a minimum, the topic ban should be revisited. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for the continued incivility, which does not preclude discussion on a topic ban and/or re-visiting the July discussion that @Daniel referenced. Star Mississippi 13:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I was in the process of clicking the buttons for a week block myself. Mirror the words of Star Mississippi. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I've just got a question about all the recent AfDs he started, do they need to be shut down or are we leaving them up? Govvy (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy my opinion as an editor, not admin/policy but I think the bulk nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China (Superleague Formula team) wasn't going to work so individual noms are the best path forward. Your comment at Tottenham makes me think that PAs aside, there was no isue with the nomination as there "may" be a path to GNG. So I'd say let them go forward. If someone else disagrees, feel free. I don't think there's yes/no answer. Star Mississippi 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I didn't have anything against the nominations, just the way he processed the nominations, too me those articles were always a bit on the thin side and I am not an F1 person myself. Govvy (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @Liz had an issue with them too, so I may well be in the wrong here @Govvy. If someone thinks they need handling, please do. Star Mississippi 00:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBan from deletion/merge/split discussions, per my comments at SF's last trip to ANI. My opinion of this editor is unchanged, unfortunately. The DRV reeks of IDHT, and the personalized comments at AfD have not stopped. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Their incivility is unacceptable, while basic statistics show their delete !votes are predominantly in accord with the outcomes and it seems their AfD nominations usually succeed. Might escalating blocks for incivility and PAs be more appropriate? NebY (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I had to sit and watch people defend him purely on his record the first go-around; we've returned twice since already and at this point he should need to prove to us that he can collaborate in a topic area productively before returning to a naturally charged area such as AfD. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I do fear that editing collaboratively in a less charged area wouldn't be any proof that they could handle a more charged area such as AfD. Anyway, it seems their main activity is AfDs,[257] so a tban might effectively be a block anyway. NebY (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN per above. I'd support an indefinite block too, just based on the conduct issues. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN: I supported a TBAN last time, when SpacedFarmer defused tensions by staying off the site for a couple weeks until the ANI discussion was archived. I don't see why editors need to put up with SpacedFarmer's hostility. Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN it's a shame SF's hubris got the best of them. Had they heeded my warning about slowing down on the AfD train and conducted civilly, perhaps their time doing AfD could have been fruitful. Alas, they have stooped down to a level where they needlessly insult other editors and shut down valiant keep !votes. Conyo14 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from deletion. These threads have become an almost once a month occurrence. Enough is enough. Pinguinn 🐧 20:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from deletion broadly construed; the fact that this editor was somehow able to escape a strong TBAN consensus last time was an extremely elastic rope and last chance they were lucky to receive. By now it's an open-and-shut case; the nail in the coffin is that I suspect intractable listening and/or competence issues from the editor in the AfD topic area having witnessed them file this trainwreck of an AfD within which there was about a dozen pages of reliable book SIGCOV presented for several articles each, and they completely ignored that and instead plowed ahead with getting four of those articles deleted, signaling an ignorance of (and/or lack of respect for) the time and effort spent by good-faith editors in searching for sources. Left guide (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Topic-Ban from deletion and deletion-related processes. This has been going on for four months and isn't changing. Let them try copy-editing or some gnome activity for a while, or something that doesn't involve waking sleeping bears. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN and any kind of indefinite block. These articles should have been sent to Afd, that was the correct decision for what is indefensible trash. There is no other way to describe them. These are essentially copy/paste articles. Also there no definition on Wikipedia that is cognizant of a editors time and effort being taken into consideration when making an evaluation of the quality of an article and whether it should be sent to Afd, so why mention it. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's actually possible to make an AfD rationale without using charged language like "trash"; SF comments went beyond even that. Disappointed in this !vote which brushes aaide conduct issues because of his record. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: SpacedFarmer just posted on his talk page, "I accept I made another [comment] mocking English football fans (and not intended to be on an individual) but who doesn't think they deserve a mocking?" Sigh. Toughpigs (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support again. SpacedFarmer has shown over and over and over that they don't have the temperament to work in deletion. The comment ToughPigs points out is just the tip of the iceberg. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 20:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per my commentary above and their subsequent comment on their talk page. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN: I brought up the subject of a TBAN, but I did not necessarily make my stance clear in the initial post. As mentioned above, I think their attitude and temperament are incompatible with Wikipedia, but people deserve a chance and this may serve to be a better option than an outright block. If they behave and edit constructively, I see no reason that a TBAN cannot be rescinded down the line. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from deletion processes, broadly construed but oppose any further block, in the hope that the former solves the issues. GiantSnowman 14:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support tban from deletion processes, broadly construed, in hope that we see a SpacedFarmer who enjoys building the encyclopedia without stress or charged language. NebY (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from article deletion discussions, both within and without AfD, broadly construed. Per the habitual abuse of process that has been attested to and substantiated in repeated discussions here over recent months.
  Support TBAN from motorsport topics, broadly construed, since those same discussions demonstrate a pattern of behaviour in this area that leaves me with precisely zero doubt that they will still be disruptive in their approach to such subject matter, regardless of their ability to participate in deletion discussions.
  Support an unambiguous warning that an indef is the likely next stop of there is continued willful violation of WP:CIV, WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:TEND. Indeed, I'll be blunt: I would support an indef right now on WP:CIR grounds, given the user's repeated violations of our most basic behavioural guidelines, followed by acknowledgement of same and promises to avoid such comments moving forward, only to fall back on them again, in a cycle that has gone through at least three iterations now, if not more.
  But failing an immediate indef, we cannot keep obviating our standards on account of SpacedFarmer's self-control issues (and that's AGFing that we aren't being actively trolled with this pattern). The WP:ROPE is exhausted, as I see it, and it's only fair to make this plain to SF, as I can't see their editing privileges surviving if they end up here for a fifth straight monthly discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - inb4 archive. There's clear consensus here (despite me being involved) for a TBan from at least deletion. Sorry, but I'm not letting this go without a close this time. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  11:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  I actually also came back to see to it that this section did not get automatically archived without action or closure, like the last one did. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ye, I started this post, but there does seem to be a lot of support for a TBan, surely an admin or someone needs to wrap this up now. Govvy (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is just my opinion but this editor has been blocked for a week and that block will end in the next 24 hours. As an admin, I wouldn't close this discussion until they have had a chance to respond to where this discussion has led. It doesn't seem fair to take this action against an editor who hasn't had a chance to rebut comments since this discussion was started on August 16th. I don't think it hurts to leave it open for another day or two. If another admin disagrees, that's fine, admins and editors differ all of the time but that's my stance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  SpacedFarmer didn't respond to the last ANI after their block ended, so I don't have faith that they'll respond here either. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 03:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  I thought my ban ended just. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  SpacedFarmer has made three comments since his block ended: the above demonstration of WP:IDHT, and two comments on his talk page indicating that he intends to return to the same behavior that has resulted in the proposed topic ban. I think it's time to close this discussion. Toughpigs (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say I am going 'to return to the same behavior' though I had intended to tone my language down. I have the right to defend and speak for myself when and where needed. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Now its gone and quitely [sic] forgotten, nobody cares like A1GP. [258] Yeah, this doesn't strike me as someone working on their tone/behavior. This area of Wiki is not healthy for them. Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  I since removed it, having acknowledged it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment SpacedFarmer, I am very confused, you came straight off a ban and you go straight back to nominating AfDs, you've sent List of Superleague Formula records and Liverpool F.C. (Superleague Formula team) to the queue. I would have thought you might have given it a little break before nominating an article. I also find what you wrote for the Liverpool article one, the article is about a sports team, that's not a content fork! You call it fan craft? I don't see anything like that. I feel it's the way you write your nominations, it's never straight forward with you is it. Do you read articles like this one? How about a major news corp like the BBC, did you read this one? Govvy (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• I was surprised, too. Here there is support for a topic ban from AFDs and SpacedFarmer comes off a block and nominates more articles for deletion discussions. It's just providing fuel to the fire here. They sure can't read the room. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@groovy I have made this clear in that nomination and checked them up too; the one by BBC Sport is an announcement. As I also said, Merseysportlive is a hobbyist site run by students (checking it up, it is linked claimed to be run by LIMU students). SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly my name is Govvy, secondly BBC Sport article is viewed as a secondary source, there-for that's not an announcement. I am also curious why you call Mersaysportlive.co.uk which is Liverpool's John Moores University sports news portal a hobby. Also like Liz said, you seem to just be providing fuel to a fire. So I really don't get you. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The BBC News article looks to me like another WP:ROUTINE article. Also, are you saying student magazines are reliable third party source? This look like if they cannabilised it from that Wikipedia article. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from deletion and deletion related topics per various rationale above. This is bordering into disruptive editing now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Bringing to light another issue I see that I'm not sure has been touched on yet while we're still open here and that anyone still opposing further action should consider. At one of their latest AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Superleague Formula records, SF continues to misrepresent the policies/guidelines he links to, particularly WP:NOTSTATS. He says "Purely WP:OR stats of a virtually forgotten series that is of little value other than to the most ardent fans (WP:FANCRUFT) and a WP:NOTSTATS failure", yet NOTSTATS says "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article", which seems to fly in the face of his rationale. This is not the first time that I've been able to raise this part of NOTSTATS in a SpacedFarmer AfD, which means I'm sure it's a recurring issue that I'd be able to find more examples of in AfDs from areas I don't watch as closely as motorsport(s). This seems to indicate WP:CIR and/or further WP:IDHT issues that may simply be a language barrier, but are issues nonetheless. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

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

POV-pushing by User:Hystricidae21

Hystricidae21 (talk · contribs) has been adding essay-like content promoting a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV to various articles. I have reverted a few of his additions, but he's been at it for a whole year and, while some of it was immediately reverted, much of it went unnoticed. For example, Compulsory cartel contained several paragraphs claiming (in Wikivoice) that public healthcare was "economic totalitarianism" for the better part of a year. I have warned him on his talk page that this is completely unacceptable and asked him to familiarize himself with WP:NPOV.

Due to the extent of his activities, I don't know if I am qualified to handle this by myself. Should I just revert everything to the latest version before he made any edits? Some of his changes may be good, but there's so much to go through, and what about later changes by other people?

I originally posted this at WP:NPOVN, but was told to post it here. Un assiolo (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to tell him (on his take page) about this ani (see top of this page). Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did, 8 minutes before you posted. Is the fact that I didn't use the template a problem? It says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ to do so. (emphasis mine). I understood this as meaning that the template is not mandatory. Pinging User:LilianaUwU who subsequently added the template (immediately below my message saying that I have reported his activity at ANI). --Un assiolo (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be a thread about the NPOV thread, not this ani, however, someone has done it for you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So the problem is that I didn't add a new heading? Neither did User:LilianaUwU. She posted it immediately under my message. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)]

No the problem is you did not link to THIS ani. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, they did. Are you reading the same user talk page? Celjski Grad (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? I included a link to ANI followed by a link to this section, which I thought would be helpful since the user has never done anything outside mainspace and may not know how to navigate. That's more than the template does. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

yes, it seems they posted theirs at 5:02, then someone else did the same at 5:16, I missed their edit, and just saw the second person. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The standard ANI notice doesn't even link to a particular thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You also need to share diffs here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Here (see lead section), also here, adding political content unrelated to the topic of the article, more of the same. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why someone would have told you to bring this to AN/I; this looks to me like an extremely obvious content dispute over whether an article should have cited language to some economist or some other economist. Why is this a conduct dispute? Because you think that they are an anarchist? jp×g🗯️ 23:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? Because this edit on the "Health care rationing" page looks absolutely looney-tunes to me. It includes this as a reference:

<ref>Verify yourself why www.bergmanclinics.nl the largest private supplier of medical services in NL offers it's services only and normally with a prescription from a gatekeeper.(+31 88 9000 500)</ref>

as well as a photo of "Armed Hamas gunmen hijacking patient in hospital" which is quite bizarre for the article topic. Toughpigs (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

At best this should warrant a warning for them to correctly cite. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

83.87.67.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) must be the same person. They added similar content, sometimes to the same article as Hystricidae21. The IP's edits go back to 2021. Diffs: [259] [260] [261] --Un assiolo (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

And another one: 84.107.129.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is absolutely a conduct dispute. They were involved in multiple edit wars and never posted anything on a talk page as they were told to do in other users' edit summaries. User talk:83.87.67.120 has a bunch of warnings. The fact that nearly all of their edits are POV essays indicates they are WP:NOTHERE. On one occasion, they removed "useless references to bad works" (academic works on the subject) and replaced them with a reference to Atlas Shrugged.

I have to ask: how did this go undetected for nearly three years? Many people reverted his additions but no one bothered to investigate the person behind them? For around a year, anyone looking up self-ownership on Wikipedia got a 20 kB essay instead of a lead section (half of it an anti-abortion WP:COATRACK). This is not an obscure article; looking at the pageviews, this was seen by tens of thousands of people during that period. A major lapse on the part of the Wikipedia community. I've spent several hours cleaning up the mess and will most likely spend several more. Much of this could have been prevented had it been detected earlier. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Bump. I agree with Un assiolo, the edits of Hystricidae21 should be examined. (Although the IP edits may be precursors, not WP:LOUTSOCKing.) Examples of Hystricidae21's edits already given above include violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and not merely a misunderstanding of WP:RS but replacement of adequate sourcing with poor sources:
  • [262], [263], Un assiolo example, degradation of sourcing
  • [264], Toughpigs example, insertion of POV essay content in mainspace, instructing reader to "Verify for yourself" as a reference
  • [265] (by one of the IPs) and subsequent edits by Hystricidae21, converting the introduction of Self-ownership to a POV essay, Un assiolo example, see their revert on 17 August
  • [266], article referred to by Un assiolo, POV rewrite of intro of Compulsory cartel and insertion of essayistic sections on "Compulsory medical cartel" and "Compulsory banking cartel" and a paragraph presenting the "Dutch medical welfare state cartel" as an example of Economic totalitarianism.

This is surely enough to establish that there is a serious behavioral/judgement issue with their editing. (Yes, un assiolo promply notified the editor, and someone else then notified them again; Hystricidae21, can you please respond here?) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I assume the logged out editing was in good faith and was not meant to conceal anything. I have cleaned up all of their edits, both from the account and from the IPs, so that's been dealt with. They are active intermittently so I'm not expecting a response, but I will keep an eye on them in case they come back. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This needs an indef or site ban, TBAN at the least. If you look at the "Toughpigs example," not only does it literally cite to OR ("verify for yourself"), but there are large swaths that are entirely uncited (all the "Marxist" stuff), and the stuff that is cited fails verification (check the first cite in that diff, for example). "Absolutely looney-tunes" is an apt description. I don't think this person should be touching mainspace. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to not block them, so that we can track their activity if they come back. If they are blocked, they might just come back with a different account or IP and thereby remain undetected for a while. A topic ban sounds like a better idea. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Topic bans require the editor themself to stay away from the topic, and can't be automatically enforced. So the community would still have to watch out for POV editing of articles in the topic area either way. The fact their edits have been 100% in mainspace—no talk space participation whatsoever—also doesn't inspire confidence that they will respect a community decision. Which is why I pinged them to participate here. Since as you say they edit intermittently, I suggest an indefinite partial block from mainspace to get them to engage when they return (an AGF step below Levivich's suggestion of a simple indef). Yngvadottir (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Un Assiolo already made the rip containing the diffs: Non-aggression_principle, Market_economy], Self-ownership, Health_care_rationing, Compulsory_cartel, Economic_totalitarianism, Totalitarianism, Anti-competitive_practices, Johannes_Voet, Free_market_democracy, supposedly to restore a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Since these contributions were clearly added to create more NPOV, he is actually creating bias by reverting. Take for example the article on Free_market_democracy, which provides a different (non-fringe) view on the concept of democracy.

Most of these contributions ripped contain references to reliable sources, giving evidence of facts that were added. There might exist other references to contrary facts, if so Un Assiolo should resolve the conflict by adding nuance to the facts/matters (by for example adding context) and provide the references Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems, Wikipedia:ASSERT. Some matters (for example inferences) may look like original research, but may have reliable sources that support a POV Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation, possibly by adding some more context. Un Assiolo could have only reverted those parts and point out sources for the contrary of the matter. Sources are still lacking on pages like Market_economy, Self-ownership,

Un Assiolo should actually come up with the precise reason why he could not resolve the problem and preserve. NPOV is a very broad topic. A simple example would be the article of Johannes_Voet, where the voetstoots norm including references was removed. How was that a NPOV problem? Another example is the removal of the definition of economic totalitarianism from the compulsory cartel page, leaving us with no definition at all.

On the Health care rationing page Un Assiolo claims political screed and that NPOV needs to be restored. I suppose that he means that the page contained subjective political opinions instead of facts, but this is not the case. It is a commonly known fact in the netherlands that all medical care, with only a few exceptions require a referral of a GP. I have several references for this: "In the Netherlands, as in many European countries, the health care system has been organized in such a way that people cannot enter higher levels of medical care directly." and "Primary Healthcare In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) function as gatekeepers for patient referral to specialists." and "Private Spending Out-of-pocket payments have been declining steadily in the Netherlands – from a share of 9 percent of total healthcare spending to 7.1 percent in 2005 and then sharply to 5.5 percent in 2007.". I was about to add these references in support of this fact. So clearly this is a compulsory monopsony eliminating the market economy for patients as buyers of a basic necessity good and service (medical care).

The page Non-aggression_principle (NAP) a reversion was made of material already reviewed by many and extensively supported by references. But there is always the issue of interpretation of academic documents. Reference Roderick Long "ANARCHISM/MINARCHISM" (2008) does not give a definition of the non-aggression principle or formulate the principle currently stated on the NAP page: "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, or agreements (contracts)". No citations from Long (2008) are given. Long does talk about initating an action including a possible threat in: "initiating the use or threat of physical force against one who has not himself initiated force." (p157), but does not come to a principle there. But anyone who disagrees can contest this by providing citations. So the reversal actually introduced less support for any formulation of the NAP inso creating more bias. Zwolinsky (2015) also does not define the NAP. He does cite Rothbard "For a New Liberty: Libertarian Manifesto" (1973) on page 516, a document that was referred to for the NAP in the version of the article directly before the reversion: 'Murray Rothbard (1973). For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.Citation (p. 27) "... that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else."'

Un Assiolo claims that Self-ownership before his reversion was an anti-abortion essay and that is was WP:COATRACK. I will try to understand him and provide some citations for how he may have come to this conclusion: (a) "Since the legal norm of property title claim incapacitates (or bans) other people (except the zygote) from claiming property title over the same resource at the same time, the right to control or interfere with one's own body in any arbitrary way is secured." and (b) "The conception action is legally a power norm that imposes the (positive) parental duty on the parents which is understood not to violate the individual's sovereignty or impose involuntary servitude because it was imposed on themselves by their own behavioral physical interference action with a zygote as a negative claim right of the zygote to the parental duty which is an implicit obligation similar to a sanction norm in corrective justice. One is obligated not to create a zygote by an pure (physical) interference action or perform the parental duty which is an obligation resulting from negative sovereignty by assuming an implicit law on the zygote." Part (a) is based on Murray Rothbard's "Ethics of liberty" and a reference and citation is provided. It is not an anti-abortion essay, but an explanation for how self-ownership of the conceived baby comes to be. By the way Rothbard actually thinks that you can abort a baby but after birth, as he talks about in the same book. Libertarianism contains abortionists and anti-abortionists, but self-ownership is less contested and is partially supported by Rothbards principle. In extend to the anti-abortionist position, there are also many people around the world who think that there is a parental duty. In this article I draw the logical conclusion (inference) that the Voetstoots norm can be used to come to such a conclusion. I thought that would not be contested :D The parental duty is relevant to the concept of de-facto self-ownership, because without the parental duty many newborns may die or never achieve de-facto self-autonomy. I provided two references that support the parental duty position.

I mostly respond to comments made after reversions, at least the first time one occurs on a particular contribution, but I respond by resolving the NPOV issue by adding context and references. I don't see how intermediate edit results half a year ago are of any interest. I might have made an error which I corrected. It takes too long for now to go into a defense of all articles reverted. Hystricidae21 (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

@Hystricidae21: I left a note regarding Johannes Voet on your talk page to avoid cluttering things up here. If you believe the sourcing at the NAP article is inadequate, you can add sources and possibly discuss it on the talk page, but a novel is not an acceptable source. Most of the sources you added were WP:PRIMARY sources, which are not the preferred kind of source. The problem with the text you added was that it was presenting one point of view as objective fact and not just a subjective point of view.

The topic of your article on Free market democracy is not how the term is usually used, and I don't think Mises's usage is notable enough for a standalone article. Also, most of the article was original research, which is not accepted on Wikipedia.

Regarding the health care article, those sources are better than the "verify yourself" citations you originally added, which are completely unacceptable. But your interpretation that this constitutes a "cartel" or "economic totalitarianism" is original research. You need a source saying Dutch health care is a cartel if you want to add it to the article on cartels. Regarding Self-ownership, you say I draw the logical conclusion (inference) that the Voetstoots norm can be used to come to such a conclusion. Again, this is original research and is not acceptable. See also: WP:NOTESSAY. Some of the content you added may be appropriate if you add it to a separate section, not to the lead, and if you present is as just one point of view. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Un assiolo's summary appears accurate. Hystricidae21, thanks for responding, but you're both drawing conclusions and selecting examples to support your analysis. That's not so much encyclopaedic writing as argument; note in particular the policy against original research and the policy that the reader must be able to verify everything from citations. Since you say you were intending to add better citations, consider proposing a refined form of some of your changes on the article talk pages, with better referencing (avoiding primary sources, the novel Atlas Shrugged, and instructions to the reader to make phone calls, now that you've been made aware of what we consider reliable sources). That's recommended practice when edits are contested. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Un Assiolo is misrepresenting things by saying that replacement of Long (2008) and Zwolinsky (2016) with 'Atlas Shrugged'-Rand (1957) (and Kinsella) is a problem, because many references were added later, including 'Virtue of Selfishness'-(1964), a reference work on objectivist thought. The most import sources of the NAP are objectivism, libertarianism, and international law, in particularly just war theory. The following references were present on NAP right before the reversal. Reference Rand (1957) the novel is mainly important because it is the first known written work in which the 'non-initiation of force' principle is formulated, especially the usage of the term 'initiation', in the meaning of 'relative initiation', is a first, even though many writers in history have written on the NAP in this meaning, they never-expressed themselves clearly 'Non-aggression principle a short history' Fuller (2018). User:Yngvadottir was also participating in this misrepresentation. Hystricidae21 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

These are considered primary sources for our purposes. We can't use such sources to make claims about their own legacy. Directly citing John Locke, for whom neither "libertarian" nor "non-aggression principle" existed as terms (I just checked) to support claims about the non-aggression principle is not acceptable for a tertiary source like Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Shivam Thiruppathi

Hi,the user: @Shivam Thiruppathi and I were involved in a conflict regarding the article: List of Telugu film actresses, where I previously reverted an edit of a different user with this edit summary: [267] and the user didn't revert anything back again. But @Shivam Thiruppathi reverted back my edit with this particular edit summary, constituting the nature of attack on me: [268] and also reverted my other edits on different articles without providing any explanation for the reverts, which I see in the nature of personal attack since there was no basis for his reverts of my contributions on other articles. I recieved 14 notifications in this regard.

Look into the very recent edit history of the following articles: [269] [270][271][272] [273]

These reverts were performed by him after he reverted my edits on List of Telugu film actresses which is a clear indication of vandalism and attack, where I have also requested him to provide an explanation for his activities on his user talk page and also on the article talk page, which he didn't reply but continues to make changes on the respective article. And now an IP user made the same change as it was intended by the user on the article in the same way without an explanation or response on the talk page. See: [274] where I suspect it is the same person. 456legendtalk 03:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Can any administrator please look into this? 456legendtalk 06:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the diffs but I posted on their User talk page, asking them to participate in this discussion. I'd pause before calling it a personal attack but, as I said, I haven't looked into this yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

JacktheBrown

I have reviewed the edit history of @JacktheBrown and observed that they have been involved in several edit wars, consistently motivated by a personal, seemingly nationalist POV. Their aim appears to be the removal of non-Italian influences or antecedents to certain dishes that they consider to be Italian.

In the article on Cappuccino, they first removed a referenced statement, claiming it was not reliable, even though it came from a professor of food history. They have now labelled this professor as "controversial" within the article.[275]

Same in the article Carbonara: [276]

Here they changed the place of origin of White pizza, removing America without any discussion or reference: [277]

In Zeppola, they refuse to include a mention of the American version of the dish, saying it’s “absolutely not necessary” while other users asked for it in the talk page: [278]

They have also been engaged in edit wars on the article Orzo, removing names and versions of the dish that are not Italian, with another editor restoring them: [279]. The only argument they have is saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge”: [280]

Furthermore, in the article Porchetta, they had an edit war and refuse to acknowledge that the dish is also typical of another region outside of Italy. The discussion in the talk page [281], in my opinion, lacks respect and demonstrates an inappropriate behaviour for Wikipedia, by refusing to engage in discussion. Here they even ask to remove an ANI: [282]

In Penne alla Vodka, they removed an entire sourced paragraph that claimed that the dish was probably American: [283]

I noticed that today they edited the Mont Blanc article to list Italy before France in the infobox, even though alphabetical order would suggest the opposite. This change was made without explanation. This small detail reveals their nationalistic bias, as they always seem to prefer placing Italy in the first position: [284]

In the article Cappuccino, there was a consensus to include both Austria and Italy in the infobox, as seen in versions prior to February 2024, for example here: [285]. I wanted to change it to include only Austria but did not reach consensus. However, I noticed that Jackkbrown decided to remove Austria in April [286] without reaching a consensus and does not accept any changes.

I believe that they are not contributing positively to Wikipedia. Their bias consistently leads them to advocate for a subjective nationalist point of view instead of considering the facts. Additionally, they never use references to support their changes or statements. They claim to have expertise ([287]) in Italian cuisine, but I only see someone who avoids using references, refuses to engage in discussion, and promotes a nationalist perspective. I think this does not help Wikipedia, and such behaviour should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapsby (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sapsby: only from the sentence "Here they changed the place of origin of White pizza, removing America without any discussion or reference" it can be clearly stated that the seriously problematic user isn't me; you just want to hurt me. The white pizza (Italian: pizza bianca) has always been Italian, it's like saying the calzone is American... JacktheBrown (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I'm totally open to the idea that Pizza bianca is the precursor to White pizza. But I'm also open to the idea that they are two different foods that have a similar name. Pizza Bianca Romana alla Pala del Fornaio seems to be more like focaccia, and pizza that is sauced with bechamel and topped with cheese seems like a very different food. I value that you can search in Italian, are bilingual, and are knowledgeable about and interested in Italian cuisine, we definitely need that, but you do seem to be having trouble editing without getting yourself into trouble in even areas that would normally be assumed to be noncontentious, which is fairly unusual for someone with nearly 70k edits and 20 months' experience. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: a few minutes ago I changed the article, now the origin is both Italy (precursor) and the United States (modern version): Special:Diff/1241158526. Update: the change has been cancelled; perhaps it's best that I abandon the encyclopaedia completely for a while. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I'd actually recommend not abandoning now, as there are two open discussions at ANI, but you could certainly stop making major edits without prior discussion while those discussions are going on. That reverted edit was not bad, it was just not how we generally handle a food item (modern version/precursor) in an infobox. If I were enwiki food czar I'd leave place of origin off the infobox until I'd decreed there needed to be two articles, one for Pizza Bianca Romana alla Pala del Fornaio (which as an apparently recognized DOI food if I'm reading correctly is the kind of thing enwiki could really use your work on) and one for the 'white pizza' known outside of Italy. :) Valereee (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO an important thing to remember is that if you find unsourced content that you think is wrong, the solution is rarely to replace it with other unsourced content that you think is right. Instead it's either to find sources and adjust the content if needed, or failing that just remove it. You can also tag it, but if you're really sure it's wrong but can't find any sources easily, it's entirely reasonable to just remove it IMO. (I mean you can remove it even if you think it's right, but it's far harder for an editor to complain about you removing unsourced text without giving others a chance to fix it or making enough effort yourself; if the reason you removed it is because you think it's not only unsourced but also wrong.) But the other thing is, AFAICT, this is a dispute largely over the infobox with almost nothing in the article to support it either way. What really should happen is someone needs to introduce text about the origin of white pizza and it's possible connection to Pizza bianca. As it stands, the infobox is source of whatever, since the article just discusses two different things without connecting the two in any real way. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This type of constantly shifting problem has been a regular issue for this editor, who has been here already recently for things like spamming the Teahouse, making rapid-fire edits to fit their style desire, ignoring WP:ENGVAR, and the likely GENSEX topic ban above. The thread of nationalism has always been there, but the hope was that he would direct this impulse towards productive editing, not warring. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all of the diffs presented fully, but I am concerned about edits such as this, where an academic is vaguely described as 'controversial', in defiance of MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarifications for anyone perplexed like me: JacktheBrown was JackkBrown until an account name change on 17 Aug 2024[288], but their sig had been JacktheBrown for a while. The above saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge” refers to two edit summaries last month, both ending I am Italian, and I have no right to own this page, but I have more knowledge than you, because it is an Italian food, justifying capitalising the infobox alternative name of Orzo, from "risoni" to "Risoni",[289] and putting single quotation marks around pine nuts[290]. The tban from Gensex proposal is above at #Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown). NebY (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Involved comment since I decided to participate in the Cappucino discussion but other than the MOS:CONTROVERSIAL violation by JacktheBrown, it seems like the point around cappucino is entirely a content dispute about whether Austria should also be listed as a place of origin along with Italy. Sapsby says "there was a consensus" though it is through simple editing which is the weakest form of consensus on wikipedia. Some of the recent additions of Austria being in 2021 with this edit, removed at some point and reverted by the same editor in 2023 with vandalism claims, all of which were not subject to any talkpage discussion. The two most recent discussions on the issue where both JacktheBrown and Sapsby are involved resulted in what I can best describe as no consensus and weak consensus in favor of removing Austria, with pretty low participation in both cases. No other form of dispute resolution was seeked.

I will also add that white pizza has general issues on sourcing and the edit by JacktheBrown was neither challenged nor discussed and the original statement of originating from America was also unsourced therefore making a fairly weak claim on breaking any WP:RULES in this instance.
No comment on other issues.

Adding: an ip address brought up suspicions of WP:SOCK by Spasby relating to Xiaomichel on the cappucino talk page if someone more familiar than me with WP:SPI procedure could look into it. Yvan Part (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Block, Jack's editing is exhausting and a time sink as he doesn't retain the information despite numerous attempts at helping him. It's benign -- a mix of not having the English-language fluency (not a PA, I don't have it in Italian) to get the nuance and context of discussion. This is happening above in the CTOPS discussion and he has a habit of "retirement" to avoid sanctions, which he also threatened above. It's time to enforce it. Star Mississippi 01:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: according to Talk:Cappuccino#edit war, User Talk:Stephen Hui#Obvious sockpuppets and more, the user who reported me (Sapsby) is, unfortunately, very very problematic.
Furthermore, as I said, I would like to stop editing Wikipedia these days, or weeks (except for active discussions and rare edits to non-controversial pages). I'm very sad; this is the reason for my "retirement". Reply to "he has a habit of "retirement" to avoid sanctions, which he also threatened above.": absolutely not, don't come to unfair conclusions; as I said a few lines earlier, "I'm very sad; this is the reason for my "retirement"." (behind the Wikipedia user, user who always tries to improve, there's a person with feelings). Thank you and have a very great day, Star Mississippi. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we need this discussion in two places? Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think I'm semi-involved here because I've participated in some RMs initiated by Jack. I won't comment on the broader issues here, but I don't believe his labeling of "a professor" (Alberto Grandi, since no one else has linked to him directly) as "controversial" is as problematic as others have suggested, though maybe the phrasing could be better. This is because Grandi's claims are in fact controversial. See [291] [292] [293] [294]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• In my close of this discussion from 6 months ago, which resulted in a 1 month block, I wrote "Any further disruption following the lifting of the block is likely to end up with an indefinite block implemented by any administrator." I cannot say I have yet read through this thread in its entirety, but this may potentially apply. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree Jack's nationalist attitude is somewhat problematic, but I think he should be let off with a warning to focus on adding content rather than removing it and to propose potentially controversial changes on the talk page before making them. Regarding the alleged misbehaviour:

• As has been noted, the professor is in fact controversial.
• I've proposed a solution to the dispute at Talk:White pizza. We went through something similar a while ago with Italian sausage.
• Adding the American version to Zeppola may well be a good idea, but all Jack did was object to a proposal on the talk page that it be added. No one has actually added it so Jack hasn't actually removed anything.
• Jack seems to have accepted the changes at Orzo.
• The "sourced paragraph" at Penne alla Vodka was only added recently and the source was a blog. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Jack accepted Sapsby's changes at cappuccino, improving them, although "Unfortunately, I was forced by Sapsby to accept their changes"; see: [295] and [296]. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that the OP of this thread has been blocked as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiaomichel. Pinguinn 🐧 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information but given the concerns brought up, I don't think this discussion should be closed yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that Jack has been t-banned from WP:GENSEX in the previous discussion, and has reacted gracefully to the notification of that. Valereee (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Valereee. This discussion involves food articles though so not covered by GENSEX. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I just thought it was worth pointing out that this editor seems to be trying to take concerns on board. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• I wish I'd seen this discussion when the previous one was going on. Eating a lot of italian and watching a lot of shows about cooking and cooking history I probably agree with Jack on some of these things (Carbonara and Pizza Bianca), however the manner in which they have been WP:POVPUSHING and disregarding consensus is unacceptable. After the comments by admin in the other discussion about their problematic editing elsewhere, and now this, I think a indef block is necessary as a preventative measure to put a stop to further disruption. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @TarnishedPath: I have never ignored consensus. An example? On the discussion page of the porchetta article I wrote for several weeks with the IP address, but they never convinced me and my idea remained unchanged; if you read the discussion carefully, you will notice that I advised the IP to add what they wanted within the paragraph "In France" (obviously without errors). Furthermore, a very expert, competent and skilled user agrees with me (part of their comment: "In regards to the origin of Porchetta, you need to draw a distinction between "a tradition" and "originates". Just because there is a tradition somewhere does not mean that that's where it originates. Both the "traditions" and origins can be discussed, suitably sourced, in the article. But generally the lead should be focused on the origins and locations that the food is most identified with. Most reliable sources seem to think it is an Italian."). Finally, regarding the cappuccino article, as written on the discussion page, "...the consensus for "Austria" that Sapsby claims to have achieved never existed...".
    In conclusion, the sentence "...and disregarding consensus is unacceptable." is completely, totally wrong. I wish you a very beautiful day, TarnishedPath. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think for all the concerns -- which are valid -- Jack is still a net positive. Oppose indef as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Irrespective of anything else, I have had quite enough of JacktheBrown's endless editing of his comments. After leaving this comment here, JacktheBrown has made 17 edits to it over the course of 7 hours. He has been warned about this in the past but seems unable to stop. Enough already. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

User: Catia108's stubborn behavior

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

---

Catia108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been warned and reprimanded for months regarding their poor practice of citing references by frequently using Instagram blog sources (WP:RSPINSTAGRAM) as well as not using Wikipedia naming conventions as per WP:COMMONNAME on Miss Universe 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Several editors such as @Sciencefish have been trying to remind them of this on the user's talk page but they have not responded at least once regarding this, instead they just continue on their poor editing practices. They don't seem to plan to change one bit and I think that it's about time admin intervention is needed. Milesq (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Since most of their editing activity involved editing the Miss Universe 2024 article, I have blocked them from this page for two weeks and left them a comment on their User talk page that they need to start reading and responding to messages there. They have used the article talk page so they can still make suggestions there. Please return to ANI or contact me if this behavior returns after the block is over or whether it continues on another article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Sportsfan 1234 at Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics

@Sportsfan 1234: has been consistently edit warring the sport's page Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics. On 18 August, 2024 they reverted an edit on the aforementioned's page layout to fit what they claim is per WP:OLYMPICS guideline claiming "Set up consistent structural and graphical layouts for displaying data on theme-specific articles." as its goal which the project certainly does not follow. Moving individual sections to top and others to bottom to fit their narrative of what they feel is a proper order of the sections which supposedly follows the guideline by doing so on all summer Olympics pages in 2024, yet the Olympic project itself lists different layouts for different sports at YEAR summer/winter Olympics, i.e. it is not consistent and there is no standard layout specified in the goals. They have been reverted by multiple editors on different sport pages and still play the per WP:OLYMPICS standard or per WP:OLYMPICS guideline, where said guideline allows for flexibility as it does not have a unified layout for SPORTS at YEAR Olympics pages.

WP:TENNIS, the project's previous Olympic editions pages are perfectly fine and within consensus without any objections. We tried reasoning with him on:

1. the warred page's talk page: Talk:Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Medal summary format;
2. olympics project's talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal Summary Order and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal summary sections on sport at x Olympics format.
3. tennis project talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Olympic tennis article issue

but to not avail. They still continue reverting layout edits made at Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics to the proclaimed WP:OLYMPICS guideline, which holds no water.

I issued two level 1 warnings for vandalism and disruption after going back and forth patiently for a full month of with them, hoping they would stop warring, and immediately they removed 2 warnings which means they have read and are aware of the warnings' contents. And then they accuse me of edit warring (issuing a level 3 warning, skipping the first 2) when they are the one causing the disruption.

I request for this editor's behavior to be dealt with accordingly as they are causing not just me but also other editors in the tennis community headaches, namely @Fyunck(click): on their talk page.

This needs to stop. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah... I had to block him from my talk page for all the stuff he was posting. They do a lot of good work on Olympic-style articles, but seems to believe they can create rules out of thin air that the Olympic Project never discussed or has in their guidelines. And also demands that all sports follow their own personal Olympic style rather than another Project's style. This leads to a lot of reverts. He's deleted his talk page but Olympic Volleyball has issues with him where user @98Tigerius: has had to warn him. It's his seemed ownership of all things Olympics that is the problem, and that Olympics trump all other projects, even if it's his own made-up rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What you failed to mention is its YOU who reverted the article to your preferred version first. This is how the article looked [297] and after you edited it for the first time [298]. Per the WP:BRD cycle, you were bold, and then reverted. However, your discussions have failed to yield any sort of consensus from what I see. As per WP:OLYMPICS goal, The project aims primarily to: Set up consistent structural and graphical layouts for displaying data on theme-specific articles. Which you continue to violate without getting consensus. Here are three examples of sports from the 2024 Olympics [299], [300] and [301] among others that have the schedule at the top, the medal table above the medalists and the medalists table with see details among other uniform formatting, which your preferred version violates and goes against consistent formatting. There is no consensus at all to change just the tennis articles, and I asked you to start a RFC to get ALL OLYMPIC articles changed to maintain uniform formatting [302] if you wished to do so. You and the other editor have been reverted multiple times [303], [304] among others. Most if not all of the 2024 articles were not created by me, rather I am following the format from these pages (ie consistent formatting across all pages). Please get consensus at WP:OLYMPICS or perhaps somewhere else where other parties can comment (I am not sure of the name of this)! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"even if it's his own made-up rules" can you cite a rule that I have made up? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"And also demands that all sports follow their own personal Olympic style rather than another Project's style. " - Again another dubious statement. I don't have an "own personal Olympic style". I have been citing examples from the 2024 Olympics or the Wikiproject itself. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234 has a long history of bad-faith conduct involving spamming other users' talk pages with inappropriate template warnings and edit warring. In this instance, SF1234 has also engaged in personal attacks by accusing other users, including Qwerty284651 and Fyunck(click), of vandalism. Just because SF1234 doesn't like their edits, it does not mean that they qualify as vandalism. An examination of SF1234's behavior on this tennis article shows repeated accusations of vandalism, as well as inappropriate vandalism template warnings delivered to both Qwerty284651 and Fyunck. Examples of this inappropriate conduct can be seen here and here. Someone needs to impart on SF1234 the importance of cordiality and cooperation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it funny and ironic that this user is able to point out vandalism templates posted on Fyunck's talk page (I don't think there was any posted on Qwerty's) but does not call out the exact same warning posted on earlier in this thread [305]. Does this not count as a personal attack according to this user's criteria? The vandalism warning was left on Fynuck's page when they blindly reverted all my edits including adding a picture to the article under medal summary (ie removal of content). All my other warnings have been under 'disruptive editing'. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

WeyerStudentOfAgrippa in Existential risk studies

This user has maintained a persistent disruptive and dismissive behavior in the article talk page, making several totally unsubstantiated claims against the article (not a single source was invoked by them), and has been trying to push his POV since the beginning, making changings that go against the present sources. I have already sought multiple instances of mediation, both opening a request for comments and asking for reviews in the philosophy wikiproject talk page. All the users that engaged agreed that the article has no major fault which justifies their claims or the addition of the NPOV flag (which, again, their havent justified at all). Now, after I spent some days without using Wikipedia, I see that they have deleted a massive amount of the article, all of which was substantiated by reliable sources. This is a unbearable degree of permissiveness to disruptive behavior that only hinder the development of the encyclopedia. The user doesnt understand a thing about the subject, has dragged the whole process and failed to present a single source to dispute the content. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. AN/I is only for major conduct issues. It appears there is ongoing discussion on article talk. Don't bring someone to AN/I to win an argument. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior, failure to engage with the discussion, failure to argue based on principles. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears there is ongoing discussion on article talk.

The user is not listening nor engaged with the discussion. They didnt provided a justification of the NPOV flag, even after being questioned by another user, and has removed this content without justifying or having any base in the discussion. As I said, they have selectively and dismissively engaged with the discussion, only extending without listening or arguing with sources. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Which of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution have been tried, out of curiosity? Daniel (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

1) First of all, I invited to user to review this article because I have been justifying its need before even making it, in the global catastrophic risk talk page. After the article passed the new article review process I started to receive these dismissive comments by another user, which was soon joined by this one. The first user has mostly retracted from their initial position. But I have extensively argued every single point of WeyerStudentOfAgrippa questioning, showing mentioning and quoting reliable academic sources on the subject (should I say, again, that they havent mentioned a single one? I am starting to doubt that it matters). The user has disrespectfully characterized my attempt of discussion as "unfocused walls of text".

2) I tried to open a request in the dispute resolution noticeboard, which were cancelled on formal grounds, and the editor didnt tried to help me much. Then i decided to use the request for comments as well as asking for reviews in the philosophy wikiproject talk page. The users that engaged with this process reaffirmed that the article has no major fault which justify the flag or the deletion of the article. One user questioned WeyerStudentOfAgrippa justification for the NPOV flag, which is totally unrelated to NPOV issues, and not true by the way. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, it appears that the NPOV concerns revolve around the focus on Nick Bostrom in the article (verging on UNDUE). But in this edit, you say the subject is forcing their POV? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

They are, they are systematically forcing a conception of the field that goes against the reliable academic sources, they have not offered a single source that contradicts the previous (now destroyed) version of the article, even after I requested it multiple times. The introduction sources do not say what they attempted to say. Shouldnt this be the most important thing about Wikipedia? The whole strategy is to downplay the relation between the field of studies and the concept of existential risks, which is unequivocally established by reliable academic literature. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The question about Bostrom has two sides. My understanding is that, as the sources affirm, Nick Bostrom has provided a foundational definition of the concept of existential risk and has laid the first 'paradigm' for the field, nonetheless the field has spurred the creation of multiple centers and foundations, as well as other stream of thought with dedicated schoalrs. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa questioning of the article depends on a confusing and contradictory point - both affirming that the field isnt a field at all, just a derivation from Nick Bostrom, as well as going against the sources to force a even more straight subordination of the field to this author. The idea is most unreasonable in the moment it affirms that existential risk, as presented in global catastrophic risk, cannot be reduced to the field of existential risk studies (because it is too dependent on Nick Bostrom work), even when the article on global catastrophic risk is totally based on nick bostrom and associated when it mentions existential risks... JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeyerStudentOfAgrippa: You removed a section of the article with the edit summary: removing section for now -- see talk on 19 August 2024, but didn't add anything to talk and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find on talk that justifies removing that section several days later.

@JoaquimCebuano: I think Weyer is correct that there were some NPOV issues:

1. Referring to Bostrom's essay as "foundational".
2. "Perhaps mostly significantly, the EA community has contributed a momentous amount of financial resources to ERS, fueling the expansion of its academic and popular reputation."
3. You characterize Schuster & Woods's quite scathing critique:

   There is a stunning lack of attention in existential risk studies to the huge amount of research, activism, and human rights work on the history and prevention of genocides. The technocratic outlook and terminological narowness of Bostrom's assessments are partly at fault, but more disconcerting is the way his work ends up disclosing a colonialist attitude that downplays the history of genocides and Indigenous suffering.

   as follows: Some scholars consider the concept of existential risk established within ERS to be excessively restrictive and narrow, which discloses an attitude of neglect to the history of genocides, especially the one related with the colonial genocide of indigenous peoples.

I also think that you have been engaging in some presistent ... dismissive behavior:

1. Your response (emphasis added) to a reasonable, constructive critique, is to suggest that that critique is so, so below the purpose of this encyclopedia that I dont think its worthy to answer in detail.
2. The user is not listening nor engaged with the discussion. When Weyer has responded, they've engaged with your points constructively. This is a volunteer encyclopedia. Nobody is obligated to respond to your approximately 0.35 tomats of text.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

1) It is foundational, all the sources affirmed the same thing, thats not my fault at all. If there is another word, then i am open to change, no one tried to change this specific phrase.

2) Its true, but i am open to rephrasing, that hasnt not been a subject of debate until now.

3) Cant see the problem...

4) How it is 'reasonable' to dictate what the readers need or should read with justifications unrelated to the sources?

5) They have not, and have not presented a single source to contradict the presentation. The whole policy of verifiability has been utterly ignored. If this is constructive, then I dont know what is the purpose of Wikipedia after all. If my fault is to explain the subject for someone that refuses to engage with the academic literature and just makes unsourced claims based on assumed truths, then I might be guilty indeed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It is reasonable to point out that it might be better to present information in a different manner, such as by merging articles. That is not "dictating" to readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think that "a long section about the "Background" and the "History" is not as essential as explanations of the concepts." is about how to better present the information, its about negating information. But you are correct, I was excessively harsh, mostly because no one expects that the first section of an article that took a lot of work is going to be a 'What?'. But you should note, as I already said, that I invited Weyer in the discussion and took their question with patience, I sought instances of mediation and I only opened this notice after this surprising and unjustified removal of sourced information. I can no longer assume good faith and my interest is simply the development of the encyclopedia. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

How can you attempt to justify Weyer with problems they didnt even pointed nor change? The Schuster & Woods's criticism you quoted still there. Have you read the Concept section they removed? What is the problem there? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a volunteer. I am the one who took time to build the article. I a obligated to deal with criticism without base, criticism that doesnt take the effort of using sources, with suspicion from very beginning? It seems like I have been the main suspect of this notice also. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a volunteer. I am the one who took time to build the article.

You don't own the article. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

But someone owns the subject, it seems. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they saw the ANI notification as it was just posted as a comment in a previous discussion without a separate header. I have now invited them to participate here. It would be helpful to hear their point-of-view on this editing dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to share my perspective: The draft had multiple strong sources and passed AFC, but it was essentially still a draft and needed higher-level editing. I find the draft author's committed defense of the original content and their related attacks on me utterly bizarre. Frankly, their behavior seems consistent with testing what spam, DARVO, or other tactics they (or someone else) could get away with here. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You both are in a mere internet content dispute that became personalized. "DARVO" is a term used to refer to behavior of perpetrators of violence, typically sexual violence. Using this term on your adversary here is a highly uncivil personal attack. NicolausPrime (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A Third-Party Summary

The Original Poster says that they tried to open a request in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which was cancelled on formal grounds. They filed two requests at DRN. The first one I closed because they had not listed or notified the other parties to the dispute, and said that they could file a new request after 24 more hours of discussion on the article talk page, in which they would list and notify the other editors. Maybe that is a formal ground. At about this point the other author put a {{NPOV}} tag on the article. Then the OP listed the other editors in a new request. They didn't notify the other editors, which is a required formality, and I would normally have told them to notify the other editors, and waited. However, when I read the discussion on the article talk page, I did not see any issues about what to change or leave the same in the article. I didn't see a content dispute of the type that is handled at DRN. I saw discussion of whether the article should be draftified, or whether the article should be cut down and redirected. DRN is not the forum for such discussions. Those are alternatives to deletion that are best decided by AFD. Deletion and alternatives to deletion are content disputes, but not content disputes for which DRN is the proper forum. So then the OP filed a request at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, which I think was a better forum.

About 36 hours ago, the other editor deleted two sections of the article. At this point there is an article content dispute of the type that can be discussed at DRN, or resolved by RFC. There is also a tagging dispute, but it is my opinion that tagging disputes are a distraction, and should be resolved by addressing the content dispute. I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion at DRN if that is agreeable to the two editors. Otherwise some other method of content dispute resolution is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think I chose the best words when I said you didnt help me much, given that i did failed with the formulation of the notification, but it can be quite frustrating to deal with this kind of dispute where someone is allowed to ignore basic policy. Given that, I cant be certain that it can be solved as a content resolution without the recognition that this conduct has indeed verged on WP:DISRUPTIVE:

Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.

Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified citation needed or more citations needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is problematic.

Fails to engage in consensus building

Campaign to drive away productive contributors JoaquimCebuano (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:JoaquimCebuano - What do you want? What do you want the Wikipedia community to do, if anything? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on my experience in lusophone wikipedia, a disputed unjustified removal of sourced content would immediately trigger the restoration of WP:STATUSQUO. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Weyer said in their edit summary: removing section for now -- see talk. Given that there was nothing on talk to justify the removal, you could have just reverted it and started a talk discussion. You still can revert it per STATUSQUO—just don't edit war if you get reverted.

AN/I is for chronic and intractable behavior. This is a slow boiling content dispute, not a pattern of disruptive editing. Let the RfC play out (you can also neutrally advertise it at relevant WikIProjects (see WP:APPNOTE) and consider what other editors have to say. I've already pointed to some NPOV problems for you to work on. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

So you, User:JoaquimCebuano, came to WP:ANI to resolve a content dispute. Should this thread be closed as a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I came here to notify about a user that has been systematically forcing their POV in disregard to the verifiability policy. This is one of the definitions of disruptive behavior. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Having participated in the WP:NPOV discussion after coming there from WP:NPOVN, I agree that this matter is a content dispute. Although I have some disagreements with WeyerStudentOfAgrippa's reading of the NPOV policy, I don't think anything said raises anywhere near the level of WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. It is way too premature to handle this at WP:ANI. I will copy the new concent concerns that have been raised here back to Talk:Existential risk studies. To depersonalize and deescalate, I recommend closing this ANI thread. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano You are unlikely to achieve a positive result for your cause by continuing to pursue this here on ANI. You can see that other editors haven't been convinced by your evidence, and you won't change that by just restating your view. On the contrary, this may skew people against you. Please keep a WP:CALM appearance (sorry for saying this), don't personalize the discussion, and continue to follow the normal dispute resolution procedures. It may be slow and frustrating, but in the end you will most likely reach a state that has consensus and grounding in content policies, which so far seem to have been unveiling in your favor.

(for some reason the Reply button didn't work for me on your nearest above comment, so I'm replying here)

NicolausPrime (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

LeahAnderson2005

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

---

We have an editor that is making edits en masse over multiple days [306] [307] to the lead sections of prominent bio articles (mostly rappers) and not talking to other users. These edits are not in-line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography as several people have explained to them. They are also removing invisible text in the article code (perhaps mistakenly, using the visual editor). I have assumed good faith and left several messages on their talk page trying to explain how we do things and to slow down and talk to us, to no avail, as the edits keep coming. Their edits are reverted on every page they attempt, yet they charge ahead. They are close to WP:3RR on several articles but appear to be knowledgable enough not to breach it, coming back the next day to try again. Some of these edits (like [one] to Swae Lee) appear to be unverified contentious claims about living people. (I asked for a source after that one, giving them a chance, and didn't get a reply.) These edits are wasting a lot of editor effort having to be reverted/altered. The editor is not interested in getting consensus, seeking advice, or talking to anyone, simply trying to enforce their own preferences on Wikipedia.

To add to it all, the account appears to be a sock of a blocked account (see the investigation here) along with several other accounts/IPs that have engaged in extremely similar disruptive edits to lead sections of prominent rapper articles.

This is my first AN/I report, so apologies if this is not the venue or doesn't rise to the level; just trying to help the encyclopaedia. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

100% this is sockpuppet master Maurice20111 (talk · contribs). Same MO, same topic. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct. So was Joseph231028. Both now blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent sockmaster

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

---

I wonder if an administrator could help with the following situation. Basically a sockmaster has repeatedly been creating an article (?apparently about himself?). History as follows…

An article on Khashayar Farzam [308] was initially created by an SPA in 2017 and curated by various other SPAs. The article went to AfD [309] where various SPAs popped up to contest the deletion. The article was deleted in May 2017 and the various SPAs were blocked as socks following an SPI here [310].

The article was then re-created at some point shortly afterwards and re-deleted under G4 in August 2017.

Then fast forward to Nov 2023 and the article was re-created by a new SPA and then curated by various SPAs with similar editing habits. After an amount of edit warring with other users these SPAs were all blocked yesterday following an SPI [311]. The article was then deleted under G5. The deletion had been contested by a further newly created SPA, who was surely also a sock.

Within half an hour of the deletion another SPA appeared, Stevenmartin12. This account, obviously another sock, immediately created a draft [312] on the same subject and submitted it for review (although they later blanked the draft after I posted the history above on the draft talk page).

It seems that a lot of community time is being wasted by an individual with an apparent conflict of interest repeatedly trying to install an article on this subject on to Wikipedia, and who repeatedly uses sockpuppets to try to circumvent policy. Is there anything that can be done to put a stop to this disruptive activity? Axad12 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock, and another one (Casual viewerON), and deleted the draft. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Mahdi Mortazavi 1987

• Mahdi Mortazavi 1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just recreated Amirkian Mohammadi right after it had been deleted at AfD

I strongly suggest an admin to deal with this guy, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they did the same with Aref Jalayeri and Parsa Sanat Khorasan Jonoubi, couple of times in a row each. —Cryptic 15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

With that continued habit, I would suggest an indef-ban. Govvy (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

lol, he just recreated yet again!! :/ Govvy (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Alex091981 and WP:RUSUKR

• Alex091981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have alerted this editor several times since November ([313][314][315]) that non-extended confirmed editors are unable to make edits about the Russia–Ukraine war, broadly construed. They acknowledged the final warning I gave [316], but they have once again decided to not follow this with a recent edit very clearly about the war.[317] Therefore, I am requesting an indefinite block for Alex091981. Mellk (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, they made two edits on that article explicitly about the war.[318] Also an edit on another article that mentions the Russian annexation of Crimea, which obviously falls under the war.[319]. Mellk (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You might want to talk to them first. Northern Moonlight 20:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

They only responded after a mention that this would likely lead to a block. They said that they had read the GS but these edits now are pretty blatant. Since I gave the final warning, they have been careful not make edits about the war but now decided to make a series of edits very clearly about the war. I do not think this was by accident. If not, this is a matter of WP:CIR as WP:RUSUKR very clearly says that only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area. Mellk (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

User:AimanAbir18plus and refactoring/removing others' talk page comments

User:AimanAbir18plus has a long history of refactoring or removing the talk page comments of other users, despite being warned countless times to not engage in this behavior. When this user receives a warning, they will immediately remove it from their talk page, and then continue the same behavior that led to the warning. While I don't believe it is against policy to remove warnings from their talk page in this way (as it implies reading and understanding), this immediate removal makes it nearly impossible to track exactly how many warnings they have been given, and how long this behavior has been going on for, unless you run through their talk page's history like I have for this discussion.

Their edits to or removal of others' comments: [320], [321], [322], [323], [324], [325].

Removals of warnings or discussion from their talk page: [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333].

I believe there is clearly a pattern being established, and while I also believe that AimanAbir18plus ultimately is here to build an encyclopedia, there is recurring behavior that is entirely unwarranted. GSK (talk • edits) 20:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I also expect my required notification on their talk page will be removed, so here is a diff for that: [334] GSK (talk • edits) 20:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

makes it nearly impossible to track exactly how many warnings they have been given

A very brief filtered search of their contributions gives us an answer of 8, so that's seemingly all of them. Remsense ‥ 论 20:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this more at the moment, but I wanted to quickly mention that people are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page, per WP:OWNTALK: The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user... Just putting this out there so this report can have the proper focus. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

They have never been warned not to remove comments that have been struck. The only relevant message warned against removing "legitimate talk page comments" which might reasonably be interpreted as allowing the removal of struck comments. Two of those WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE violations happened before any warning was given. The third happened afterwards so that's the only legitimate complaint here. I say warn them again about WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE and tell them explicitly that even comments that have been struck are not to be removed (don't just use a generic warning template), and come back if this continues. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that, the removals of struck comments happened before any warning was given about removing others' talk page comments. I would still suggest warning them explicitly that even struck comments are not to be removed, just in case, but that part of the complaint is absolutely unjustified. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

My warning on July 29 was in regards to them removing struck comments from Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. They received another warning from a different user just five days prior. There is some justification in that part of the complaint. GSK (talk • edits) 22:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I understood that I shouldn't remove comments of others. I just removed some struck comments from Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. But from now on I am ensuring that I won't remove comments of other people on talk pages. All I want is to contribute and make Wikipedia better. Thank you for your understanding. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless they are notices on your own User talk page, please leave comments on talk pages, even ones that are struck. Otherwise, it can be confusing to follow a threaded discussion when individual remarks are removed. If an editor makes a comment that is truly offensive and needs to be revision-deleted, contact an administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Autobiographical article

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

---

@User:Jmelki has been repeatedly editing and submitting Draft:Jad Melki about themselves to WP:AFC. This violates WP:AB. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:YOURSELF (part of AB), we encourage people who really really want to write an autobiography (despite the warnings) to go through AfC. The draft you declined was submitted on May 15 and this editor (with 22 total edits) hasn't edited since May 20.

Trout for bringing this to AN/I. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Endorse trout, user in question hasn't edited in exactly three months - this isn't at all the urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems ANI is for. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Concerns about MountVic127

I have serious competency concerns about User:MountVic127. He has been editing since 2020 and continues to make serious mistakes despite the attempts by multiple editors to provide help and guidance on their talk page. A few examples of the problems caused:

• Creation of inappropriate articles, including ShortCut, Fell into Well, Improving upload descriptions, Silver City ESP, Aurina (Toilet) and DW GTB Grand Toilet Battle amongst many others. These lack sources and some are outright hoaxes/joke articles. There are dozens of these mentioned on his talk page with many editors asking him to stop.
• Repeated copyright violations, for example File:Railway Sleeper in Ghana with provision for dual gauge and gauge widening.gif and their edits to Transport in Benin which had to be revdeled
• Repeatedly linking to draft articles from mainspace, eg in 2020 [335], and again this year [336]
• Adding unsourced WP:BLP violations such as [337]
• Demonstrating a lack of understanding of WP:OR and WP:V eg [338] and [339]
• Attempts to alter layout in a way that breaks text and references eg [340] and [341]
• Adding completely inappropriate articles that show this user does not understand what an article is such as Rebecca Weisser

Their talk page contains many more reports of problems, spread over 4 years. The same issues repeat, new ones crop up and there is almost no engagement from MounVic127 despite many editors offering advice and help. This is wasting a huge amount of time. Thanks, Opolito (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding that User:FlockHerd is likely a sockpuppet account. Both have edited Draft:Failure to nominate (elections), Draft:Instant_run-off_voting_(Resources), User:MountVic127/ShortCuts and they had a short conversation together at Talk:Tina Peters (politician). Opolito (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There are too many points above to respond to them all.

I started FlockHerd to see if different categories of articles can have different usernames, but this has proved more difficult than expected.

Wiki sometimes complains that my articles lack citations, but don't links to other articles using angle brackets count as cites? ----FlockHerd (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, at least in the context you appear to be referring to. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thus 1435 might link (cite) to railway gauge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FlockHerd (talk • contribs)

User:NoaTigva repeatedly accusing me of Nazi sympathies and defending Nazi atrocities with no evidence.

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

---

In a discussion about an article, User:NoaTigva repeatedly accused me of defending Nazis and their actions during the Holocaust, which I did not do and have never done. In this revision they accused me of having an "insistence on defending Nazis" (I never defended Nazis), and after I said that the accusation was "uncalled for and extremely rude", they responded that I was engaging in "excusal of Nazi atrocities", and that their feeling were "unchanged". Nowhere in this conversation had I excused or defended Nazis, their ideology, or their actions, in any form. When I said that I was going to bring the subject to ANI, they responded that I am "trying to have a Jewish editor removed", which is a pretty blatant accusation of antisemitism. To be entirely clear, I had no idea that this user is Jewish, I know literally nothing about them at all. I think this user doesn't know how to assume good faith in a disagreement and is thus using personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Frankly I am deeply insulted at being called a Nazi-defender and I think that a person who throws accusations like that around so casually should not be part of this community. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: User:Solshineonline has now also jumped into the accusations, accusing me of Holocaust denial. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Diffs are easier to read, rather than a page revision, diffs correspond to the way they were presented in original comment - diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. NoaTigva's account was created on August 21, 2024, with a total of 23 edits, all to the aforementioned talk page. Solshineonline's account was created on August 21, 2024, with a total of 24 edits, again, 22 to the same talk page, and 2 to article. Their edits primarily consist of backing up NoaTigva. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Just block both Editor Interaction Analyser Moxy🍁 05:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I see its Wikipedia:Meatpuppet I'm on an outdated phone and couldn't view the page properly, so I screenshot it, shared it to a Jewish Facebook group and asked for help. Help arrived, in the form of user Solshineonline.. New users....fast block see if they still have interest in helping Wikipedia in a day or 2. Moxy🍁 06:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's meatpuppet via off-wiki canvassing, and not familiar with any of our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, it is completely unacceptable disruptive editing -- a single-purpose account which has done nothing but make repeated personal attacks against one editor on a talk page, admitting meatpuppetry for the sole purpose of helping browbeat them? A disagreement about whether a citation should be on a page does not justify this. jp×g🗯️ 14:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

<- Maybe it's better to treat people like this as victims of misinformation. I read their comments. If you ignore the accusations, they seem like a rational agent trying to improve an article. However, the statement "Given the rampant antisemitism and Holocaust denial throughout Wikipedia since 10/7 (leading to several media reports and the creation of its own Wiki page)" suggests to me that they are a victim of misinformation and manipulation. If they hold that belief they are going to see antisemites everywhere. Maybe it is better to tell them they can think whatever they want but what they can say here is constrained by rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Brayan Waelchi

Brayan Waelchi is reverting constructive IP contributions and leaving vandalism warnings for no apparent reason. Can someone take a look at their reverts? Thanks. C F A 💬 04:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Now globally locked. Someone might want to mass rollback their edits. C F A 💬 05:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this is a sock puppet of a user. The owner had made thousands of Wikipedia accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamish Ross. Who has been mainly targeting innocent IP users. This has been going on since 2007. PEPSI697 (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Vihar Exports time sink

User VIHAREXPORTS was blocked a few years ago for spamming about their business at Draft:Vihar Exports. This was continued by a number of socks, as can be seen here, and at other titles eg. Draft:Viharexports.shop and Draft:Viharexports.co.in; they also keep adding that business to the Talala, Gujarat article. After these accounts got blocked, they've resorted to editing from several IP addresses in the 2409:40F2: range (at least 2409:40F2:47:2049:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:40F2:2041:789F:257F:DBDE:B31B:6661 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:40F2:3051:2BC5:9538:3360:F3DA:F5DA (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2409:40F2:47:2049:E9E0:887:B6B3:77E5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Of these, 331dot has already briefly blocked 2409:40F2:3051:2BC5:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the rest remain open. As this spam storm doesn't show any signs of dissipating, I'm asking for the broadest and longest block that can be applied to this range, please. TIA, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who I'm meant to notify here, so I've notified the master, FWIW. Didn't seem much point in notifying all the IPs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve requested temporary page protection for Talala, Gujarat. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

2409:40F2:2053:8E41:115E:1E1D:C583:CBFC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now active. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

PS, forgot to say that although Draft:Vihar Exports is protected, Draft:Viharexports.co.in and Draft:Viharexports.shop aren't, so if those could be protected that would also help. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring by vandal IP

There's recurrent edit warring in Pallava dynasty and Tamil script. I tried my best reverting these but it's still going on. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to report the issue. Please use WP:EWN. Be warned, on a first glance it appears to me that you have also been edit warring. --Yamla (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I was only reverting sourceless changes. But since it continued beyond 3RR, I stopped and chose to report. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sort-of legal threat by IP user

49.36.176.122 (talk · contribs) posted something which kind of is a legal threat but kind of isn't on Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident; they're demanding a given change be made to the article and saying that if it is not then Indian employees of the Wikimedia foundation will be in legal jeopardy (something I'm fairly certain is untrue, but I digress) - but not directly threatening to report it themselves. One could construe it as a misguided if good-faith attempt to be helpful, I suppose. Anyway, it probably warrants a look. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one, they are talking about Indian law without threatening to take action but they are making demands for an editorial change. It's complicated because they are an IP address. If they were a registered account and they made a clear legal threat, we would indefinitely blocked them until they retracted their threat. But we don't indefinitely block IP addresses and this account was issuing a warning about potential future actions rather than making a specific threat. I'd like to hear what other admins and editors think. I'm also doubtful of the accuracy of what action they say could happen. But their remarks could serve to intimidate editors working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The message looks to me like the ip may be concerned about WP editors rather than a legal threat to take action? Knitsey (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There's been ongoing requests at that page to remove the victim's name under Indian law, and repeated replies re WP:NOTCENSORED. In this particular case, I read this as an IP trying to scare editors to make the requested change out of the supposed liability under Indian law, and the supposed stance that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't properly protecting users. I don't think any of this is true, but I don't think it is a specfici threat from this user themself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is an attempt to chill discussion and weaponize the law in a content dispute. It is definitely against the spirit of the rule if not the letter, and ought not to be tolerated. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it covered by the 'Perceived legal threats' section, "Your edits could be illegal..." wink wink nudge nudge. Reading their further replies that certainly seems to be what they are suggesting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They're saying that it is an "ORDER to WMF by India's 2nd most powerful court" and that "WMF counsel has agreed to comply and turn the user details over for service of court summons/notice." // "WMF is certain to throw its editors (admins) under the bus". Seems like very obvious legal threats to me. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading their responses since I posted my opinion, I think both you and MrOllie may be correct. Knitsey (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

For fairness' sake I should note that the user posted on their talk page in response to the ANI notice. Being an IP user, they can't respond here directly. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They have also posted about this on the non autoconfirmed subpage. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 02:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The somewhat personal attacks should not be accepted (as seen here). Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

User:AndriesVN

For the past 2 years or so this user has inserted fringe views into various articles about the early Christian church, essentially arguing for a form of "Great Apostasy" theory. When he is not pushing original research generated on his own blog he is quote-mining actual scholars such as Richard Hanson and Lewis Ayres to support his POV. He has persisted in his edits despite multiple warnings; several articles (Prosopon, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Homoousion, to name a few) are affected by his "contributions" and will have to be reviewed. I think it's clear that nothing less than a topic ban would suffice. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Nautical Mongoose. There is no user account, User:AndriesVN, it's User:AndriesvN. But thank you for posting them a notification of this discussion. I don't see that you gave them a warning, where have you discussed your issues with him? On any article talk pages? Please post diffs of edits you find improper. You should provide these so editors can see what you are talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They also haven't edited in two months so this doesn't seem like an urgent problem and it's also unlikely that they would be participating in this discussion which is really part of the process of addressing an editor's behavior. What made you post this complaint today? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They also haven't edited in two months – They've made up for that below by compressing two months' editing into one day. EEng 17:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to explain my edits.

A main barrier to understanding the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the ancient sources. However, a store of ancient documents has become available over the last 100 years. For example, "in the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents." (Williams, p. 11-12)

Due to this new information and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. For example, Lewis Ayres wrote in 2004: “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2). R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the foremost English scholar on the fourth-century Arian Controversy, described the traditional account as a complete travesty. He says, "The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored." (Hanson, p. 95).

Unfortunately, older books and authors who do not specialize in the Arian Controversy often still offer the 19th-century flawed version which says, for example, that the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy but Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy, winning many supporters. While despotic emperors supported the Arians, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy, which ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

In contrast, Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote a recent book on Arius in which he describes Arius as a conservative. Arius did not cause the Controversy. He did not teach a new heresy. He did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term 'Arian', therefore, is a serious misnomer. The Controversy was the continuation of the controversy during the third century. For example, “We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20)

If anybody was to be blamed for causing the Controversy, it was Alexander because, as Williams shows, he maintained a 'one hypostasis' theology, similar to the Sabellianism that was already rejected in the third century.

With respect to the 'orthodoxy' when the Controversy began, it was not today's Trinity doctrine. It was subordination. For example, “until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” [RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.]

What is today regarded as orthodox evolved during the fourth and later centuries. The century must be understood as “one of evolution in doctrine.”  (Ayres, p. 13) “This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. xix-xx)

I can list many other examples of errors in the 19th-century version of the Arian Controversy that is still prevalent on Wikipedia. Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published. Of those, R.P.C. Hanson's book in 1988 is perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson's book, and Khaled Anatolios's book in 2011. Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) is also an essential point of reference but is only available in Italian. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the revised account of the Controversy.

This has been my chosen field of study for several years now and, if I am allowed, I will continue to edit Wikipedia articles when time allows. Previously, Wikipedia opposed my efforts to defend the authenticity of the Book of Daniel, but, with respect to the Arian Controversy, science is on my side.

I do appreciate the sensitive nature of this topic. It deals with the most fundamental doctrine of the Christian church – one which many regard as the mark of true Christianity. However, the authors I am quoting are all highly respected Catholic scholars. AndriesvN (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, AndriesvN, this is all very interesting but is quite a tangent from the post that opened this discussion. Can you address the concerns brought up in the post at the top of this complaint about your editing? Please be more concise and stay on topic. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The bold sections are quotes from Nautical Mongoose, to which I added my responses:

For the past 2 years or so this user has inserted fringe views

The view I defend is not 'fringe'. It is the view of the scholarship of the last 50 years which, based on research and documents discovered, is very different from how the Arian Controversy was explained in the 19^th century.

into various articles about the early Christian church,

I focus on the fourth-century Arian Controversy.

essentially arguing for a form of "Great Apostasy" theory.

No, I do not describe it as a ‘Great Apostasy’, as if there was a clear break from the past. From the second century, it was a war between two views. But the side that eventually won, formulated a polemical strategy with a very biased view of history, for example, claiming that its theology always was orthodox and that all opponents of Nicaea are followers of Arius. I argue that the history of the Arian Controversy, as recorded in the older textbooks also often in Wikipedia, is distorted.

When he is not pushing original research generated on his own blog

No, I do not do my own original research. I do not read the primary sources. I read and summarize the views of the authors of the last 50 years.

he is quote-mining actual scholars such as Richard Hanson and Lewis Ayres to support his POV.

Hanson and Ayres are the two leading scholars on the Arian Controversy of the last 50 years. Since I do not do original research, I justify my conclusions by quoting them and other scholars. "Quote-mining" implies that my conclusions differ from theirs. That I deny.

He has persisted in his edits despite multiple warnings;

I am not remember ‘warnings’. Some editors have bluntly deleted my carefully compiled explanations. I think that is most unfair and even destructive.

several articles (Prosopon, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Homoousion, to name a few) are affected by his "contributions"

That is true. I am trying to work on all pages dealing with the Arian Controversy.

and will have to be reviewed.

I hope the reviewers will consider the quotes I provide as proof of my contributions and read the modern books on the subject.

I think it's clear that nothing less than a topic ban would suffice.

This revised view of the Arian Controversy has been in the public domain for the last 50 years. It must eventually filter through to Wikipedia. I am convinced that I am opposed because this revisionary scholarship threatens Christianity's primary doctrine; not because my contributions are erroneous. AndriesvN (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing to edit Manosphere using Reddit for recruiting

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

---

IGhostEdd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is canvassing on reddit for additional editors.

One commenter says "Yeah but any updates you make will be instantly reverted. Wikipedia has gone fully woke and should just be avoided at this point". IGhostEdd says "They can't revert us all! If we keep changing the page to the actual truth they might eventually give up, no?"

Also StarZax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in that same thread says "But I still think it's something that we should try [editing Wikipedia despite the admins]" and "We're just not enough. Wikipedia is about the number of people, and we aren't enough to weight in our favor (yet), maybe then they'll see « nuance »"

These are clearly attempts to recruit more people from reddit to edit Manosphere to shift the narrative.

Also I'm going to tag User:Sangdeboeuf who's been talking to StarZax about their edits.

Therealteal (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is off-wiki canvassing for a call for meatpuppetry, but the article hasn't been edited since July 30, so at the present time there is no disruption. If the call for arms does result in a brigade of POV pushers descending upon the article, then the appropriate measures can be taken. In the meantime, I don't know, maybe a warning to those users, that we don't tolerate canvassing to WP:RGW. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Based on (Redacted), their claim I'm not coordinating with anyone outside Wikipedia seems to be a bald-faced lie. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I looked into it because their usage of "we" and "us" seemed very suspicious. Luckily they used the same names here and on reddit. Therealteal (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading through that reddit thread, it's funny how they claim that most administrators are women when it's more like 5-10%. But mostly that discussion thread is just the kind of complaining about Wikipedia that we are familiar with. These manosphere articles are on a lot of Watchlists so I don't think we have to worry about any covert vandalism. I also would like to affirm to them that most editors here are responsible, policy-abiding users and not revert-happy, man-hating leftists who want to censor every viewpoint that is counter to the feminist narrative (their viewpoint). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for a few years so all they will do is complain on the talk page. We do need to get better about not feeding the trolls there, though. MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, I liked the part where the one fella thought that the numbers on the diff were an upvote/downvote, and that your edits were all getting 200 thumbs down, and someone had to explain it was the byte count of the modification. jp×g🗯️ 20:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Meta Voyager's tendentious editing

Meta Voyager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is largely a single-purpose editor in relation to International Churches of Christ, has in my view crossed a line into tendentious editing at Talk:International Churches of Christ. Their editing appears to be motivated by a desire to remove mentions of sexual abuse lawsuits against the church (which have been covered in the Guardian and LA Times amongst others) from the article, rather than by improving the encyclopedia. Their latest argument is that the coverage is no longer significant or reliable (despite the continued existence of the Guardian and LA Times sources). When challenged on this, Meta Voyager's response has been to suggest that me and another editor, TarnishedPath, have COIs due to the amount we've contributed to the article, offering as evidence: @Cordless Larry, an administrator, ... has authored 13.4% of the ICOC article within the last 11 months and @Tarnished Path, a veteran editor, ... has authored 9.3% within the last 4 months according to today's Wiki page statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was inevitable that we would end up here and I welcome a closer scrutiny of your behavior and mine on the ICOC Talk Page by experienced administrators. As a new editor, I questioned several months ago on your Talk Page your decision to post me on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard because I self-disclosed that I am a member of a church with connections to the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). Since then, other editors have questioned this conclusion by asking, for example, whether Wikipedia limits the editorial rights of Boy Scouts because they might edit the Boy Scouts' article. I cited other of your postings that evidenced your belief that the ICOC is a cult, a controversial topic within the ICOC article. Your reply suggested that I could bring your conduct to the administrators' noticeboard. I declined in hopes of an opportunity to find common ground on future editing opportunities. The record will show that I have voluntarily confined my comments about the ICOC to the Talk Page even though I still disagree with your declaration of my COI status. One irony of your reasoning for saying that I crossed a line is that it is the same basis that you have used to attempt to limit my voice and others as fellow editors. The opening caption to the ICOC article states that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." and on the Talk Page you have highlighted personally the issue of my COI status. Are you above questioning on this topic? Another irony is that you have strongly supported the principle of reliable sourcing in challenging whether other sections of the ICOC article should remain. Now that I am making a reliable sourcing argument, you choose to escalate the matter to this noticeboard. I look forward to further review by others in determining whether I am engaged in "tendentious editing" or whether you have gotten too close to an article that now deserves the attention of an unbiased administrator. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the tendentious editing, but it seems to me your argument on the talk page in that section is fundamentally flawed. You claim on the talk page that the lawsuits are "dismissed", but the RfC you reference talks about ongoing lawsuits, not dismissed lawsuits, so if they are dismissed, why shouldn't they be included? It also seems to me you are missing the historical aspect of these allegations that span 25 years; one of those being accused is now a convicted pedophile. My suggestion is you WP:DROPTHESTICK, because I don't think you are going to find any support for your position. And here are the total stats for the article and talk page: Isaidnoway (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not an irony. I support reporting what reliable sources tell us about all aspects of the organisation. It's you who's arguing that we should disregard what reliable sources say about the lawsuits, because that reporting doesn't suit your agenda. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I found the accusation at Special:Diff/1241726178 that I have a conflict of interest, because I have apparently been responsible for 9.3% of edits to the article in the last three months, to be a bizzare WP:ABF. Did they not bother to look at my contribution history or my statistics? Their bizzare misintripriations of the RFC found at Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_11#RfC:_Ongoing_court_cases_involving_low_profile_individuals in their comments in the Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#Recent_RFC_raises_reliable_sourcing_question_in_the_lead_and_court_cases_section discussion speaks for itself. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Total stats

Article Found 1 edits by Meta Voyager on International Churches of Christ (0.02% of the total edits made to the page) Found 76 edits by Cordless Larry on International Churches of Christ (1.18% of the total edits made to the page) Found 9 edits by TarnishedPath on International Churches of Christ (0.14% of the total edits made to the page) Talk page Found 50 edits by Meta Voyager on Talk:International Churches of Christ (1.65% of the total edits made to the page) Found 125 edits by Cordless Larry on Talk:International Churches of Christ (4.12% of the total edits made to the page) Found 79 edits by TarnishedPath on Talk:International Churches of Christ (2.6% of the total edits made to the page)

Proposal: Topic ban

Revisiting the history of this, I was reminded of Meta Voyager's actions at Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 11#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals, where they also tried to call into question the reliability of these sources, arguing that "The authors referenced in the LA Times and Guardian articles do not have special expertise on legal matters" and trying to use the essay WP:LAWRS to justify exclusion of coverage of the lawsuits (being called out for Wikilawyering by TarnishedPath as a result). Since this behaviour of seeking out spurious reasons to exclude coverage critical of the subject seems persistent, I propose that Meta Voyager be topic banned from articles related to Christianity. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Klačko

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

---

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

This user has been mass-removing native names of political parties in Serbia (see recent contributions) without providing edit summaries. Serbian language uses two writing systems, Cyrillic and Latin, and for some unknown reason they have begun removing the Latin name, while keeping the Cyrillic name. I've reverted some of their edits, although minor, these removals do not make sense at all, and notified them on the talk page (twice, see Special:Diff/1241731815 and Special:Diff/1241733790) that they should use edit summaries to explain their edits (most of their edits do not have edit summaries). They've ignored the warnings and continued to remove the names on tens of other pages. What should be done regarding this situation? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I don't think they have edited after you posted your notices on their talk page or they quit soon after. It also helps if you add a header to an ANI notice so it doesn't look like a comment in a different discussion. It stands out more. They don't use talk pages much but hopefully they will respond here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello to both of you.

First of all, I admit that I did editing without providing edit summaries - I thought those were minor edits since I only removed native name of party in Latin script in the infobox. I should've done it differently especially since I am not the one who is not familiar with Wiki rules and policies - I've been editing for some 15 years and recently passed the milestone of 10,000 edits and vast majority of times I do summaries of my edits. I guess since there were some 10+ pages of Serbian political parties I took the easier way... I apologize for that.

Now on the substance of the issue... The reason behind my edits is following: native names of parties in infobox were for some reason provided in both Cyrillic and Latin script, I edited in a way that (besides English) left only one in Cyrillic alphabet as a native version of the name - in line with Article 10 of the Constitution of Serbia that clearly states:

Serbian language and Cyrillic script shall be in official use in the Republic of Serbia.[342]

Only official script in the country is Cyrillic, plain and simple. It is true that in general public space Latin script is also widely used, but only official script is Cyrillic - one that is used in state/government domains and I therefore think it is appropriate to acknowledge that in a way that in the infobox of wiki articles in English should stand besides the name of the party in English, the one in Cyrillic script. Nota bene: native version of the name in Latin script is provided in the very first sentence of the article and I think it is appropriate - no reason to put it also in infobox.

Looking forward to your feedback!

Regards Klačko (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Klačko: It does not matter what the government considers, Cyrillic and Latin are both widely used–Latin script is also much more present online. I do not see the reason to omit the Latin script from the infobox, but considering that both scripts are in the lede, I think that the only appropriate solution would be to either keep both scripts or none in the infobox. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It really DOES matter what Constitution says - it is the basic law of the country and the political parties act in legal boundaries set by that same constitution.

Latin script is widely used in the public space, nobody argues that.

I think the best way is to leave the native version of the name in Latin script in the very first sentence of the article (as has always been), but there's no reason to put also version in Latin script in infobox - there should be English version of the name and Serbian version of the name in Cyrillic script as provided by the Constitution. Klačko (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Like this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Serbia Социјалистичка партија Србије

The Socialist Party of Serbia (Serbian: Социјалистичка партија Србије, romanized: Socijalistička partija Srbije, abbr. SPS) Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like that. Klačko (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think that is fair enough. Thank you for explaining, and I apologize if I acted tough. We can proceed with this change. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Monbot

User has been adding unsourced information to the articles and has been warned multiple times on his talkpage. -- I.Mahesh (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@I.Mahesh: when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Hi, I have encountered a bug similar to this, that temporarily prevents me from adding or removing data on specific Wikipedia pages for a time being. I have a screen recording of the issue, which can be presented to the technical team during this year's technical conference. I've added a notice as soon as I was able. Thanks for the reminder. --I.Mahesh (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Just an aside but they are a mobile editor who has made 16 edits. They are likely not to have even seen the talk page messages left for them and may not know they even have a talk page. This doesn't resolve the problem their edits are causing but just adding some context. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@I.Mahesh: Can confirm that they "provided latest and accurate information" over at 2023–2024 mpox epidemic while actually providing wildly inaccurate nonsense. I checked every edit they've made, and it's been that same complete nonsense: just pulling numbers out of a hat, often directly contradicting the ironclad source (e.g. there was weather data for 1971–1986 per the source it was obtained from, and they changed it to '1971–2024' with the summary 'Fixed typo'). I'm confused if this is a malicious pattern of injecting false information into articles hoping no one will notice (although if that's the case, why go to a heavily edited article like the mpox one and more than double the death count?) or if this is somebody who's genuinely just extraordinarly misguided and doesn't realize or doesn't care that there's a talk page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And their user name violates the Wikipedia:Username policy. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Revdel of racist addition

Asking for a revdel of this.

Had asked for the term to be blacklisted/filtered at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 13#Racist term that needs blacklisting but nothing came of it. I am asking again for these terms to be filtered (term 1/term 2). As wiktionary notes, "The term acquired wider online usage in the early 2020s, with large increases after 2023."; a lot of this racist nonsense already proliferates on X, Reddit, Facebook and the like (yes also 4chan/chans) and we can least expect to not see this here on enwiki. Gotitbro (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be anything beyond garden-variety vandalism, so I don't think this requires revdel. (Also, please see WP:REVDEL for how to request revdel; making a request on a high-visibility board like this isn't the way to go.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Taken care of by K6ka. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Socks : FYI

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

---

Chin pin choo (talk · contribs · logs) and TamilRoman (talk · contribs · logs) are socks and possibly SPGSec (talk · contribs · logs) too. AntanO 17:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't inform at user talk page as it is clear sock. --AntanO 17:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The first two have been indefinitely blocked since yesterday. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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

DIPLOMATIQUE916

User: DIPLOMATIQUE916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Article: Daniel Mendoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DIPLOMATIQUE916 (with 22 edits) claims he has the same name as Daniel Mendoza a boxer who died 200 years ago and says the article is actually about him (the user) so keeps trying to add a photo of himself to the article and change other details. When challenged on his talk page, the user bizarrely says "[I] have a family and do not know another Daniel mendoza besides me." It's either a severe case of WP:CIR or they're just messing. Either way a WP:NOTHERE block is needed. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I vote "just messing" because he uploaded a picture of the blue plate for the correct Mendoza. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

He's done it again and doubling down on it.[343][344] DeCausa (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the account.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

LTA MakaveliReed 4

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MakaveliReed
• Special:Contributions/2601:240:CF00:37C0:0:0:0:0/64

Back from a 1 week block. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 20:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reblockled the /64.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 23:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by 2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64, again

2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps removing romanized Japanese titles from articles with no explanation (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), hasn't responded to warnings and behaviour continued after a 2 week block on August 2nd as a result of this previous ANI report. Waxworker (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked again EvergreenFir (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Suga

Reporting legal threat made by 2603:8001:2EF0:A0D0:35C8:D8EE:CFEA:E8BA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Talk:Suga (diff). JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That editor isn't threatening to take legal action, but rather making the misguided assertion that the photo used in the infobox might lead to legal action by a third party against Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously intended to have a chilling effect so it's indeed a legal threat. EEng 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats. Such assertions, whether deliberately or unintentionally, obviously behave a chilling effect on discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked, they are using the possibility of legal action as a cudgel to obtain a desired result in a discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in politics-related articles

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

This editor's repeatedly added the word "communist" to Joseph Stalin's first sentence without consensus or valid explanation (see this, this and this). I warned them not to edit war again, but they've obviously ignored it. Also, this isn't the only disruptive edit they've made in politics-related articles (see this, this, this, this and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Harimia's slow and fast edit warrings

Harimia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has perennially returned to certain articles over the past months to silently or abruptly readd large and small chunks of contested material; they seemingly have no interest in talk page discussion or consensus. (Or verifiability for what it's worth, given their recent streak at List of modern great powers.) Remsense ‥ 论 05:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I just put UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, India and Brazil as Modern Great Power. I don't have any intention to disrupting that you imagine. Due to technical errors, I could make my mistakes. Some one who delete these articles have faults. Not me. Harimia (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Your changes were contested with firm arguments rooted in site policy, and you refused to discuss them with other editors like you have been repeatedly asked in multiple situations up until this point; instead, you just put your changes back. In addition to edit warring, the onus is on the person who wanted to add the disputed material to establish consensus for it. Remsense ‥ 论 06:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

User in question’s also repeatedly duplicated the article within itself, seemingly not realizing they’ve done so - I’ve got some WP:CIR concerns. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I always follow the law of Wikipedia although I have mistake. I am sorry so please do not report it and remove your reports. Harimia (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the venue to discuss the myriad problems with the contributions themselves that resulted in their being contested. I mean, I certainly hope this stage helps and you know to start discussion on the talk page first, but others will likely be better judges of that. Remsense ‥ 论 06:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Remsense. Harimia has displayed a pattern of disruptive behaviour, lack of understanding of basic wiki policy, and a total lack of willingness to cooperate with other editors. Admins, please see the case of Special relationship (international relations). The article was outrageously cluttered and an editor had placed an "Excessive tag" for it to be cleaned up/trimmed. I completed the task on 14 May 2024. Harimia has, since that date, persistently attempted to restore their preferred version of the article, often without providing any WP:ES, ignoring the "Excessive tag", and not cooperating with others. Based on this pattern, I believe sanctions are in order. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Not with the edit summaries in this and this you didn’t.

You know, there’s a Chinese speaking Wikipedia, if that’s more your language. Your edit history suggests it. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, List of modern great powers has been protected, so that takes care of any immediate problems and sends a message to the editor (along with the warnings on their User talk page). What sanctions are you proposing? If their previous edits are fine and the problem just involves one or two articles, they can be issued a partial block. I just wonder whether or not this is a recent problem or more extensive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit's non-admin closures

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

---

Yesterday, I gave a warning to ToadetteEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that they need to answer the four(!) outstanding questions on their talk page regarding WP:NACs they made:

1. § Requesting review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton MFD from last week
2. § The presidential navbox RM (note that this appears to be referring to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 22#Template:Presidency of Richard Nixon) from two days ago
3. and 4. are both at § Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seneb-Neb-Af from yesterday

As I explained to TE, WP:NACD says Non-admin closers are accountable to the policies at WP:ADMINACCT, so TE's failure to communicate while they are actively editing is an ADMINACCT problem. Instead of responding to those ADMINACCT questions, they have been improving their user page: Special:Diff/1240750958/1241973317.

This is far from the first time TE has been a problematic closer:

• User talk:ToadetteEdit#Closing wikiproject-related MfDs where TE said I wasn't aware of the consequences that result from closing mfds... after they closed mfds.
• User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 6#Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 July 23#Template:Cantic small table – they originally closed the TFD as keep even though it was actually userfy'd.
• User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 6#Trump raised-fist photographs – I will let this thread speak for itself, other than noting a newer non-admin should have known to avoid such a hot-button issue
• User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 6#NACs at CfD – knowing how to properly work the tools you use is the bare minimum
• At their unsuccessful RfA, unnecessary relists of discussions was brought up as an issue: 1, 2

With all that said, I am proposing an indef topic ban from closing discussions, appealable in six months (for the avoidance of doubt, this would include a prohibition on relisting discussions). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 08:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, their refusal to adequately communicate, with those who have left messages on their user talk, in regards to their closes is inexcusable. TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Toadette has said at their talk page that they're quitting RM and AfD. My impression is that they're editing in good faith, but perhaps a bit too enthusiastic for their current experience level (and aren't doing fantastic with handling criticism). I'm not sure I see a need to impose involuntary sanctions on top of that right now, although it'd be worth revisiting if the same problems come back. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did a bit of digging. It appears that they made a similar pledge a few months ago (full text: I am indefinitely banned from closing XfDs, broadly constructed. I should also consider to halt participation as it is constantly making me a lot of problems) after yet more problematic closes (which I somehow missed in my original report), and yet here we are now. I think we need to make this official. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 08:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah. Well then, I support with a heavy heart. I sincerely hope Toadette doesn't quit altogether, although I have a sneaking suspicion that's probably what'll happen. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for this topic ban per my comments here back in May. Daniel (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral. @Ajraddatz: has given a similar warning (or advice, however you want to construe this one) at their Meta page. There are two ways to look at it. One is that a ban isn't imposed, and this editor finally understands what's going on, and goes to hibernate for a while. Evidently that "hibernate" hasn't happened from what I see in the comments, otherwise I would have nominally opposed this. The other is that the ban is imposed, and they rage-quit and start hibernating again (this word is used because the hope is that they wake up and start being a productive and contributive editor). The reason this is not a support is that a ban stings and I do get the feeling that this editor is good-faith and essentially ... petrified. Leaderboard (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• This reminds me a bit of User:Celestina007 who was a great, productive editor but who got ahead of themselves and took on (or assumed) too much responsibility than they should have tried to handle and got into trouble. I'm someone who has posted notices on TE's User talk page, especially when they were a new editor, and have had mixed success with it making an impact. They do good work, by and large, but are just moving too quickly with trying to take on advanced responsibilities. We need editors willing to do that but at a pace that reflects their level of experience. Having a thread about oneself on ANI can often be enough of a reality check that further sanctions aren't required. I just think this editor needs to slow down. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The user displays a very limited range of reactions to feedback and/or not getting what they want (I am sorry, I will quit, I will cry, etc), which strikes me as a fundamental maturity issue. Obviously they want to be seen as a positive contributor, obviously some of their contributions are positive, and obviously their positive contributions are always welcome. That said, it would be nice to believe what they promise about their future behavior and move on, but unfortunately, as others note (and link) above, the user has already shown that their level of self-control does not match their ability to make promises. If they can demonstrate a greater level of self-control and maturity while editing and responding to feedback in other areas, then they'll have no problem appealing this topic ban down the line. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support This is not a user who should be closing any discussions. I'd like to say I could support some sort of "unless consensus is obvious", but I no longer have any belief they can judge when a consensus is obvious. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - it pains me, because they mean well. But issues like this keep arising. I don't think they're ready to be closing discussions. I feel they should stick to basic editing for now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support – While ToadetteEdit has made valuable contributions in anti-vandalism and other areas, they frequently misinterpret consensus, which is essential for closing discussions. I'm concerned that allowing an appeal in six months won't provide enough time for learning and breaking out of this pattern, though. A one-year period before allowing an appeal might be better. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree User:ToadetteEdit has jumped ahead of themself. I encourage the user to edit boldly and feel free to make a few mistakes along the way. Seeing the user has agreed not to close or relist, I won't endorse any block or ban; neither will I oppose community consensus. BusterD (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Ugh. Non-admins should never be closing highly controversial discussions, or ruling against strong consensuses, period. Ever. That this editor just keeps on doing both, is poor at judging consensus, and doesn't lack the judgement to figure out that if they're bad at closing XfD, they're likely bad at closing other types of discussion as well, these are bad indicators. Ravenswing 00:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ugh, indeed. Non-admins close highly controversial discussions all the time, for decades now. Non-admins close more highly controversial discussions than admins. And nobody should be "ruling against strong consensus," we call that a "supervote" and it's not allowed for admins or non-admins. Judge Toadette based on Toadette's conduct, not based on which permissions they hold. Whether a close is good or bad has nothing to do with whether the closer is an admin. Levivich (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, this cycle of criticism & quitting isn't productive for the community, nor for the editor. Definitely involved as I weighed in on one of the discussions and that we're here again is inevitable. It's clear that Toadette isn't familiar enough with the nuance of consensus to close discussions. This time will allow them to learn more from watching other editors close discussions. @Levivich it's not just that they're NAC, it's part of the broader hat collecting with this editor. If anything they're seeing it as the super user status, not @Ravenswing, me or anyone else.Star Mississippi 02:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Controversial discussion closures should have been reserved to uninvolved admins. I encourage everyone to read WP:BOLD and WP:NAC before closing a non-controversial discussion. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Well meaning but not yet mature enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC).
• Support per above. They are really talented and I can see the brimming enthusiasm in them for editing and housekeeping/clerical works, but the slight immaturity and rushing into things needs a breather. 6 month period is adequate to lay low and take a break from the closures and then they can resume it again. Their latest reponse on the talk page about quitting Wikipedia is kinda similar to the rant on their RfA a couple of months ago, which all points to a little immaturity. ToadetteEdit is one of the most enthusiastic editor I have came across in a while but they definitely need a breather this time. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support – not much else needs to be said but I'm not convinced much has changed, especially since their failed GR request. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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

IP 2a00:23c4:b3ad:8e01:0:0:0:0/64

Persistent talk page disruption for the past two days at Talk:Gender-critical feminism from the IP block 2a00:23c4:b3ad:8e01:0:0:0:0/64. I've requested RPP, but there's a big backlog there currently, can someone please help intervene? Raladic (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Isabelle Belato blocked them. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct - Personal attacks

I am reporting inappropriate conduct made by User:Starigniter. In a recent discussion [345], they called me a "pathetic liar" and a "hypocrite" and snark remarks like I have never open a "dictionary in my entire lifetime". They also afterwards, claim I am using a "bad dictionary" despite I used Oxford. So not only do I have to put up reading their long line of derogatory remarks [346], but they are unable to accept being wrong without a large amount of verbal defensiveness. Example is when they argue that tiebreakers must always involve additional gameplay, and that dictionary supports them. I explained the dictionaries are a limited reference source that merely gave examples of common tiebreakers but doesn't actually specify anywhere they must absolutely require extra gametime to settle a tie, and gave them Oxford dictionary definition [347] that defines it more comprehensively, as well as real world examples of tiebreakers, such as FIFA football and USAGA golf, that don't involve additional gameplay in their tiebreakers, but they will dismiss FIFA football as being a silly game, and accuse Oxford dictionary as a bad dictionary while simultaneously calling me a liar and a hypocrite. Why must I argue against that reasoning/personal attacks? I already gave them a warning, yet they repeated it again[348] and I see no chance of them changing on their own in the future. Evibeforpoli (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours to prevent further personal attacks. No views on the underlying content dispute but there's no need for this level of rudeness over the definition of the word "tiebreaker." -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like they doubled down. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm now involved, since I've provided a 3O for this dispute, but I'd encourage passing admins to take a look at OP's behaviour here as well. -- asilvering (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Block extended to indefinite given they're just using the block period to make more attacks. Re OP, @Asilvering: happy to have a look, which specific diffs are a concern? -- Euryalus (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)